Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Theory of relativity

2012-07-20T16:51:38Z

DanPW: /* Counterexamples to Recent Experiments */

{| style=" width:95%; text-align:left; background:{{{background}}}; color:{{{color|black}}}; border:3px solid black; clear:both " align="center"
|-
|width="2%" style="text-align:center" cellpadding="5"|'''!'''
|'''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.'''

'''Raising arguments which have been discussed before wastes the time of valuable editors and repeatedly doing so violates [[90/10]].'''

For older discussions, see the archive [[Talk:Theory of relativity/index|index]]. 
|valign="top" style="text-align:right"|[[Image:Conservlogo.png|65px]]
|}


== Mass depending on direction ==

The article states:
:''There is a logical difficulty, however, to an increase in relativistic mass. Such increase would only exist in the direction of motion, and the rest mass would remain intact with respect to a force applied in a direction orthogonal to velocity. Neither mass nor energy is a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is illogical.''

As [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] on 8 July 2007 (EDT): ''This paragraph is nonsense [..] The relativistic mass applies no matter what the direction of the force is.''

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:45, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Neutrinos now obey speed limit ==

The observation sited in the first sentence of this article has been discredited. [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp] It appears that a loose fiber-optics cable is to blame for the misreadings. I suggest editing this first sentence, and any other mention of this in the article.--[[User:CarloP|CarloP]] 18:51, 2 March 2012 (EST)

:Issues concerning the neutrino experiment are not yet fully resolved. No problam: I replaced it with another counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:12, 2 March 2012 (EST)

== Why does Conservapedia seek to discredit Relativity ==

Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?

Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:''Conservapedia'' seeks the truth, not merely what the [[lamestream media]] claim is the truth. Moreover, once one accepts a logical fallacy, then anything false can be proven from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:: Ahh.... But the fact that the conclusion is false does not necessarily render the basis false. I could say "Andy Schlafly founded Conservapedia and therefore I am a pig monkey." I am not a pig monkey, and even if I were, that has nothing to do with you founding this website. But you still did. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:58, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:When looking around the internet, it is obvious that Conservapedia's classification of relativity as [[pseudoscience]] is a source of some amusement and contempt. Aschlafly, could you please answer the two questions I raised above? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:27, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, liberal peer pressure from "around the internet" does not illuminate the truth. If what liberals on the internet said made a dime's bit of difference, then the [[Bible]] would not be the best selling book (by far) and the percentage of people who are [[conservative]] would not be growing (as it does).

::"Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?" Because it's false, it confuses people, it misleads people into stop reading the Bible, and its orthodoxy interferes with the advancement of science for the benefit of all. Other than that, it's not a bad theory!

::"Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition?" The only bias is by liberals who shout down any criticism of the theory. If the theory were so clearly true, then there would be no need for some liberals to rely on [[censorship]] in propping it up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:10, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== GPS and Relativity ==

I note that anyone using a GPS is relying on the Theory of Relativity being true, since calculations derived from Relativity are used within a GPS. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:GPS does '''''not''''' rely on the [[Theory of Relativity]], and this has been thoroughly explained on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

::Hi Aschlafly, I've located at least some of the discussion re GPS in the archives of this talk page, and there a lot of references for me to examine before I can make any further serious comments; certainly there are some references which appear to state that GPS relies on relativity. Can you perhaps draw my attention to what you consider the most important (half-dozen or so) references which indicate that the GPS system does NOT rely on relativity so that I have somewhere to start from? In the meantime I'll continue editing and improving less controversial articles as I have been doing for the last two months (my talk page lists nearly 40 articles I can usefully contribute to). [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:17, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:::This note 7 is on [[Counterexamples to Relativity]]:

::::Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”

:::The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing: the small effects claimed by the special and general theories nearly cancel each other out for orbiting satellites. From an engineering perspective, it makes far more sense simply to adjust the clocks using synchronization rather than relying on (dubious) theoretical claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Another false claim because of sloppy reading: In the same source by The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, you can find how the authors Fliegel and DiEsposti describe what is happening to the clocks in the satellites:
''Since GPS receivers work in the time and not in the frequency domain, they handle the velocity, gravity, and acceleration shifts differently than described above. First, each GPS space vehicle (SV) clock is offset from its nominal rate by about -4.45 × 10-10 (= -38 microseconds per day) to allow for the relativistic offsets between the differences between the SV and the ground. Of this -38 microseconds per day, about -45 are due to the gravitational potential difference between the SV at its mean distance and the earth's surface, and +7 to the mean SV speed, which is about 3.87 km/sec. (p. 193).

The text is about the necessity of ''further'' corrections by the ''operational control system'' - there are corrections ''already'' installed in the clocks!

''The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing:'' This sentence is wrong. It has shown to be wrong a couple of times, so it starts to become a lie. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:12, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Theory of Relativity]] was not used to develop GPS, nor would it be sensible to waste time and money doing so. Synchronization is cheaper, simpler, and more reliable. The above quote does not contradict this obvious truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:32, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

::The fact that these offsets are implemented in the clocks '''in accord with the theory of relativity''' as you can read in the very source you quoted shows that the [[Theory of Relativity]] is used in the GPS - and this from the very beginning of the project! Please, start to read your sources - completely! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:37, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Please, before we get into any more debate, could someone supply some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:41, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly took his quote from [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] by Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond S. DiEsposti (though he probably isn't aware of this). The paper is about relativistic effects due to moving GPS-'''''receivers''''' (or GPS-receivers in high altitudes) and comes to the conclusion, that at the moment, they don't have to include additional relativistic corrections.

:Aschlafly interprets this as if ''no'' relativistic corrections are implemented in the GPS.
:However, in the paper itself, you will find the section I quoted above, where the authors describe such very corrections within the clocks of the satellites.
:I'm afraid that Aschlafly won't come up with ''some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS'' as there aren't any.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:53, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Folks, the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the [[Theory of Relativity]] was used to design GPS. That burden includes describing who, when, where, how, and why. It didn't happen. And if it did, the person who wasted time and money on such a frivolous approach should explain the mistake, because engineers can simply synchronize the clocks far more accurately than the theory ever could.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:It looks to me as if you are trying to put impossible conditions prior to any debate. To avoid a lengthy debate all you have to do is produce some actual references which support your point of view. Is this too much to ask?

:If it didn't happen then you should be able to produce some evidence of this, so '''some actual references please'''. The only 'evidence' you have produced so far is an out-of-context quote from a paper which is concerned primarily with GPS receivers (that same paper mentions the use of relativity-related adjustments to the clocks on the GPS satellite transmitters). Surely you must have more than this. Will you accept evidence from engineers and companies involved in designing and building the GPS system? If not, why not? Who would you accept evidence from? The US Department of Defense? Do you seriously expect a member of the public to be able to access internal design documents as your "who, when, where, how, and why" statement implies?

:If you care to check my contribution history you will see that I am actively contributing non-controversial information to articles. This discussion re GPS etc. is only a small part of my activities on Conservapedia. Since I've barely started on considering and consolidating what evidence there is re GPS I would rather have a week or so to look at the evidence before getting into a debate. This should give you ample time to come up with some references to support the separation of GPS and relativity. Simple searches via Google turn up numerous instances where relativity is claimed to be relevant to GPS, but I can't find anything to the contrary and '''I need your help to do so'''. I would really like to see evidence from '''both sides''' of the discussion before entering the debate, so '''some actual references please'''. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 19:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, you're requesting proof that something didn't happen. Moreover, someone with an engineering background (such as myself) would not expect it to have happened. It is like asking for a reference that no green cheese was found on the Moon. No such scientific reference is likely to exist, nor would anyone expect such a reference to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:28, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:: Every single article on GPS says that relativistic adjustments are made to the satellite clocks. Some give the formulas and some give quantitative data on the adjustments. Textbooks explain why the adjustments are necessary. I don't see any reason to doubt that GPS uses relativistic adjustments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:52, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::GPS does make synchronizing adjustments. Call them whatever you like, but those adjustments are not made based on predictions by the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Indeed, it would be a silly waste of time and money to synchronize in such a manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::: Unless you drive the flying Delorean from ''Back to the Future'', relativity would say that its effect on your car when you're driving at normal speeds is so small it need not be accounting for. The normal error for GPS (about 40 feet) is many magnitudes higher than the error relativity would cause. Now, the GPS in the Flying DeLorean would be another issue. But until that's invented, let's not worry about it, ok? Of course, if you were orienteering, your speed would be even slower than if you were driving. Indeed, if you were moving at any normal speed (even a supersonic jet), relativity would be incredibly small (assuming that it exists as scientists explain it). [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:14, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::''GPS does make synchronizing adjustments'' Not only simple synchronizing: read the specifications for the GPS, read the sources ''in full'' which you are quoting, and you will see that all these engineers and scientists don't give a damn that you think that they are wasting ''time and money''.
:::::Aschlafly, your position is only tenable as you are willing to ignore most of the data which is presented to you. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:12, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, please correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you believe very firmly that relativity has nothing to do with GPS, even though you are unwilling to present any evidence to support this belief, and wish to put severe restrictions on what 'proof' of the relationship other folks may present. I raised some five questions above as to what sort of evidence you might consider. Could you please answer these questions.

::I'd like to ask Mr. Schafly if he could explain what the clock adjustments on GPS satellites are for, the article is not clear, and neither is anything on this talk page.--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:44, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Cahnkj, herewith a summary of the clock-adjustment situation as I (RolandPlankton) see it. Newton's equations of motions say nothing about how clocks keep time. Einstein's equations of relativity imply that identical clocks will vary in their timekeeping (tick at different rates) if they are travelling at different speeds, or if they are at different heights in a gravitational field, or if they are subject to different accelerations; see [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview]. Now the satellites used in the GPS system require very accurate clocks which are in step with ground-based clocks. The paper just quoted provides the various relativistic equations which apply - the satellites are travelling faster than a ground-based receiver, and are at a different height in a gravitational field. Prior to launch the clocks in the GPS satellites are deliberately set to a different tick rate from ground-based clocks, so that when they are in orbit the clocks will appear to tick at the same rate; the difference in tick rates is about 38 nanoseconds per day, and this adjustment can be calculated from the relevant relativistic equations.

:::But the problem is that Aschlafly rejects the Theory of Relativity, and hence rejects any calculation based on that. The only serious argument he has put forth on this current talk page (see preceding section) is an appeal to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Truth the truth]; the quote he provides above is also demolished above. You may wish to consult [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], which is rebutted point by point in [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]].

:::Hope this doesn't add too much to the confusion. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 12:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::Mr. Schlafly states above that "the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the Theory of Relativity was used to design GPS." (This is a fair requirement, and it seems as this has been done when AugustO referred to the Fliegel and DiEsposti paper above.)

::::But really, isn't the burden of proof on anyone who claims ''anything'' on this site, since Conservapedia Commandment #1 states that "everything you post must be true and verifiable" and Commandment #2 states that users should "always cite and give credit to <nowiki>[their]</nowiki> sources?" --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 19:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Good point. Anyone who asserts ''on this site'' that GPS was designed based on the [[Theory of Relativity]] needs to prove the claim. Note that the claim is implausible because it is cheaper, easier, and more precise to synchronize GPS based on observations rather than theoretical speculation. Also note that no [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for verification of the [[Theory of Relativity]] with GPS.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:55, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::Whether GPS was designed based on Relativity or not may be irrelevant. Whether or not Relativity is necessary for the clocks to run efficiently and accurately, also irrelevant. Observations of the satellites are still consistent with the predictions of General and Special Relativity as evidenced here: http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp. Please not that this is an article by the same Tom Van Flandern quoted on this site as saying that relativity is unnecessary for GPS calculations, so I trust this is a source you will accept. Here he is saying here that while relativity may be UNNECESSARY for those calculations, it is still CONFIRMED by our observations.[[User:Williagz|Gus Williams]] 14:03, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

===A Separate Question for Mr. Schlafly About References===

::Aschlafly, as a separate issue, in view of of your apparent attitude to references, could I ask you to have a look at the articles I have been working on over the last two months: [[Pi]], [[Programming language]], [[Compiler]], and the work-in-progress [[Chomsky hierarchy]]. Obviously I'm only asking you to consider the changes I have made. In particular, can you check if the references are acceptable to you, and can you also check that the general style and level of writing is in accordance with Conservapedia's aims? The next article I intend to turn my intention to is [[Context-Free Grammar]], since it seems to me that this fails to satisfy [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Style]] "Articles on complex topics need an introduction which assumes little or no previous knowledge". [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:03, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Roland, your good edits are appreciated and I've seen no complaints about them. I agree that the [[Context-Free Grammar]] would benefit from a better introduction and look forward to reading what you add there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== Why are adjustments needed to GPS? ==

A good question was raised above: if synchronization to GPS is not due to the [[Theory of Relativity]], then what is it due to?

And the answer is simply this: [[quantum mechanics]]. There are fundamental uncertainties, and those uncertainties will lead to clock differences. Otherwise a [[perpetual motion machine]] would be possible. It isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

Where to start with this. This is so bad it isn't even wrong. Could I respectfully suggest that you confine your efforts to areas you understand at least a little bit.

The impossibility of perpetual motion has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. It comes from the 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics and predates quantum mechanics by at least 100 years.

The uncertainty principle is also completely irrelevant. If we imagine a 100 kg satellite moving at a velocity of approximately 100 km/s (this is three times the earth's velocity , so is a plausible and easy to handle number). If we know the satelites location to an uncertainty of 1cm then the uncertainty on its velocity implied by the uncertainty principle is 1 part in 10^39 (i.e. completely negligable).[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 13:10, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

:Well, this is progress indeed. Could you please provide references to support the contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects?

:Also, as an aside, how do you say that fundamental uncertainties described by quantum mechanics relate to the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine? Not sure I follow you there. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 23:36, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::It's basic logic. Unless someone denies [[quantum mechanics]] and the fundamental uncertainties it describes -- and many [[Relativists]] do deny it -- then synchronization will be required as a logical result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Do you have any references? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::I haven't looked ... nor is it necessary to. I wouldn't look for references to confirm any logical statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:14, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Really? Is it fair to say then that this contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects is not something that you have read about but rather something that you yourself concluded from your own knowledge of quantum mechanics and GPS systems? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::P.S. As a result of this discussion I found a couple of articles which appear to confirm that GPS satellites have their clocks adjusted by about 38,000 nanoseconds per day before launch in compliance with relitavistic predictions (both Special and General Relativity are taken into account). The articles are [http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp here] and [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html here]. Is there really any question that this is what is happening? I would think that if these sources are to be questioned that some sort of reference should be provided. A mere assertion that the adjustments are as a result of quantum mechanical effects and that it is a matter of logic would not usually be enough for any serious encyclopedia. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::The references are [[hearsay]]. Logic is far more compelling, more efficient, and more likely to lead to the correct result.

::::::To take the analogy mentioned above, if you agree that [[perpetual motion machines]] are impossible, what is the reason?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:45, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Quantum mechanics gives a probabilistic model of phenomena. Indeed, the page you linked for quantum mechanics states:
::"If we measure such an observable, generally the wave function does not predict exactly which value we will obtain. Instead, the wave function gives us the probability that a certain value will be obtained."
:If this is the case, that means that Quantum mechanical phenomena are ''unpredictable''. How is it that clock adjustments can be made based on unpredictable events, ie, probabilities?
:I'd also like to know how the GPS system is affected by these phenomena.
:--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 01:51, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Logic is a nice thing. But engineers like to calculate. So could you give us a Ballpark estimate for the quantum mechanic effects which come into play here? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:59, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:(Edit conflict x2) Andy, as a lawyer I can assure you that hearsay is a [[legal]] concept which is of little use in this sort of scientific discussion. Whilst I understand that non-legally trained people sometimes confuse the nature and applicability of the concept, I can confirm that it has no relevance here.

:The difficulty here arises from your wanting to assert the truth of a matter without providing either references or even the basis for you own logic. Just saying "quantum mechanics" is hardly enlightening. Do you deny that GPS satellite clocks are adjusted by approximately 38,000 nanoseconds as referred to in the references that I provided? If not, do you say that there is a quantum calculation that accounts for that adjustment? What is that quantum calculation and what is it based on? I am really having difficulty in understanding the basis for all of this. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 02:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, this reference [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] has been pointed out to you several times already. Since it is published by folks actually working on the GPS system, I hardly think that it qualifies as 'hearsay'. It contains all the relevant relativistic equations, which are not really that complicated, and derives the 38 nanosecond figure quoted above. An assertion on scientific matters without any evidence can't really be taken seriously. Can we please see the quantum mechanical equations and calculations which come up with the same or similar result? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 09:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, I'm inclined to suspect that your disbelief in relativity is so strong that you are unwilling to consider any evidence which might indicate that relativity could be correct, and are hence flailing around looking for some other explanation as to what actually happens (GPS clock adjustment by 38 ns). Would you care to comment on my suspicion? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 09:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Quote: "A logical statement is a declarative sentence that is either true or false." [http://www.ontotext.com/factforge/logical-statement].

So Aschlafly, why don't you need a reference to confirm a logical statement? Just because a statement is logical doesn't mean that it is true. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

: It would be helpful to have a more modern reference. GPS switched to a system of daily updates to the satellites. Maybe those relativistic formulas cause errors that require daily clock synchronizations to correct. Not likely. But to prove the point we ought to find a reference that says that the satellites still use the 38 ns/day relativistic adjustments, and that the daily corrections are much smaller than that. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:18, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::The best I've found so far is [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf] from Physics Today, May 2002. This confirms the initial adjustment and mentions further on page 7: "Additional small frequency offsets arise from clock drift, environmental changes, and other unavoidable effects such as the inability to launch the satellite into an orbit with precisely the desired semimajor axis. The satellite clock frequencies are adjusted so that they remain as close as possible to the frequency of the Naval Observatory's clock ensemble." Unfortunately it doesn't give the actual size of the adjustments, thought the word 'small' does indicate it as being much less than the initial adjustment. I rather like the last sentence of this paper: "Ordinary users of the GPS, though they may not need to be aware of it, have thus become dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time." [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:26, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::The lack of evidence, amid so much political pressure to prove it, is indicative that no proof can be found. Notice how no [[Nobel Prize]]s have been given for GPS confirming the [[Theory of Relativity]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:01, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::If you want to use the [[Nobel Prize]] as evidence against relativity, might I direct you to:
:::http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/relativity/
:::Where the official Nobel Prize website discusses various experiments related to relativity, and the relevant [[Nobel Prize]]s awarded for them.
:::--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:32, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::::GPS is not even on that overly broad list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, I've tried to confine my evidence to items which not even you can claim as 'hearsay'. A simple Google search turns up hundreds of references linking GPS and relativity, but in view of your earlier dismissal of such as hearsay, I thought I'd better stick to indisputable items. At least there is some fairly convincing evidence linking GPS with relativity (including all the relevant equations and the result of applying these equations), unlike your assertion linking GPS with quantum mechanics, where you have produced precisely zero evidence. You still haven't responded to my comments and question re 'logical statements' above. So, where is the evidence for your assertion? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 02:46, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:::There is no credible evidence that the [[Theory of Relativity]] had anything to do with the development of GPS. In addition, not even the pro-Relativity [[Nobel Prize]] [[liberals]] say that GPS proves the theory.

:::My comment about [[quantum mechanics]] was in response to a question about why synchronization is needed. Unless someone thinks that [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible (have you answered my question about that?), then synchronization will be needed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:00, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Could you please clarify what the connection between synchronisation, quantum mechanics and perpetual motion machines is? From what I've learned, clock synchronisation between the satellites is necessary because any signal between them travels at a finite speed, namely the speed of light. Do you deny that? The claim is that in order to compute the signal travel time and thus to synchronize the clocks correctly, the relative velocities and the differences in gravitational potential due to the different altitudes of the satellites (and Earth's surface) have to be taken into account. Do you think that is wrong? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:56, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

Lets stick to the subject (GPS and relativity); perpetual motion is a complete red herring, and I'm not sure how Nobel prizes come into the picture (we're debating science, not prizes).
On the basis of '''actual evidence produced''' in this discussion so far, I think that we can confidently state four facts:
#Prior to launch, the clock in a GPS satellite is set to run about 38 nanoseconds/day different from an otherwise identical clock on the earth's surface.
#When in orbit the GPS clock then appears to tick at the same rate as an identical clock on the earth's surface.
#Equations based on the theory of relativity accurately come up with this figure of around 38 nanoseconds.
#No evidence has been produced to show how quantum mechanics is involved.

If anyone disagrees with any of the above, they need to bear in mind ('''emphasis''' added):
:from Conservapedia:Commandments 1 Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''.
:from Conservapedia:Commandments 2 '''Always cite''' and give credit to your sources.
:from Conservapedia:Guidelines/Reliability 4 A major difference between Liberalism and Conservatism is how much each group is willing to have its pronouncements checked, its actions reviewed and evaluated.

Hope this summary helps. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:41, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

: That is the story as I have heard it. Except that I heard that the 38 ns/day adjustment was remotely switchable, because of relativity skeptics who did not believe that it would be necessary. I also don't agree that GPS is "dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time." The GPS system has the ability to measure the daily adjustments that it needs. So even with any relativity theory or Einstein conception, it could just make those 38 ns/day adjustments and GPS would have all the accuracy it has today. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:19, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::In the summary I was careful to stick to facts supported by evidence, and to avoid saying "GPS is dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time", even though the two main references I have quoted do in fact say this. All I said was that the adjustment calculated according to relativity agrees with the actual adjustment, from which one might reasonably conclude, in this instance at least, that relativity is consistent with reality. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 15:44, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::I note that no one has proposed any credible alternative theory as to why the orbiting clocks tick at a different speed from surface clocks, so until some better theory comes along I'm quite happy to stick with relativity. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:00, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:In the last week, apart from one clarification question from [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], no one has challenged the 'four facts' summary I provided above. According I will shortly move a copy of this summary along with the relevant references in to the talk pages of other relevant articles, and will then update those articles to match. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 13:36, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

::Beware: in your fact #1, the correction is 38 '''micro'''seconds, not '''nano'''seconds. See [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html]. My own rough calculations also agree that it's microseconds. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 15:05, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

::Well spotted, Judy. I've gone back to one of the sources and it is indeed 38 microseconds. Thank you for the correction. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:10, 21 April 2012 (EDT)
All right, can Andy Schlafly explain how adjusting the exponent in the law of gravity accounts for the orbits of the other planets? You know the reason why no one considers that as an alternative? Are you ready?! '''Because it doesn't work!''' And can you tell me why Einstein came up with GR? Was it to explain the orbit of Mercury? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 21:36, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

:::In response to your first question, the reason is purely political. Any grad student who suggests that tweaking the exponent in Newtonian mechanics is an interesting approach worth more attention will thereby eliminate his chances for obtaining a PhD.

:::In response to your second point, GR was tweaked to explain the Mercury perihelion precession, but now the more precisely observed data fail to match the theory. Grad students and Nobel Prize wannabes are clever enough to keep quiet about it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:56, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

Andy: You make an interesting point about people not thinking that the Newcomb/Hall theory of planetary precession is an interesting approach—I hadn't thought about that aversion. I'm not sure why you think that people who take an interest in that theory would eliminate their chances of getting a PhD—people take an interest in historical aspects of science all the time. I can think of a few discarded scientific theories that are commonly discussed in science classes: The Ptolemaic theory of the solar system, the "plum pudding" model of the atom, and the phlogiston theory of combustion come to mind. The first two are very commonly taught in science classes. I think this is because they do a very good job of illustrating the scientific method and the value of careful analytical thinking. The phlogiston theory also illustrates careful thinking, but it isn't discussed in science classes nearly as much. My guess is that this is because it's harder to visualize. You can easily make a diagram in a textbook of the epicycles of Ptolemy and the ellipses of Kepler. And the model of electrons circling the nucleus, as per the Rutherford atom, is pretty much the logo for all things atomic. Lavoisier's (and others') experiments with combustion don't make for as dramatic an illustration.

The Simon Newcomb / Asaph Hall theory of planetary precession, unfortunately, seems to be even less photogenic. The effect being explained, 43 arcseconds per century, may be hard to get sudents excited about. But I doubt whether anyone jeopardizes their academic or research careers by being interested in it.

Idea: How about if I write some articles about the 4 theories (Ptolemy/Kepler, pudding/Rutherford, phlogiston/oxidation, and Newcomb/Einstein)? We could create a category for discarded scientific theories.

But I won't get to it any time soon. I'm very busy at Ameriwiki.

By the way, I have to thank you for the "E=mc^2" article. It really sharpened my thinking about the issues involved in special relativity, and it contributed to the outline of the articles I'm writing at Ameriwiki.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:40, 2 May 2012 (EDT)

::: Ugh, the reasons GPS devices don't contain the "rigorous transformations" that relativity "would seem to require" is very simple. The satellites are in geosynchronous orbits, and the difference in time that relativity causes only need to be calculated once. From then on, it's simply a case of adding a few ns every day to the satellite clocks to account for this. I would've thought that was obvious to an expert. And only an expert should be attempting to write authoratively on the theory of relativity! A certificate in physics does not an expert make. [[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 15:09, 11 July 2012 (EDT)

== Logic and the GPS ==

*Atomic watches work on the Earth quite fine
*[[Quantum mechanics]] describe the physics of ''very small length and energy scales''
*Satellites are macroscopic objects.
*Even a precision of 1cm on the surface of the Earth isn't a very small length.

So which kind of logic tells us that quantum mechanical effects influence the synchronization of the clocks? Why are not only the scientists involved lying, but also their calculations?

For me it seems to be a logical conclusion that you, Aschlafly, are even more knowledgeable of Greek than of Science! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:He's trying to apply the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle to satellites? Are you kidding me? That principle is used for things at the ATOMIC LEVEL! Using ANYTHING with regards to quantum mechanics in an argument about satellites is absurdism and/or ignorance of the subject matter! Seriously Andy, I know you hate the Theory of Relativity, but you should really leave science to those who understand it. [[User:JanSmuts|JanSmuts]] 16:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::For someone who thinks that Brownian motion is about motion at the sub-atomic level your suggestions of scientific superiority ring hollow.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 10:15, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

== Newtonian explanation of Mercury's precession ==

I removed the phrase "[precession can be understood by] factoring in the gravitational pull due to other planets". The first sentence of that paragraph says the opposite, that the extra precession cannot be understood "even after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets". Unless I'm reading it wrong, it sounded like a contradiction. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 16:51, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:Where is the contradiction? If the exponent in Newtonian gravity is slightly adjusted, then it predicts the Mercury precession.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:01, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::I'm curious as to the justification for changing a formula in Newtonian gravity. Do you change it for every situation, or just for this one special case? Can you give us the adjusted formula, and specify the exact change? For such a change in physics which has been in use for over 250 years I would like to see a reference, preferably several good references. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:25, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
:::The old Newcomb-Hall hypothesis. [http://books.google.at/books?id=oKGlHjDzGjQC&lpg=PA379&dq=newcomb%20hall%20precession&pg=PA379#v=onepage&q=newcomb%20hall%20precession&f=false This book] says that it contradicts the observations of the orbit of the moon, which rules out a change of exponent of of the required magnitude. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 18:30, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
::The contributors to this section might be pleased to see that the issue has been discussed, at great length, right here at Conservapedia. An entire debate page was created for it: [[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity%3F]] This was a discussion that spilled over from [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness]].

::Furthermore, the subject was discussed on the relativity page itself, in the section [[Theory_of_relativity#Experimental_Verification_of_Relativity]]. There is a large chart showing the precessions of the planets under the Newcomb-Hall theory and under general relativity. They are the last two columns of the chart. The actual observations match the last column very well (see [http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm], taking into account that it's very hard to get accurate reading on the outer planets, since their precession is so small.

::One can see that the last two columns of the chart match only for Mercury. That is, Newcomb and Hall "tweaked" the exponent to the value of 2.000000157 in order to get Mercury's precession correct.

::Under the Newcomb-Hall theory, the precession of any orbiting body would be .000000078 revolutions per orbit. This works for Mercury, but is too high for the other planets, and way too high for the Moon. This is why the theory was discarded. With modern artificial satellites, such as the International Space Station, an orbit takes only an hour and a half, and the precession would be enormous. The clearly wrong value for the Moon is why the Newcomb-Hall theory was quickly discarded.

::Under general relativity, we know that the precession per orbit is proportional to the square of the planet's orbital velocity. Mercury has the highest velocity, so it has readily measurable precession. Artificial satellites are much slower, and the Moon is slower still.

::I personally don't see accepting the possible truth of such a thoroughly discredited theory as evidence of open-mindedness, but open-mindedness is admittedly a very tricky issue. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 18:11, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

::::"Mathematical physicists" (an [[oxymoron]] - I'll add it to the list) insisted that it was impossible for the exponent in Newtonian gravity to be anything other than '''''precisely''''' 2 (or -2). With the political push to promote the [[Theory of Relativity]], the influence of the mathematical physicists rose too, and that is what shut down the valid inquiry into whether the Newtonian exponent should be '''''precisely''''' 2 (or -2). But any logical inquiry must admit the possibility, or even the likelihood, that it would not be exactly 2 (or -2).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:31, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

The issue here is not whether the exponent is precisely two or not but that you have to have a model which explains all (or at least as many as possible) observations. To get the precision of Mercury right you produce a model which then fails to explain the observed precession of every other body in the solar system. This seems to be a good experimental demonstration that Newcomb-Hall is wrong (or least inadequate as a model). [[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:32, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:I'm not sure how [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] got us on the subject of the Newtonian exponent. My comment makes no mention of it. I'll answer his original question "where's the contradiction?": I quoted two sentences, both containing the phrase "other planets". One sentence said the precession '''can''' be understood by including the effects of the other planets, whereas the other said the precession '''cannot''' be understood that way. It is just rhetoric. The contradiction has little to do with physics. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 12:06, 16 April 2012 (EDT)

OK, how do you explain that adjusting the exponent in Newtonian gravity doesn't account for the orbits of the other planets? You say it has to do with politics. It has nothing to do with politics--the other theory just doesn't work! [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:33, 11 May 2012 (EDT)

:I doubt the minor tweak in the exponent would affect the other orbits. The orbit of Mercury would be far more sensitive to such a tweak than anything else.

:The broader question remains: isn't the [[censorship]] of any alternative to the [[Theory of Relativity]] obvious? If the theory were correct, then there would be no need for [[liberals]] to censor debate or alternative theories.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

::*''I doubt the minor tweak in the exponent would affect the other orbits.'' Do you have any calculations which would affirm this belief of yours? AFAIK, Simon Newcomb's and Asaph Hall's idea was discarded when excellent measurements for the Moon were made by Ernest W. Brown which didn't fit the predictions of Newcomb and Hall. This was in the early 20th century...
::*Today Computer simulations allow for an easy test of alternatives to Newton's exponent. Any student should be able to create one and see for himself that it doesn't work out.
::*The influence of the exponent on ''apsidal angles'' was discussed be Newton himself. It's still of interest today: a central system in which the exponent is 1 is easily imaginable (swing a weight on a spring around your head). And you will find publications on these subjects still today.
::That said:
::*Why don't you run a simulation for yourself?
::*''Alternative theories'' are discussed - and mostly discarded. That's the way physics works. Theories doesn't become true because you ''believe'' in them, they become more and more trustworthy when their predictions are verified over and over again.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:40, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

:::The Newcomb-Hall theory doesn't need anyone, liberal or otherwise, to censor it. It censors itself, by being wrong. It has been shown to be wrong many times, including Ernest Brown's observations, and some data published right here at [[Theory of relativity#Experiments that Fail to Prove Relativity|Conservapedia]].

:::Probably the best refutation at present is with artificial satellites, since their orbital period is so short. If you want to argue for the Newcomb-Hall theory, your best bet would be to find data showing that the periapsis of the International Space Station precesses by .013 degrees per month. That is an enormous precession, easily observed. The orbital eccentricity is only .001, but, since the ISS is so close and is in constant contact by radio and radar, there should be extremely good data. You should probably contact the author of the [http://www.heavens-above.com/ Heavens Above] web site. It has a huge amount of information on things like this.

:::I think that you will find that what you are up against is not liberals, but facts. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 12:44, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

== First sentence of article contradicted by the rest ==

Given that main body of the article now largely deals with the things GR can explain (including the precession of Mercury) should not the first sentance be changed?[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:37, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:GR is '''disproven''''' now by the precession of Mercury. See [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:22, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

I checked [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] and the number for the observed precession in the note are unreferenced. To be credible there has to be a reference for this number.[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 12:11, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

== Nobel Committee Criticism ==

That section of the article criticizes the Nobel Committee for not awarding a prize to a scientist who questions relativity, then immediately notes that no awards have been given for work related to relativity. Perhaps it'd be better to remove this contradiction; pick a poison and stick to it, so to speak. Alternatively, it may be more honest just to remove the section. --[[User:PaPatriot|PaPatriot]]

:What's contradictory about that? It's similar to how the Obama Administration won't appoint anyone who is [[pro-life]], and yet Obama won't campaign on being pro-[[abortion]]. That's not a contradiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:07, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

== Bending of light in Newtonian gravity ==

All right, can someone show me exactly how light is bent by gravity in Newtonian gravity? Photons have zero mass, so, according to Newtonian gravity, they should not feel gravity. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:56, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

:*Newton's Corpuscular theory of light didn't state that the mass of the photons is zero. It was just obvious that it is very tiny
:*For the actual calculation, the mass of the photon cancels out
:*[[Johann Georg von Soldner]] did the calculations in 1801 - Newton's theroy was still going strong, then. ([http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Ueber_die_Ablenkung_eines_Lichtstrals_von_seiner_geradlinigen_Bewegung Über die Ablenkung eines Lichtstrals von seiner geradlinigen Bewegung] English: ''On the Deflection of a Light Ray from its Rectilinear Motion''). The predicted effect was to tiny to be observed accurately in his time
:*Newton's corpuscular theory became unpopular since the 1820s, so this line of thought wasn't followed up.
:*Here is a modern re-calculation [http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.1031v6 Bending of light: A classical analysis]
:From Sendler's essay: ''Hoffentlich wird es niemand bedenklich finden, daß ich einen Lichtstral geradezu als schweren Körper behandle. Denn daß die Lichtstralen alle absoluten Eigenschaften der Materie besitzen, sieht man an dem Phänomen der Aberration, welches nur dadurch möglich ist, daß die Lichtstralen wirklich materiel sind. – Und überdies, man kann sich kein Ding denken, das existiren und auf unsere Sinne wirken soll, ohne die Eigenschaft der Materie zu haben. –''
:''Hopefully no one will take offense that I looked at a ray of light as an object of mass. That every ray of light has the absolute properties of matter is seen from the phenomenon of aberration, which is only possible because the rays are really material. — and furthermore, one can think of no thing which exists and interacts with our sense without having the properties of matter.''
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:45, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
::Yeah, I've heard of that. But the photon has zero mass. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:20, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Newtonian physics doesn't know about zero-mass particles, hence it doesn't make a unique prediction. One possible interpretation is to say "zero mass -> zero gravitational force -> no bending". Another interpretation is to take the mathematical limit of the equations for ''m''->0. Since ''ma = GMm/r2'', the mass of the photon cancels and you get ''a = GM/r2'', even in the limiting case ''m=''0. This leads to bending by half the amount as predicted by relativity (and observed). --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 22:47, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

== Conflation of Relativity and Relativism & Robert H. Dicke & Barack Obama ==

There appears to be significant resistance to relativity that is largely unfounded. The theory is in no way contradictory to Christian beliefs, or religion in general. As a conservative, right wing encycloepdia, I expect resistance to moral relativism.

From reading the article, it appears many of the authorship appear to conflate Einstein's relativity with moral relativism. The two concepts are entirely and utterly unrelated other than both containing the word "relativ". Newton's model of gravity as a simple inverse square law is a very close approximation to Einstein's model. The difference is Newton's is very slightly inaccurate and cannot be used where extreme accuracy is needed. Relativity can.

What's the difficulty with relativity here? The central premise is very basic and seems pretty self evident upon a little thought. There is no absolute frame of reference in a universe in which everything moves relative to everything else. Something can only be defined as moving with respect to (relative to) something else. And there you have it, general relativity.

There is also a problem with the section on Robert H. Dicke. He wasn't a major critic of relativity. Indeed, he developed some of the most stringent tests (relativity is highly falsifiable). It passed them. All.

I tracked down and read the article regarding relativity and law (Obama, etc.). It is quite a nice analogy, and is no way an attempt to use relativity to justify anything. The analogy is more closely related to the uncertainty principle - you cannot measure a particles position without changing or influencing it. You cannot just observe, as you have to intervene in order to do so. The same is true in American law (with a much stronger reliance on test cases, etc, than in say, English law). You cannot deal with one case without it having vast implications for others. That is all the paper is saying. Again, there is no agenda against conservatism or religion in this paper.

[[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 23:45, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== Clocks on Trains - alternative theory ==

Someone better come up with a really good explanation as to why a clock on a train will show a different time to a clock next to the track, after the train has travelled for a length of time. This has been done, and relativity predicted the difference (due to time dilation). If relativity is definitely un-true (the premise of this article), then what IS causing the difference in times?

The above GPS argument makes a similar case, but trains are easier to understand. The difference in time on these clocks has nothing at all to do with quantum physics. Noone try and claim it is, and that they don't have to prove it because it's a logical statement. Anyone who thinks they can logically infer QM (which is inherently illogical by human perception) needs to see a shrink.

[[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 23:51, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== Counterexamples to Recent Experiments ==

Recently, experiments have been published in Science, directly measuring general relativistic time dilation effects using atomic clocks placed about a metre apart. Do we have any idea how to refute this? The reference I provide is to a newspaper summary of the findings [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/einsteins-theory-is-proved--and-it-is-bad-news-if-you-own-a-penthouse-2088195.html]. I have also read the paper and see no loopholes.
--[[User:DanPW|DanPW]] 12:49, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Theory of relativity

2012-07-20T16:49:25Z

DanPW: /* Counterexamples to Recent Experiments */ new section

{| style=" width:95%; text-align:left; background:{{{background}}}; color:{{{color|black}}}; border:3px solid black; clear:both " align="center"
|-
|width="2%" style="text-align:center" cellpadding="5"|'''!'''
|'''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.'''

'''Raising arguments which have been discussed before wastes the time of valuable editors and repeatedly doing so violates [[90/10]].'''

For older discussions, see the archive [[Talk:Theory of relativity/index|index]]. 
|valign="top" style="text-align:right"|[[Image:Conservlogo.png|65px]]
|}


== Mass depending on direction ==

The article states:
:''There is a logical difficulty, however, to an increase in relativistic mass. Such increase would only exist in the direction of motion, and the rest mass would remain intact with respect to a force applied in a direction orthogonal to velocity. Neither mass nor energy is a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is illogical.''

As [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] on 8 July 2007 (EDT): ''This paragraph is nonsense [..] The relativistic mass applies no matter what the direction of the force is.''

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:45, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Neutrinos now obey speed limit ==

The observation sited in the first sentence of this article has been discredited. [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp] It appears that a loose fiber-optics cable is to blame for the misreadings. I suggest editing this first sentence, and any other mention of this in the article.--[[User:CarloP|CarloP]] 18:51, 2 March 2012 (EST)

:Issues concerning the neutrino experiment are not yet fully resolved. No problam: I replaced it with another counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:12, 2 March 2012 (EST)

== Why does Conservapedia seek to discredit Relativity ==

Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?

Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:''Conservapedia'' seeks the truth, not merely what the [[lamestream media]] claim is the truth. Moreover, once one accepts a logical fallacy, then anything false can be proven from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:: Ahh.... But the fact that the conclusion is false does not necessarily render the basis false. I could say "Andy Schlafly founded Conservapedia and therefore I am a pig monkey." I am not a pig monkey, and even if I were, that has nothing to do with you founding this website. But you still did. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:58, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:When looking around the internet, it is obvious that Conservapedia's classification of relativity as [[pseudoscience]] is a source of some amusement and contempt. Aschlafly, could you please answer the two questions I raised above? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:27, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, liberal peer pressure from "around the internet" does not illuminate the truth. If what liberals on the internet said made a dime's bit of difference, then the [[Bible]] would not be the best selling book (by far) and the percentage of people who are [[conservative]] would not be growing (as it does).

::"Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?" Because it's false, it confuses people, it misleads people into stop reading the Bible, and its orthodoxy interferes with the advancement of science for the benefit of all. Other than that, it's not a bad theory!

::"Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition?" The only bias is by liberals who shout down any criticism of the theory. If the theory were so clearly true, then there would be no need for some liberals to rely on [[censorship]] in propping it up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:10, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== GPS and Relativity ==

I note that anyone using a GPS is relying on the Theory of Relativity being true, since calculations derived from Relativity are used within a GPS. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:GPS does '''''not''''' rely on the [[Theory of Relativity]], and this has been thoroughly explained on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

::Hi Aschlafly, I've located at least some of the discussion re GPS in the archives of this talk page, and there a lot of references for me to examine before I can make any further serious comments; certainly there are some references which appear to state that GPS relies on relativity. Can you perhaps draw my attention to what you consider the most important (half-dozen or so) references which indicate that the GPS system does NOT rely on relativity so that I have somewhere to start from? In the meantime I'll continue editing and improving less controversial articles as I have been doing for the last two months (my talk page lists nearly 40 articles I can usefully contribute to). [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:17, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:::This note 7 is on [[Counterexamples to Relativity]]:

::::Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”

:::The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing: the small effects claimed by the special and general theories nearly cancel each other out for orbiting satellites. From an engineering perspective, it makes far more sense simply to adjust the clocks using synchronization rather than relying on (dubious) theoretical claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Another false claim because of sloppy reading: In the same source by The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, you can find how the authors Fliegel and DiEsposti describe what is happening to the clocks in the satellites:
''Since GPS receivers work in the time and not in the frequency domain, they handle the velocity, gravity, and acceleration shifts differently than described above. First, each GPS space vehicle (SV) clock is offset from its nominal rate by about -4.45 × 10-10 (= -38 microseconds per day) to allow for the relativistic offsets between the differences between the SV and the ground. Of this -38 microseconds per day, about -45 are due to the gravitational potential difference between the SV at its mean distance and the earth's surface, and +7 to the mean SV speed, which is about 3.87 km/sec. (p. 193).

The text is about the necessity of ''further'' corrections by the ''operational control system'' - there are corrections ''already'' installed in the clocks!

''The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing:'' This sentence is wrong. It has shown to be wrong a couple of times, so it starts to become a lie. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:12, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Theory of Relativity]] was not used to develop GPS, nor would it be sensible to waste time and money doing so. Synchronization is cheaper, simpler, and more reliable. The above quote does not contradict this obvious truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:32, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

::The fact that these offsets are implemented in the clocks '''in accord with the theory of relativity''' as you can read in the very source you quoted shows that the [[Theory of Relativity]] is used in the GPS - and this from the very beginning of the project! Please, start to read your sources - completely! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:37, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Please, before we get into any more debate, could someone supply some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:41, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly took his quote from [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] by Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond S. DiEsposti (though he probably isn't aware of this). The paper is about relativistic effects due to moving GPS-'''''receivers''''' (or GPS-receivers in high altitudes) and comes to the conclusion, that at the moment, they don't have to include additional relativistic corrections.

:Aschlafly interprets this as if ''no'' relativistic corrections are implemented in the GPS.
:However, in the paper itself, you will find the section I quoted above, where the authors describe such very corrections within the clocks of the satellites.
:I'm afraid that Aschlafly won't come up with ''some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS'' as there aren't any.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:53, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Folks, the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the [[Theory of Relativity]] was used to design GPS. That burden includes describing who, when, where, how, and why. It didn't happen. And if it did, the person who wasted time and money on such a frivolous approach should explain the mistake, because engineers can simply synchronize the clocks far more accurately than the theory ever could.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:It looks to me as if you are trying to put impossible conditions prior to any debate. To avoid a lengthy debate all you have to do is produce some actual references which support your point of view. Is this too much to ask?

:If it didn't happen then you should be able to produce some evidence of this, so '''some actual references please'''. The only 'evidence' you have produced so far is an out-of-context quote from a paper which is concerned primarily with GPS receivers (that same paper mentions the use of relativity-related adjustments to the clocks on the GPS satellite transmitters). Surely you must have more than this. Will you accept evidence from engineers and companies involved in designing and building the GPS system? If not, why not? Who would you accept evidence from? The US Department of Defense? Do you seriously expect a member of the public to be able to access internal design documents as your "who, when, where, how, and why" statement implies?

:If you care to check my contribution history you will see that I am actively contributing non-controversial information to articles. This discussion re GPS etc. is only a small part of my activities on Conservapedia. Since I've barely started on considering and consolidating what evidence there is re GPS I would rather have a week or so to look at the evidence before getting into a debate. This should give you ample time to come up with some references to support the separation of GPS and relativity. Simple searches via Google turn up numerous instances where relativity is claimed to be relevant to GPS, but I can't find anything to the contrary and '''I need your help to do so'''. I would really like to see evidence from '''both sides''' of the discussion before entering the debate, so '''some actual references please'''. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 19:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, you're requesting proof that something didn't happen. Moreover, someone with an engineering background (such as myself) would not expect it to have happened. It is like asking for a reference that no green cheese was found on the Moon. No such scientific reference is likely to exist, nor would anyone expect such a reference to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:28, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:: Every single article on GPS says that relativistic adjustments are made to the satellite clocks. Some give the formulas and some give quantitative data on the adjustments. Textbooks explain why the adjustments are necessary. I don't see any reason to doubt that GPS uses relativistic adjustments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:52, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::GPS does make synchronizing adjustments. Call them whatever you like, but those adjustments are not made based on predictions by the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Indeed, it would be a silly waste of time and money to synchronize in such a manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::: Unless you drive the flying Delorean from ''Back to the Future'', relativity would say that its effect on your car when you're driving at normal speeds is so small it need not be accounting for. The normal error for GPS (about 40 feet) is many magnitudes higher than the error relativity would cause. Now, the GPS in the Flying DeLorean would be another issue. But until that's invented, let's not worry about it, ok? Of course, if you were orienteering, your speed would be even slower than if you were driving. Indeed, if you were moving at any normal speed (even a supersonic jet), relativity would be incredibly small (assuming that it exists as scientists explain it). [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:14, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::''GPS does make synchronizing adjustments'' Not only simple synchronizing: read the specifications for the GPS, read the sources ''in full'' which you are quoting, and you will see that all these engineers and scientists don't give a damn that you think that they are wasting ''time and money''.
:::::Aschlafly, your position is only tenable as you are willing to ignore most of the data which is presented to you. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:12, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, please correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you believe very firmly that relativity has nothing to do with GPS, even though you are unwilling to present any evidence to support this belief, and wish to put severe restrictions on what 'proof' of the relationship other folks may present. I raised some five questions above as to what sort of evidence you might consider. Could you please answer these questions.

::I'd like to ask Mr. Schafly if he could explain what the clock adjustments on GPS satellites are for, the article is not clear, and neither is anything on this talk page.--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:44, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Cahnkj, herewith a summary of the clock-adjustment situation as I (RolandPlankton) see it. Newton's equations of motions say nothing about how clocks keep time. Einstein's equations of relativity imply that identical clocks will vary in their timekeeping (tick at different rates) if they are travelling at different speeds, or if they are at different heights in a gravitational field, or if they are subject to different accelerations; see [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview]. Now the satellites used in the GPS system require very accurate clocks which are in step with ground-based clocks. The paper just quoted provides the various relativistic equations which apply - the satellites are travelling faster than a ground-based receiver, and are at a different height in a gravitational field. Prior to launch the clocks in the GPS satellites are deliberately set to a different tick rate from ground-based clocks, so that when they are in orbit the clocks will appear to tick at the same rate; the difference in tick rates is about 38 nanoseconds per day, and this adjustment can be calculated from the relevant relativistic equations.

:::But the problem is that Aschlafly rejects the Theory of Relativity, and hence rejects any calculation based on that. The only serious argument he has put forth on this current talk page (see preceding section) is an appeal to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Truth the truth]; the quote he provides above is also demolished above. You may wish to consult [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], which is rebutted point by point in [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]].

:::Hope this doesn't add too much to the confusion. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 12:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::Mr. Schlafly states above that "the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the Theory of Relativity was used to design GPS." (This is a fair requirement, and it seems as this has been done when AugustO referred to the Fliegel and DiEsposti paper above.)

::::But really, isn't the burden of proof on anyone who claims ''anything'' on this site, since Conservapedia Commandment #1 states that "everything you post must be true and verifiable" and Commandment #2 states that users should "always cite and give credit to <nowiki>[their]</nowiki> sources?" --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 19:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Good point. Anyone who asserts ''on this site'' that GPS was designed based on the [[Theory of Relativity]] needs to prove the claim. Note that the claim is implausible because it is cheaper, easier, and more precise to synchronize GPS based on observations rather than theoretical speculation. Also note that no [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for verification of the [[Theory of Relativity]] with GPS.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:55, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::Whether GPS was designed based on Relativity or not may be irrelevant. Whether or not Relativity is necessary for the clocks to run efficiently and accurately, also irrelevant. Observations of the satellites are still consistent with the predictions of General and Special Relativity as evidenced here: http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp. Please not that this is an article by the same Tom Van Flandern quoted on this site as saying that relativity is unnecessary for GPS calculations, so I trust this is a source you will accept. Here he is saying here that while relativity may be UNNECESSARY for those calculations, it is still CONFIRMED by our observations.[[User:Williagz|Gus Williams]] 14:03, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

===A Separate Question for Mr. Schlafly About References===

::Aschlafly, as a separate issue, in view of of your apparent attitude to references, could I ask you to have a look at the articles I have been working on over the last two months: [[Pi]], [[Programming language]], [[Compiler]], and the work-in-progress [[Chomsky hierarchy]]. Obviously I'm only asking you to consider the changes I have made. In particular, can you check if the references are acceptable to you, and can you also check that the general style and level of writing is in accordance with Conservapedia's aims? The next article I intend to turn my intention to is [[Context-Free Grammar]], since it seems to me that this fails to satisfy [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Style]] "Articles on complex topics need an introduction which assumes little or no previous knowledge". [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:03, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Roland, your good edits are appreciated and I've seen no complaints about them. I agree that the [[Context-Free Grammar]] would benefit from a better introduction and look forward to reading what you add there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== Why are adjustments needed to GPS? ==

A good question was raised above: if synchronization to GPS is not due to the [[Theory of Relativity]], then what is it due to?

And the answer is simply this: [[quantum mechanics]]. There are fundamental uncertainties, and those uncertainties will lead to clock differences. Otherwise a [[perpetual motion machine]] would be possible. It isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

Where to start with this. This is so bad it isn't even wrong. Could I respectfully suggest that you confine your efforts to areas you understand at least a little bit.

The impossibility of perpetual motion has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. It comes from the 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics and predates quantum mechanics by at least 100 years.

The uncertainty principle is also completely irrelevant. If we imagine a 100 kg satellite moving at a velocity of approximately 100 km/s (this is three times the earth's velocity , so is a plausible and easy to handle number). If we know the satelites location to an uncertainty of 1cm then the uncertainty on its velocity implied by the uncertainty principle is 1 part in 10^39 (i.e. completely negligable).[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 13:10, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

:Well, this is progress indeed. Could you please provide references to support the contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects?

:Also, as an aside, how do you say that fundamental uncertainties described by quantum mechanics relate to the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine? Not sure I follow you there. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 23:36, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::It's basic logic. Unless someone denies [[quantum mechanics]] and the fundamental uncertainties it describes -- and many [[Relativists]] do deny it -- then synchronization will be required as a logical result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Do you have any references? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::I haven't looked ... nor is it necessary to. I wouldn't look for references to confirm any logical statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:14, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Really? Is it fair to say then that this contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects is not something that you have read about but rather something that you yourself concluded from your own knowledge of quantum mechanics and GPS systems? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::P.S. As a result of this discussion I found a couple of articles which appear to confirm that GPS satellites have their clocks adjusted by about 38,000 nanoseconds per day before launch in compliance with relitavistic predictions (both Special and General Relativity are taken into account). The articles are [http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp here] and [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html here]. Is there really any question that this is what is happening? I would think that if these sources are to be questioned that some sort of reference should be provided. A mere assertion that the adjustments are as a result of quantum mechanical effects and that it is a matter of logic would not usually be enough for any serious encyclopedia. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::The references are [[hearsay]]. Logic is far more compelling, more efficient, and more likely to lead to the correct result.

::::::To take the analogy mentioned above, if you agree that [[perpetual motion machines]] are impossible, what is the reason?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:45, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Quantum mechanics gives a probabilistic model of phenomena. Indeed, the page you linked for quantum mechanics states:
::"If we measure such an observable, generally the wave function does not predict exactly which value we will obtain. Instead, the wave function gives us the probability that a certain value will be obtained."
:If this is the case, that means that Quantum mechanical phenomena are ''unpredictable''. How is it that clock adjustments can be made based on unpredictable events, ie, probabilities?
:I'd also like to know how the GPS system is affected by these phenomena.
:--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 01:51, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Logic is a nice thing. But engineers like to calculate. So could you give us a Ballpark estimate for the quantum mechanic effects which come into play here? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:59, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:(Edit conflict x2) Andy, as a lawyer I can assure you that hearsay is a [[legal]] concept which is of little use in this sort of scientific discussion. Whilst I understand that non-legally trained people sometimes confuse the nature and applicability of the concept, I can confirm that it has no relevance here.

:The difficulty here arises from your wanting to assert the truth of a matter without providing either references or even the basis for you own logic. Just saying "quantum mechanics" is hardly enlightening. Do you deny that GPS satellite clocks are adjusted by approximately 38,000 nanoseconds as referred to in the references that I provided? If not, do you say that there is a quantum calculation that accounts for that adjustment? What is that quantum calculation and what is it based on? I am really having difficulty in understanding the basis for all of this. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 02:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, this reference [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] has been pointed out to you several times already. Since it is published by folks actually working on the GPS system, I hardly think that it qualifies as 'hearsay'. It contains all the relevant relativistic equations, which are not really that complicated, and derives the 38 nanosecond figure quoted above. An assertion on scientific matters without any evidence can't really be taken seriously. Can we please see the quantum mechanical equations and calculations which come up with the same or similar result? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 09:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, I'm inclined to suspect that your disbelief in relativity is so strong that you are unwilling to consider any evidence which might indicate that relativity could be correct, and are hence flailing around looking for some other explanation as to what actually happens (GPS clock adjustment by 38 ns). Would you care to comment on my suspicion? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 09:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Quote: "A logical statement is a declarative sentence that is either true or false." [http://www.ontotext.com/factforge/logical-statement].

So Aschlafly, why don't you need a reference to confirm a logical statement? Just because a statement is logical doesn't mean that it is true. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

: It would be helpful to have a more modern reference. GPS switched to a system of daily updates to the satellites. Maybe those relativistic formulas cause errors that require daily clock synchronizations to correct. Not likely. But to prove the point we ought to find a reference that says that the satellites still use the 38 ns/day relativistic adjustments, and that the daily corrections are much smaller than that. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:18, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::The best I've found so far is [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf] from Physics Today, May 2002. This confirms the initial adjustment and mentions further on page 7: "Additional small frequency offsets arise from clock drift, environmental changes, and other unavoidable effects such as the inability to launch the satellite into an orbit with precisely the desired semimajor axis. The satellite clock frequencies are adjusted so that they remain as close as possible to the frequency of the Naval Observatory's clock ensemble." Unfortunately it doesn't give the actual size of the adjustments, thought the word 'small' does indicate it as being much less than the initial adjustment. I rather like the last sentence of this paper: "Ordinary users of the GPS, though they may not need to be aware of it, have thus become dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time." [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:26, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::The lack of evidence, amid so much political pressure to prove it, is indicative that no proof can be found. Notice how no [[Nobel Prize]]s have been given for GPS confirming the [[Theory of Relativity]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:01, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::If you want to use the [[Nobel Prize]] as evidence against relativity, might I direct you to:
:::http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/relativity/
:::Where the official Nobel Prize website discusses various experiments related to relativity, and the relevant [[Nobel Prize]]s awarded for them.
:::--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:32, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::::GPS is not even on that overly broad list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, I've tried to confine my evidence to items which not even you can claim as 'hearsay'. A simple Google search turns up hundreds of references linking GPS and relativity, but in view of your earlier dismissal of such as hearsay, I thought I'd better stick to indisputable items. At least there is some fairly convincing evidence linking GPS with relativity (including all the relevant equations and the result of applying these equations), unlike your assertion linking GPS with quantum mechanics, where you have produced precisely zero evidence. You still haven't responded to my comments and question re 'logical statements' above. So, where is the evidence for your assertion? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 02:46, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:::There is no credible evidence that the [[Theory of Relativity]] had anything to do with the development of GPS. In addition, not even the pro-Relativity [[Nobel Prize]] [[liberals]] say that GPS proves the theory.

:::My comment about [[quantum mechanics]] was in response to a question about why synchronization is needed. Unless someone thinks that [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible (have you answered my question about that?), then synchronization will be needed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:00, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Could you please clarify what the connection between synchronisation, quantum mechanics and perpetual motion machines is? From what I've learned, clock synchronisation between the satellites is necessary because any signal between them travels at a finite speed, namely the speed of light. Do you deny that? The claim is that in order to compute the signal travel time and thus to synchronize the clocks correctly, the relative velocities and the differences in gravitational potential due to the different altitudes of the satellites (and Earth's surface) have to be taken into account. Do you think that is wrong? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:56, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

Lets stick to the subject (GPS and relativity); perpetual motion is a complete red herring, and I'm not sure how Nobel prizes come into the picture (we're debating science, not prizes).
On the basis of '''actual evidence produced''' in this discussion so far, I think that we can confidently state four facts:
#Prior to launch, the clock in a GPS satellite is set to run about 38 nanoseconds/day different from an otherwise identical clock on the earth's surface.
#When in orbit the GPS clock then appears to tick at the same rate as an identical clock on the earth's surface.
#Equations based on the theory of relativity accurately come up with this figure of around 38 nanoseconds.
#No evidence has been produced to show how quantum mechanics is involved.

If anyone disagrees with any of the above, they need to bear in mind ('''emphasis''' added):
:from Conservapedia:Commandments 1 Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''.
:from Conservapedia:Commandments 2 '''Always cite''' and give credit to your sources.
:from Conservapedia:Guidelines/Reliability 4 A major difference between Liberalism and Conservatism is how much each group is willing to have its pronouncements checked, its actions reviewed and evaluated.

Hope this summary helps. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:41, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

: That is the story as I have heard it. Except that I heard that the 38 ns/day adjustment was remotely switchable, because of relativity skeptics who did not believe that it would be necessary. I also don't agree that GPS is "dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time." The GPS system has the ability to measure the daily adjustments that it needs. So even with any relativity theory or Einstein conception, it could just make those 38 ns/day adjustments and GPS would have all the accuracy it has today. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:19, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::In the summary I was careful to stick to facts supported by evidence, and to avoid saying "GPS is dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time", even though the two main references I have quoted do in fact say this. All I said was that the adjustment calculated according to relativity agrees with the actual adjustment, from which one might reasonably conclude, in this instance at least, that relativity is consistent with reality. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 15:44, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::I note that no one has proposed any credible alternative theory as to why the orbiting clocks tick at a different speed from surface clocks, so until some better theory comes along I'm quite happy to stick with relativity. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:00, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:In the last week, apart from one clarification question from [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], no one has challenged the 'four facts' summary I provided above. According I will shortly move a copy of this summary along with the relevant references in to the talk pages of other relevant articles, and will then update those articles to match. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 13:36, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

::Beware: in your fact #1, the correction is 38 '''micro'''seconds, not '''nano'''seconds. See [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html]. My own rough calculations also agree that it's microseconds. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 15:05, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

::Well spotted, Judy. I've gone back to one of the sources and it is indeed 38 microseconds. Thank you for the correction. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:10, 21 April 2012 (EDT)
All right, can Andy Schlafly explain how adjusting the exponent in the law of gravity accounts for the orbits of the other planets? You know the reason why no one considers that as an alternative? Are you ready?! '''Because it doesn't work!''' And can you tell me why Einstein came up with GR? Was it to explain the orbit of Mercury? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 21:36, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

:::In response to your first question, the reason is purely political. Any grad student who suggests that tweaking the exponent in Newtonian mechanics is an interesting approach worth more attention will thereby eliminate his chances for obtaining a PhD.

:::In response to your second point, GR was tweaked to explain the Mercury perihelion precession, but now the more precisely observed data fail to match the theory. Grad students and Nobel Prize wannabes are clever enough to keep quiet about it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:56, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

Andy: You make an interesting point about people not thinking that the Newcomb/Hall theory of planetary precession is an interesting approach—I hadn't thought about that aversion. I'm not sure why you think that people who take an interest in that theory would eliminate their chances of getting a PhD—people take an interest in historical aspects of science all the time. I can think of a few discarded scientific theories that are commonly discussed in science classes: The Ptolemaic theory of the solar system, the "plum pudding" model of the atom, and the phlogiston theory of combustion come to mind. The first two are very commonly taught in science classes. I think this is because they do a very good job of illustrating the scientific method and the value of careful analytical thinking. The phlogiston theory also illustrates careful thinking, but it isn't discussed in science classes nearly as much. My guess is that this is because it's harder to visualize. You can easily make a diagram in a textbook of the epicycles of Ptolemy and the ellipses of Kepler. And the model of electrons circling the nucleus, as per the Rutherford atom, is pretty much the logo for all things atomic. Lavoisier's (and others') experiments with combustion don't make for as dramatic an illustration.

The Simon Newcomb / Asaph Hall theory of planetary precession, unfortunately, seems to be even less photogenic. The effect being explained, 43 arcseconds per century, may be hard to get sudents excited about. But I doubt whether anyone jeopardizes their academic or research careers by being interested in it.

Idea: How about if I write some articles about the 4 theories (Ptolemy/Kepler, pudding/Rutherford, phlogiston/oxidation, and Newcomb/Einstein)? We could create a category for discarded scientific theories.

But I won't get to it any time soon. I'm very busy at Ameriwiki.

By the way, I have to thank you for the "E=mc^2" article. It really sharpened my thinking about the issues involved in special relativity, and it contributed to the outline of the articles I'm writing at Ameriwiki.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:40, 2 May 2012 (EDT)

::: Ugh, the reasons GPS devices don't contain the "rigorous transformations" that relativity "would seem to require" is very simple. The satellites are in geosynchronous orbits, and the difference in time that relativity causes only need to be calculated once. From then on, it's simply a case of adding a few ns every day to the satellite clocks to account for this. I would've thought that was obvious to an expert. And only an expert should be attempting to write authoratively on the theory of relativity! A certificate in physics does not an expert make. [[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 15:09, 11 July 2012 (EDT)

== Logic and the GPS ==

*Atomic watches work on the Earth quite fine
*[[Quantum mechanics]] describe the physics of ''very small length and energy scales''
*Satellites are macroscopic objects.
*Even a precision of 1cm on the surface of the Earth isn't a very small length.

So which kind of logic tells us that quantum mechanical effects influence the synchronization of the clocks? Why are not only the scientists involved lying, but also their calculations?

For me it seems to be a logical conclusion that you, Aschlafly, are even more knowledgeable of Greek than of Science! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:He's trying to apply the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle to satellites? Are you kidding me? That principle is used for things at the ATOMIC LEVEL! Using ANYTHING with regards to quantum mechanics in an argument about satellites is absurdism and/or ignorance of the subject matter! Seriously Andy, I know you hate the Theory of Relativity, but you should really leave science to those who understand it. [[User:JanSmuts|JanSmuts]] 16:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::For someone who thinks that Brownian motion is about motion at the sub-atomic level your suggestions of scientific superiority ring hollow.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 10:15, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

== Newtonian explanation of Mercury's precession ==

I removed the phrase "[precession can be understood by] factoring in the gravitational pull due to other planets". The first sentence of that paragraph says the opposite, that the extra precession cannot be understood "even after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets". Unless I'm reading it wrong, it sounded like a contradiction. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 16:51, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:Where is the contradiction? If the exponent in Newtonian gravity is slightly adjusted, then it predicts the Mercury precession.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:01, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::I'm curious as to the justification for changing a formula in Newtonian gravity. Do you change it for every situation, or just for this one special case? Can you give us the adjusted formula, and specify the exact change? For such a change in physics which has been in use for over 250 years I would like to see a reference, preferably several good references. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:25, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
:::The old Newcomb-Hall hypothesis. [http://books.google.at/books?id=oKGlHjDzGjQC&lpg=PA379&dq=newcomb%20hall%20precession&pg=PA379#v=onepage&q=newcomb%20hall%20precession&f=false This book] says that it contradicts the observations of the orbit of the moon, which rules out a change of exponent of of the required magnitude. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 18:30, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
::The contributors to this section might be pleased to see that the issue has been discussed, at great length, right here at Conservapedia. An entire debate page was created for it: [[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity%3F]] This was a discussion that spilled over from [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness]].

::Furthermore, the subject was discussed on the relativity page itself, in the section [[Theory_of_relativity#Experimental_Verification_of_Relativity]]. There is a large chart showing the precessions of the planets under the Newcomb-Hall theory and under general relativity. They are the last two columns of the chart. The actual observations match the last column very well (see [http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm], taking into account that it's very hard to get accurate reading on the outer planets, since their precession is so small.

::One can see that the last two columns of the chart match only for Mercury. That is, Newcomb and Hall "tweaked" the exponent to the value of 2.000000157 in order to get Mercury's precession correct.

::Under the Newcomb-Hall theory, the precession of any orbiting body would be .000000078 revolutions per orbit. This works for Mercury, but is too high for the other planets, and way too high for the Moon. This is why the theory was discarded. With modern artificial satellites, such as the International Space Station, an orbit takes only an hour and a half, and the precession would be enormous. The clearly wrong value for the Moon is why the Newcomb-Hall theory was quickly discarded.

::Under general relativity, we know that the precession per orbit is proportional to the square of the planet's orbital velocity. Mercury has the highest velocity, so it has readily measurable precession. Artificial satellites are much slower, and the Moon is slower still.

::I personally don't see accepting the possible truth of such a thoroughly discredited theory as evidence of open-mindedness, but open-mindedness is admittedly a very tricky issue. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 18:11, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

::::"Mathematical physicists" (an [[oxymoron]] - I'll add it to the list) insisted that it was impossible for the exponent in Newtonian gravity to be anything other than '''''precisely''''' 2 (or -2). With the political push to promote the [[Theory of Relativity]], the influence of the mathematical physicists rose too, and that is what shut down the valid inquiry into whether the Newtonian exponent should be '''''precisely''''' 2 (or -2). But any logical inquiry must admit the possibility, or even the likelihood, that it would not be exactly 2 (or -2).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:31, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

The issue here is not whether the exponent is precisely two or not but that you have to have a model which explains all (or at least as many as possible) observations. To get the precision of Mercury right you produce a model which then fails to explain the observed precession of every other body in the solar system. This seems to be a good experimental demonstration that Newcomb-Hall is wrong (or least inadequate as a model). [[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:32, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:I'm not sure how [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] got us on the subject of the Newtonian exponent. My comment makes no mention of it. I'll answer his original question "where's the contradiction?": I quoted two sentences, both containing the phrase "other planets". One sentence said the precession '''can''' be understood by including the effects of the other planets, whereas the other said the precession '''cannot''' be understood that way. It is just rhetoric. The contradiction has little to do with physics. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 12:06, 16 April 2012 (EDT)

OK, how do you explain that adjusting the exponent in Newtonian gravity doesn't account for the orbits of the other planets? You say it has to do with politics. It has nothing to do with politics--the other theory just doesn't work! [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:33, 11 May 2012 (EDT)

:I doubt the minor tweak in the exponent would affect the other orbits. The orbit of Mercury would be far more sensitive to such a tweak than anything else.

:The broader question remains: isn't the [[censorship]] of any alternative to the [[Theory of Relativity]] obvious? If the theory were correct, then there would be no need for [[liberals]] to censor debate or alternative theories.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

::*''I doubt the minor tweak in the exponent would affect the other orbits.'' Do you have any calculations which would affirm this belief of yours? AFAIK, Simon Newcomb's and Asaph Hall's idea was discarded when excellent measurements for the Moon were made by Ernest W. Brown which didn't fit the predictions of Newcomb and Hall. This was in the early 20th century...
::*Today Computer simulations allow for an easy test of alternatives to Newton's exponent. Any student should be able to create one and see for himself that it doesn't work out.
::*The influence of the exponent on ''apsidal angles'' was discussed be Newton himself. It's still of interest today: a central system in which the exponent is 1 is easily imaginable (swing a weight on a spring around your head). And you will find publications on these subjects still today.
::That said:
::*Why don't you run a simulation for yourself?
::*''Alternative theories'' are discussed - and mostly discarded. That's the way physics works. Theories doesn't become true because you ''believe'' in them, they become more and more trustworthy when their predictions are verified over and over again.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:40, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

:::The Newcomb-Hall theory doesn't need anyone, liberal or otherwise, to censor it. It censors itself, by being wrong. It has been shown to be wrong many times, including Ernest Brown's observations, and some data published right here at [[Theory of relativity#Experiments that Fail to Prove Relativity|Conservapedia]].

:::Probably the best refutation at present is with artificial satellites, since their orbital period is so short. If you want to argue for the Newcomb-Hall theory, your best bet would be to find data showing that the periapsis of the International Space Station precesses by .013 degrees per month. That is an enormous precession, easily observed. The orbital eccentricity is only .001, but, since the ISS is so close and is in constant contact by radio and radar, there should be extremely good data. You should probably contact the author of the [http://www.heavens-above.com/ Heavens Above] web site. It has a huge amount of information on things like this.

:::I think that you will find that what you are up against is not liberals, but facts. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 12:44, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

== First sentence of article contradicted by the rest ==

Given that main body of the article now largely deals with the things GR can explain (including the precession of Mercury) should not the first sentance be changed?[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:37, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:GR is '''disproven''''' now by the precession of Mercury. See [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:22, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

I checked [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] and the number for the observed precession in the note are unreferenced. To be credible there has to be a reference for this number.[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 12:11, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

== Nobel Committee Criticism ==

That section of the article criticizes the Nobel Committee for not awarding a prize to a scientist who questions relativity, then immediately notes that no awards have been given for work related to relativity. Perhaps it'd be better to remove this contradiction; pick a poison and stick to it, so to speak. Alternatively, it may be more honest just to remove the section. --[[User:PaPatriot|PaPatriot]]

:What's contradictory about that? It's similar to how the Obama Administration won't appoint anyone who is [[pro-life]], and yet Obama won't campaign on being pro-[[abortion]]. That's not a contradiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:07, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

== Bending of light in Newtonian gravity ==

All right, can someone show me exactly how light is bent by gravity in Newtonian gravity? Photons have zero mass, so, according to Newtonian gravity, they should not feel gravity. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:56, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

:*Newton's Corpuscular theory of light didn't state that the mass of the photons is zero. It was just obvious that it is very tiny
:*For the actual calculation, the mass of the photon cancels out
:*[[Johann Georg von Soldner]] did the calculations in 1801 - Newton's theroy was still going strong, then. ([http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Ueber_die_Ablenkung_eines_Lichtstrals_von_seiner_geradlinigen_Bewegung Über die Ablenkung eines Lichtstrals von seiner geradlinigen Bewegung] English: ''On the Deflection of a Light Ray from its Rectilinear Motion''). The predicted effect was to tiny to be observed accurately in his time
:*Newton's corpuscular theory became unpopular since the 1820s, so this line of thought wasn't followed up.
:*Here is a modern re-calculation [http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.1031v6 Bending of light: A classical analysis]
:From Sendler's essay: ''Hoffentlich wird es niemand bedenklich finden, daß ich einen Lichtstral geradezu als schweren Körper behandle. Denn daß die Lichtstralen alle absoluten Eigenschaften der Materie besitzen, sieht man an dem Phänomen der Aberration, welches nur dadurch möglich ist, daß die Lichtstralen wirklich materiel sind. – Und überdies, man kann sich kein Ding denken, das existiren und auf unsere Sinne wirken soll, ohne die Eigenschaft der Materie zu haben. –''
:''Hopefully no one will take offense that I looked at a ray of light as an object of mass. That every ray of light has the absolute properties of matter is seen from the phenomenon of aberration, which is only possible because the rays are really material. — and furthermore, one can think of no thing which exists and interacts with our sense without having the properties of matter.''
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:45, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
::Yeah, I've heard of that. But the photon has zero mass. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:20, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Newtonian physics doesn't know about zero-mass particles, hence it doesn't make a unique prediction. One possible interpretation is to say "zero mass -> zero gravitational force -> no bending". Another interpretation is to take the mathematical limit of the equations for ''m''->0. Since ''ma = GMm/r2'', the mass of the photon cancels and you get ''a = GM/r2'', even in the limiting case ''m=''0. This leads to bending by half the amount as predicted by relativity (and observed). --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 22:47, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

== Conflation of Relativity and Relativism & Robert H. Dicke & Barack Obama ==

There appears to be significant resistance to relativity that is largely unfounded. The theory is in no way contradictory to Christian beliefs, or religion in general. As a conservative, right wing encycloepdia, I expect resistance to moral relativism.

From reading the article, it appears many of the authorship appear to conflate Einstein's relativity with moral relativism. The two concepts are entirely and utterly unrelated other than both containing the word "relativ". Newton's model of gravity as a simple inverse square law is a very close approximation to Einstein's model. The difference is Newton's is very slightly inaccurate and cannot be used where extreme accuracy is needed. Relativity can.

What's the difficulty with relativity here? The central premise is very basic and seems pretty self evident upon a little thought. There is no absolute frame of reference in a universe in which everything moves relative to everything else. Something can only be defined as moving with respect to (relative to) something else. And there you have it, general relativity.

There is also a problem with the section on Robert H. Dicke. He wasn't a major critic of relativity. Indeed, he developed some of the most stringent tests (relativity is highly falsifiable). It passed them. All.

I tracked down and read the article regarding relativity and law (Obama, etc.). It is quite a nice analogy, and is no way an attempt to use relativity to justify anything. The analogy is more closely related to the uncertainty principle - you cannot measure a particles position without changing or influencing it. You cannot just observe, as you have to intervene in order to do so. The same is true in American law (with a much stronger reliance on test cases, etc, than in say, English law). You cannot deal with one case without it having vast implications for others. That is all the paper is saying. Again, there is no agenda against conservatism or religion in this paper.

[[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 23:45, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== Clocks on Trains - alternative theory ==

Someone better come up with a really good explanation as to why a clock on a train will show a different time to a clock next to the track, after the train has travelled for a length of time. This has been done, and relativity predicted the difference (due to time dilation). If relativity is definitely un-true (the premise of this article), then what IS causing the difference in times?

The above GPS argument makes a similar case, but trains are easier to understand. The difference in time on these clocks has nothing at all to do with quantum physics. Noone try and claim it is, and that they don't have to prove it because it's a logical statement. Anyone who thinks they can logically infer QM (which is inherently illogical by human perception) needs to see a shrink.

[[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 23:51, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== Counterexamples to Recent Experiments ==

Recently, experiments have been published in Science, directly measuring general relativistic time dilation effects using atomic clocks placed about a metre apart. Do we have any idea how to refute this? The reference I provide is to a newspaper summary of the findings<ref>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/einsteins-theory-is-proved--and-it-is-bad-news-if-you-own-a-penthouse-2088195.html</ref>. I have also read the paper and see no loophole
<ref>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/einsteins-theory-is-proved--and-it-is-bad-news-if-you-own-a-penthouse-2088195.html</ref>
--[[User:DanPW|DanPW]] 12:49, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Perpetual motion machine

2012-05-08T03:36:05Z

DanPW: /* The Uncertainty principle doesn't invalidate Perpetual motion... */

==Perpetual motion machine==

I'm sorry, but I think you're just wrong about the meaning of the phrase "perpetual motion" as used in discussions of thermodynamics, statements about the impossibility of perpetual motion, etc.

:    The perpetual motion, then, which has been the subject of such anxious and laborious search, is not a mere motion which is continued indefinitely. If it were, the diurnal and annual motion of the earth, and the corresponding motions of the other planets and satellites in the solar system, as well as the rotation of the sun upon its axis, would be all perpetual motions....

:    In short, a perpetual motion would be a watch or clock which would go for so long as its mechanism would endure without being wound up: it would be a mill which could grind corn or work machinery without the action upon it of water, wind, steam, animal power, or any other moving force external to it.

::—Dionysis Lardner, 1857, Natural Philosophy for Schools, p. 70

:    Perpetual motion is of course possible, as is stated in the first law of motion, "Motion continues in a straight line undiminished in velocity unless acted on by some external force." A top set spinning under conditions where there is no friction will never cease to spin. These conditions are very nearly realized in the motions of the planets and stars. The statement that energy cannot be destroyed asserts this possibility.

:    But by "perpetual motion" is generally meant a machine which will do work and keep going though energy equivalent to the work done is not supplied to it. Many attempts have been made to construct such a machine. They have all failed. The statement that energy cannot be created denies the possibility of such a machine.

—S. Lawrence Bigelow (1912), "Theoretical and Physical Chemistry," Theoretical and Physical Chemistry By S Lawrence Bigelow p. 26

Dpbsmith 18:20, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly"

Dpsmith, I moved this discussion to the talk page for perpetual motion, so others can benefit and contribute as desired to this.

Your quotes are helpful, and I agree that there are different definitions for a perpetual motion machine. But everyone agrees that a machine that does work without energy is impossible. So the above definitions do not lead to productive discussion. Besides, the earth is not really a perpetual motion machine. Our orbit would eventually become unstable, and presumably we would slow down eventually.

What is a fascinating question is whether motion can continue indefinitely in a closed system. One quote above implies it can, but I doubt most would agree. I wouldn't. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:59, 1 January 2007 (EST)

He's right Mr. Schlafly; the impossibility of perpetual motion is proven by the 1st law of thermodynamics, not the second.

Ben

OK, Ben, but define perpetual motion machine in a trivial away and it only results in a trivial answer.

How about this, let's define "perpetual motion machine II" that simply means a machine capable of perpetual motion (without a perpetual energy supply).

Now that's an interesting question that is difficult to answer fully! --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:05, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Theoretically it is possible (the first law of motion), but practically it is impossible just because you wouldn't be able to eliminate all outside forces.

I also have a comment on your proof using the 2nd law of thermodynamics:

''"The only argument that a perpetual motion machine is impossible is based on an interpretation of the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]]. If entropy is always increasing, even in closed (and isolated) systems, then indefinite motion is impossible because an increase in the disorder of the system will inevitably disrupt the motion"''

Firstly, as Dpbsmith has demonstrated, this is not the only argument against perpetual motion.

Secondly, though it is ''almost'' inevitable that increaced disorder will disrupt motion, it still isn't logically proven; it is always possible that it might go on just a little bit longer.

[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

So, Ben, you seem to be saying that a "perpetual motion machine II" (as defined above) may be possible to build.

Really think so? If you doubt it, then maybe you can discovery a way to prove it is impossible. I don't think anyone has proven that yet, and no one else seems to be trying at this time either. But it would be worth proving.
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:53, 1 January 2007 (EST)

[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]: you said "But everyone agrees that a machine that does work without energy is impossible." Well, no. Historically the whole debate arose because for centuries people have believed that they ''have'' found a way to build a machine that does work without energy, something for nothing. There are still people who believe it. They tend to use the terms "free energy" and "overunity" to avoid the onus of the term "perpetual motion." An example of a modern machine claimed by its inventor to generate more power than it consumes is the Adams Motor[http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/1287/adams/adamsall.htm], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adams_motor]. A classic fraud was the Keely motor.

My point is that the phrase "perpetuum mobile" goes back to the days before thermodynamics and refers to innumerable attempts to produce simple mechanical arrangements, typically involving shifting or pivoting weights, that on paper look as if they might really do work without an external input.

You seem to be interested in a different philosophical question, one which I don't know much about or whether there is any established name for it. I'm arguing strongly that you should either find out what that name might be, or invent something that doesn't use the phrase "perpetual motion" at all.

Here is my ''guess'' at what an answer to ''your'' question might be. If you use the best modern techniques, e.g. suspending a spinning object in vacuum via superconductive magnetism, you can get something that will move without additional energy input for a really long time. You can measure the rate at which it slows down very carefully or predict it theoretically.

My guess is that it may well be possible today to build a system in which the rate of energy loss is so slow that it can be predicted continue to run for hundreds of thousands of years if the apparatus remains intact; thus the limiting factor in how long it runs is not the apparatus itself, but unrelated external catastrophes (an asteroid hits it, the building it is in collapses in an earthquake, funding runs out and someone pitches the apparatus in the trash, breaking it, etc. etc.)

Probably the place to look for one of these things in real life would be the gyroscopes used in inertial guidance systems.

If the word "forever" is taken ''literally,'' then I don't know how you answer the question, because beliefs about the future lifetime of the universe change every generation or so. If the word "forever" means something like a mathematical limit—then I think the answer is: according to current understanding, it is possible to build a machine that will run ''indefinitely'' long, or as long as you like, receiving no external energy and performing no external work, where the actual limit on the running time is set not by the construction of the machine itself, but by the probability of external catastrophe.

I think. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:44, 2 January 2007 (EST)

OK, Dpsmith, you win on your point about what a perpetual motion machine ''really'' means. But I'm still interested in why perpetual motion (without producing extra energy) is impossible. The increase in entropy must prevent it. Underlying that may be the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics.

More thought and research would be worthwhile here. I think we're all convinced that the motion would eventually stop. But why? What force stops it? --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:36, 2 January 2007 (EST)

:It's beyond my own knowledge. I suspect such questions are like the irresistable force and the immovable object, though. Provisionally, let's call your gadget an "endless coaster."

:Point #1: At least according to Newtonian physics as I understand it, if you truly had a closed system, it would not stop. But if you truly had a closed system, there would be no way to ''see'' that it was still moving.

:In order to observe it, there would have to be some energy exchange between the "perpetual motion" and the observer. I have an idea that since the observer is gaining information, the observed must be gaining entropy, but that's just handwaving and I don't know how to prove it.

:What I don't know whether there are any theoretical reasons that would make it ''impossible'' to have a truly closed system.

:Here's another angle. If we're considering, say, a ball bearing magnetically suspended in a vacuum by a superconducing magnet or something like that, if if there is a ''small'' amount of friction the result, according to classical physics, would be to make the ball bearing spin slower ''on an exponential decay curve.'' It would have a half-life, like radioactive decay. Perhaps it loses half of its spin every day. Well, according to classical physics, it would spin slower and slower but ''would never actually stop.'' Asymptotically approaches zero, never eaches it. Most likely (out of my depth again) ''quantum'' physics would say that at some point the spin becomes quantized, meaning that after some period of time it can't slow down any more. The spin must be either one quantum or none... and then you get all that crazy wave-function collapse stuff. You have a superimposed state in which the spin is one with some probability and zero with some probability, and the probability decreases over time.

:But really, once you start talking about whether something can literally go on forever, you're outside the bounds of science. I can't keep track of the number of times the "scientific" narrative of cosmology has changed during my own lifetime, and it shows no signs of settling down. Is the universe closed? Open? Continuously expanding? Oscillating? Obviously, ''if'' physics predicts a ''finite'' lifetime for the universe, then a "perpetual" motion, meaning one that would last longer than the universe, is impossible. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:03, 3 January 2007 (EST)

:: That's an interesting point of linking observation to entropy. But I do think even a purely closed system would stop without observation. Don't you? Perhaps Newton would not be pleased, but the Second Law of Thermodynamics suggests that motion does eventually stop. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:57, 5 January 2007 (EST)

::: No, I don't think it does. The question here is whether anything says ''how fast'' entropy increases... and what counts as "motion."

::: I think that the Second Law applies to large systems with many interacting particles or bodies and is some kind of statement about their statistical behavior and how easily that motion can be observed.

::: Imagine, say, an ideal, large, sealed box whose walls perfectly hard (do not flex or absorb energy), and imagine that it contains one ideal moving billiard ball. By an "ideal billiard ball" I mean, again, one that is perfectly hard and perfectly elastic. If you have a single billiard ball in the box and it is moving, I think it keeps bouncing off the walls and moves forever. After all, energy is conserved.

::: Now, suppose, instead, that you have twenty-one ideal billiard balls, twenty of them at the vertices of an icosahedron and one in the center, all connected to each other by ideal springs. The entire structure, which I'll call a "blob," resembles a '''non'''-ideal ball. Put one of these into the ideal box and set it in motion with a gentle and identical force on each of those billiard balls, so that they are not moving with respect to each other and the whole blob moves together.

::: Initially, the blob moves as a whole, and you can calculate the kinetic energy just by observing the blob; 1/2 mv2 where m is the total mass of the blob and v is the velocity of the blob as a whole.

::: But when it strikes the walls, the billiard balls are going to hit it at more or less random times. The result is that the balls in the blob are going to start to acquire motion ''relative to each other,'' and soon there is going to be lots of relative motion ''within'' the blob.

::: This relative motion represents kinetic energy that belongs to individual billard balls within the blob, not to the blob as a whole, so because of conservation of energy, the energy we can ascribe to the blob as a whole is going to decrease, and so is the average velocity of the blob.

::: I '''think''' that what the Second Law is saying is that the way in which the blob hits the wall is essentially random, and that with each impact, statistically, more and more energy is going to end up in the form of billard balls oscillating with respect to each other within the blob, and less and less in the form of organized motion of the entire blob as a whole.

::: So that whereas the motion of the single billard ball "never stops," after a while the motion '''of the blob''' has stopped, and instead you just have a stationary blob with the billard balls within it oscillating on their springs.

::: In other words, the behavior of the system has ''degraded'' from observable motion of the blob as a whole to less-observable relative motion of the billiard balls within the blob. The system is in a less organized or "heat-like" state.

::: However, because in this case we're talking about fairly large particles and a fairly small number of them, it is clear that the system is still "in motion," just on a smaller scale, and since we posited that the box, the springs, and the billiard balls are all ideal (and don't absorb energy), by conservation of energy the balls within the blob also continue in motion forever.

::: Now, we go one step further and still keep the idealized, closed system with vacuum and perfect walls, but instead of a billard ball we use a real rubber ball. What the Second Law says is that the mechanical energy of the bouncing ball, 1/2 mv2 where we can measure the "velocity" of the ball as a whole, inevitably and statistically degrades into heat; the ball "loses energy" with each impact with the wall, the measurable v decreases, and eventually it comes as close to "stopping" as we like. Conservation of energy says energy hasn't really been lost; it's been transformed into heat energy. The ball is warmer than before, meaning the molecules within it are moving, and since we've defined the system to be closed, it won't cool down. '''It''' has stopped moving, but there is still '''motion.'''

::: So, I think the whole thing becomes a sterile exercise in what we mean by "forever," and how close we can approximate ideal conditions with realizable machinery, and whether the motion of molecules due to heat counts as "motion."

::: I don't think Second Law has anything to say about ''how fast'' entropy increases, or how close we can come to an ideal situation where entropy doesn't decrease at all.

::: In a way the two are related, because "frictionless pivot," for example, means "no entropy increase in the form of heating at the pivot."

::: Probably the place where the Second Law comes into play is that it says that even if you have a perfectly idealized "closed system," within that system ''energy'' won't be lost, but nevertheless energy ''observable as macroscopic motion'' can still degrade into heat energy ''no longer observable as macroscopic motion.'' [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:40, 5 January 2007 (EST)

== The Uncertainty principle doesn't invalidate Perpetual motion... ==

The Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle applies to sub-atomic particles like electrons only, we cannot know where they are at any given time <s>because of Brownian motion</s>. It does not apply to anything that can be seen without the aid of an electron microscope. Also, entropy doesn't increase, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics merely states that the universe tends towards Entropy. Also, the lack of creation of energy would be the Law of Conservation of Energy, which is present in many parts of Physics beyond the First Law of Thermodynamics. Also, the Earth is not a perpetual motion machine, to argue that it is does not border, plunges headfirst into absurdity and ignorance. Finally, the Earth has been slowing at a rate of about 2.2 seconds every 100,000 years due to frictions, no one considers it a perpetual motion machine. [[User:JanSmuts|JanSmuts]] 16:26, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:I don't think that Brownian motion affects sub-atomic particles. Brownian motion moves things like pollen and dust which are orders of magnitude greater.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 16:44, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::No, Brownian motion is associated with sub-atomic particles, but has to do with collisions at an observable level, rather than their placement in shells. It would appear we are both incorrect, my mistake. [[User:JanSmuts|JanSmuts]] 17:02, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::::I'm sorry, but you remain totally confused about Brownian motion even after acknowledging your earlier error. Brownian motion was first described by the biologist Robert Brown around 1827. He was describing a microscopic phenomenon and not a molecular one and certainly not a sub-atomic one. If your understanding of basic terms is so faulty I am not surprised that your conclusions are bad.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 10:11, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Well, then, do you think a [[perpetual motion machine]] can exist and, if not, then why not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:36, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Isn't friction usually the answer? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 18:19, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Another appeal to [[hearsay]]? The question doesn't request more hearsay.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:38, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::Sorry, you'll have to explain that comment. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 18:48, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::According to all known laws of physics, no, such a machine cannot exist. However, the proofs you have offered are quite misleading and examples of bad science to say the least. [[User:JanSmuts|JanSmuts]] 23:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::"no, such a machine cannot exist." Why? And in response to the prior comment above, I'm not asking what is "usually the answer" by others (i.e., [[hearsay]]). I'm asking for your opinion and explanation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::Can I please point out that the 2nd Law, at present, does NOT have any consistent and/or accepted deep physical mechanism behind it involving quantum mechanics or whatever. It can be justified by the argument that systems will naturally move towards larger homogenous volumes in phase space, but the question of WHY we think the 2nd law is valid is still entirely open. The Uncertainty Principle as normally presented (i.e. the product of uncertainties between certain pairs of eigenvalues of observables - specifically, those that don't commute with each other) in no way has any time-asymmetry in it. The 2nd law DOES have time-asymmetry. There's no argument that you, I, or any of the most learned physicists in the world can currently make which directly attributes "entropy" to "quantum uncertainty". If you have one, with the mathematics to back it up, please submit it to Nature, and prepare for a trip to Stockholm... [[User:DanPW | Dan W]]

::::::::::I appreciate the flattering suggestion, but the [[Nobel Prize]] is never given to a [[conservative]] and/or anyone who has publicly criticized the [[Theory of Relativity]] or the [[Theory of Evolution]]. See, e.g., [[Robert Dicke]], [[Fred Hoyle]], [[Ronald Reagan]], etc.

::::::::::I agree that narrow interpretations of the Second Law are, well, limited in what they conclude. But a full view of the meaning of the Second Law does recognize that quantum uncertainty underlies it. Quantum uncertainty does have a time-asymmetry to it ... just as attempts at a perpetual motion machine do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 5 May 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::Interesting; as I said before, if you indeed can demonstrate this, and were subsequently denied a Nobel prize for it, I may accept your opinion that the committee is biased against those with a conservative viewpoint. Please point me to a derivation / demonstration of the uncertainty principle (other than those I have come across in my career, which are based on the Fourier transform of a wavepacket, for example, and which are not inherently time asymmetric) to back up your claim. Alternatively, please point me towards evidence that all current holders of the Nobel prize are liberals. [[User:DanPW]]

:::::::::::High correlation, in the absence of another plausible explanation, suggests high likelihood of causation. Undeserving liberals, such as [[Obama]], have won the [[Nobel Prize]], while over-deserving [[conservatives]], such as [[Ronald Reagan]], have not. Also, over-deserving scientists who criticized the liberal-promoted [[Theory of Evolution]] or the [[Theory of Relativity]], such as [[Fred Hoyle]] and [[Robert Dicke]], were passed over for the prize.

:::::::::::As to the time asymmetry of [[quantum mechanics]], the uncertainty yields greater uncertainty over time, as in quantum tunneling.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:47, 6 May 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::::As to your "argument" about quantum tunnelling, I see that since you clearly have absolutely no understanding of what these concepts actually mean, there's little point in arguing this anymore. For the record, though, quantum tunneling arises due to the non-zero amplitude of a wavefunction in a classically forbidden region of a potential. The uncertainty principle is not what "causes" tunneling, rather both tunneling and the uncertainty principle are consequences of the wave nature of the statefunction. As to the Nobel prize, 1) whether or not you agree with Obama winning it (I certainly do not think he should have!), the Nobel Peace prize should be separated from the scientific prizes since it's clearly actually something to do with politics, wheras the other prizes are not, save perhaps for economics. Also, the fact that the committee has sometimes missed out on giving deserved awards (e.g. Franklin, Burnell, Hoyle, not so convinced about Dicke but I do recognise he was a great scientist, particularly in the area of electronics), does not give you any evidence of a liberal bias. As far as I can see, no mention has ever been made to the politics of any of these people. Fred Hoyle might well have been a liberal, or a conservative, we have no idea. [[User: DanPW]]

Talk:Perpetual motion machine

2012-05-06T13:35:03Z

DanPW: /* The Uncertainty principle doesn't invalidate Perpetual motion... */

The Avengers (film, 2012)

2012-05-06T13:06:03Z

DanPW:

{{Infobox Film
| name= The Avengers
| image=
| caption=
| director=[[Joss Whedon]]
| producer=Kevin Fiege [[Stan Lee]] Jon Favreau
| writer=Stan Lee [[Jack Kirby]] (original) Joss Whedon Zak Penhn
| narrator=
| starring=[[Samuel L. Jackson]] [[Robert Downey Jr.]] [[Mark Ruffalo]] [[Chris Hemsworth]] [[Chris Evans]] [[Scarlett Johansson]] [[Jeremy Renner]] [[Tom Hiddleston]]
| music=
| cinematography=Seamus McGarvey
| editing=Paul Rubell Jeffrey Ford
| distributor=[[Walt Disney Pictures]] [[Marvel Studios]]
| released=May 4, 2012
| runtime=143 minutes
| country=[[United States]]
| language=[[English]]
| budget=
| gross=
| preceded_by=[[Captain America: The First Avenger]]
| followed_by=[[Iron Man 3]]
| website=
| amg_id2=
| imdb_id=0848228
}}

'''The Avengers''' is a 2012 [[superhero]] film, based on the [[Marvel Comics]] series ''[[The Avengers]]''. It was released to theaters on May 4, 2012. It is produced by [[Marvel Studios]] and is the first Marvel Comics film adaptation to be distributed by [[Disney]], Marvel's new parent company (although the logo for [[Paramount Pictures]], former distributor of Marvel Studios films, appears on marketing materials and in the film's opening titles in place of the Disney logo). The movie is a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, a series of films produced independently by Marvel which are set in the same universe.

The film denies the Christian position by including a character ([[Thor]]) who is an actual Norse demigod. This is an example of the [[atheist]] and [[liberal]] bias of Hollywood.

==Cast==
*[[Samuel L. Jackson]] as [[Nick Fury]]
*[[Robert Downey Jr.]] as [[Iron Man]]/Tony Stark
*[[Mark Ruffalo]] as [[Incredible Hulk|The Hulk]]/Dr. Bruce Banner
*[[Lou Ferrigno]] as the voice of The Hulk
*[[Chris Hemsworth]] as [[Thor]]
*[[Chris Evans]] as [[Captain America]]/Steve Rogers
*[[Scarlett Johansson]] as [[Black Widow]]/Natasha Romanoff
*[[Jeremy Renner]] as [[Hawkeye]]/Clint Barton
*[[Tom Hiddleston]] as [[Loki]]
*[[Cobie Smulders]] as Maria Hill
*[[Clark Gregg]] as Phil Coulson
*[[Stellan Skarsgard]] as Dr. Erik Selvig
*[[Gwyneth Paltrow]] as Pepper Potts
*[[Paul Bettany]] as the voice of J.A.R.V.I.S.

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Comic Book Movies]]
{{DEFAULTSORT: Avengers, The}}

National Health Service

2012-05-05T21:46:04Z

DanPW: /* Poor quality care */

The '''National Health Service (NHS)''' is the [[United Kingdom]]'s nationalised [[health]] care system. It was established in 1948 as part of [[Clement Attlee]]'s post-[[World War II]] [[Labour Party|Labour]] government's socialist program, and has been supported by politicians of every party since then.

The NHS is nominally funded out of "National Insurance contributions", a form of personal [[taxation]] comparable to the US [[Social Security]] system. The NHS revenue stream is, in theory, entirely separate in operation from income tax.<ref>http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1394285&</ref> In practice, the NHS is funded from general taxation, and is accepted by the British electorate as being funded in this way. All prescription medicines (however not over-the-counter ones) are available for a low standard fee in [[England]]. Prescriptions are entirely free of charge in [[Wales]]<ref>http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Healthcare/Medicinespharmacyandindustry/Prescriptions/NHScosts/DH_508</ref>. NHS treatment is available to all residents of the UK. Most services, including complex and expensive surgical procedures and drugs, are free at the point of use, and those that are not (such as the provision of glasses and dental care) are free to people on low incomes. This ensures that everyone is able to be treated, no matter what their individual wealth or means may be.<ref>http://www.nhs.uk/England/AboutTheNhs/Default.cmsx</ref> "Private" (i.e. non-NHS) doctors and hospitals do exist in Britain, but fewer than 10% of Britons choose to buy private health insurance in preference to using the NHS. (The big exception to this is in the area of dental care: NHS dentists are relatively difficult to find in many areas, and many people are forced to "go private", even if uninsured.)

The NHS is Britain's largest employer, 1.3 million workers. This cradle-to-grave entitlement costs Britain $158 billion (USD) per year. Britain’s Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron is looking to reform the state-run health-care system, which he called "second-rate" due to the program’s massive cost and lackluster performance. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/17/prime-minister-cameron-plans-to-reform-britains-government-run-health-care-system/ Prime Minister Cameron plans to reform Britain’s government-run health-care system, The Daily Caller, Jaunuary 17, 2011]</ref>

==Rationing==
Official figures published in 2009 revealed that more than 230,000 patients are being forced to wait more than 18 weeks for hospital treatment. <ref>[http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/120458/Burnham-forgets-230-000-on-list BURNHAM FORGETS 230,000 ON LIST, Daily Express UK, August 14, 2009]</ref> As a result of its comprehensive coverage, the resources of the NHS have been consistently tightly stretched for many years, leading to lengthy waiting lists for everything from dental work to surgery. This was the case in the 1980s and 1990s in particular. Since 1997, the NHS has benefited from substantially increased spending under the Labour Party, but there is a perception among many in Britain that the extra money has not been well spent or delivered appropriate improvements. Read more about ''"Delay, Denial and Dilution, The Impact of NHS Rationing on Heart Disease and Cancer."'' <ref>[http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/rationreport.pdf Rationing PDF Report]</ref> There are many more examples of disasters caused by government intervention in the British health care system.

==Poor quality care==
One million NHS patients have been the victims of appalling care in hospitals across Britain, according to a major report released Aug. 27, 2009. In the last six years, says the Patients Association, hundreds of thousands have suffered from poor standards of nursing, often with 'neglectful, demeaning, painful and sometimes downright cruel' treatment.
<ref> Rebecca Smith, "'Cruel and neglectful' care of one million NHS patients exposed," [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6092658/Cruel-and-neglectful-care-of-one-million-NHS-patients-exposed.html ''Telegraph'' (London) 27 Aug 2009]</ref>
Many critics, including Daniel Hannan, have expressed serious concern over the failure of the NHS in providing Britain with an acceptable health care. Criticism included the immense wasteful costs of the NHS, shortage of doctors and other vital employees, lack of available care, and poor quality of facilities and care.

However, in 2009, according to the OECD's Health Data report, Britain was found to spend less public money per capita on health provision than the USA, despite NHS care being free at the point of need for all citizens, and the USA system requiring citizens to also pay for private insurance. Life expectancy in the USA is less than that in Britain. [http://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/the-nhs-as-good-as-us-heathcare-but-much-much-cheaper/]

==NICE==
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) proudly boasts of "Developing a series of national clinical guidelines to secure consistent, high quality, evidence based care for patients." NICE is responsible for giving advice which effectively rations the supply of government provided treatments and drugs. It does this by a careful and complicated consideration of Quality Adjusted Life Years (the QALY), taking into account how a particular treatment affects this figure on average. Ultimately the number of dollars per QALY is what dictates whether a medicine is then made available via the NHS. These decisions are inevitably controversial at times and some even go so far as to accuse them of denying life saving medication and effectively becoming the government's "death panels". <ref>[http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/campaigns/nhsinjustice/8251183.Anger_as_Nice_denies_cancer_patient_life_extending_drug/ END NHS INJUSTICE, The Northern Echo, July 2, 2010]</ref>

==All party support==
The NHS is supported by politicians of all parties in the UK, but is widely regarded as the child of the Labour Party, and inspires particular affection in the supporters of this party. All post [[World War II]] governments have consistently supported the National Health Service. British voters take great pride in what they regard as the free provision of basic human needs such as healthcare and schooling. Many politicians including [[Margaret Thatcher]] have worked to reform the National Health Service and make it more efficient <Ref>http://www.margaretthatcher.org/essential/biography.asp#ess87-90</Ref>. However, perhaps due to its overwhelming size and entrenched popularity, this has continued to be a difficult and controversial task.

==References==

<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.nhs.uk/ NHS Official Homepage]
*[http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/socialized.html#britain The Problems with Socialized Health Care (Britain)]

[[Category:British Politics]]
[[Category:Health]]

Talk:Second Law of Thermodynamics

2012-05-05T19:01:40Z

DanPW: /* Discuss here before deleting information */

{{unprotected|19 March 2007|Tsumetai}}
== Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!==

I am getting a little tired of the (pardon the immoderate language) stupid edits in relation to the second law of thermodynamics. As has been stated by a number of people on the Talk:Theory of Evolution page, the second law of thermodynamics does not disprove the theory of evolution. You are just making this site look stupid by stating that it does. I see that the person who committed the muddleheaded reversion has now protected the page. Might I respectfully suggest that the protection be removed and some scholarship prevail. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:01, 3 March 2007 (EST)

== Protection and other issues ==

The trend towards protecting articles by users in edit conflicts is worrisome. Furthermore, the protected version is simply wrong. One of the Conservapedia Commandments is that everything should be sourced. I therefore would very much like to know if there is any source for the claim that "he Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum" This statement is wrong at multiple levels- the 2nd Law is about closed systems (or can be stated about open systems with a some tweaking of the consequent), it says nothing about the universe. Furthermore, tending towards a maximum doesn't even mean that the entropy levels can't decrease. For example, the sequence, 1,3,2,5,4,7,6,9,8... tends towards infinity but is not an increasing sequence. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 04:05, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Second law also says nothing about an upper bound to the entropy of a system; the entropy of the Universe could increase without limit, in principle, making the 'maximum' part wrong too.

:To be fair to Philip, the increase of the Universe's entropy ''is'' a tendency, not an absolute. The total entropy of an isolated system can decrease; it's just hugely improbable on the scales we're used to dealing with. Quantum effects can lead to a decrease in entropy; one has to deal with a very small system over short periods of time to actually notice this, however. Arbitrarily large decreases in entropy are also possible, given sufficient time. This is true whether one is discussing the fluctuation theorems of QM, or good old-fashioned classical systems.

:But these are not, strictly speaking, parts of the second law. Second law doesn't say anything about tendency. The rest of physics just says that second law is not absolute. So I don't think using the word 'tends' in the definition is very useful.

:The main problem with the article is, of course, the part about evolution, which as Horace says is just wrong, and painfully so. It's a seductive argument to the layman; after all, entropy is all about order and disorder, and evolution clearly requires the production of order. Right?

:Wrong, of course. The second law of '''thermo'''dynamics is a statement about '''thermodynamic''' quantities; 'order' is not one. One can choose to ''define'' the term 'order' in thermodynamic terms, in which case the statement that the Universe must become, on net, more disordered over time is true, for certain definitions. But the price for that is rejecting one's intuitive understanding of what constitutes 'order' and 'disorder,' and going with the maths. By a thermodynamic definition of order, my hot chocolate is self-organizing as we speak. Therein lies the danger of describing esoteric physics in terms which carry the baggage of their lay definition. Better to stick with entropy, and check one's prejudices at the door.

:Perhaps the simplest way to illustrate this is with a different statement of the second law; the Clausius statement, which reads:

::It is impossible to construct a heat engine which, operating in a cycle, produces no effect other than the transfer of a quantity of heat from a colder to a hotter body.

:Now, precisely which part of evolution violates ''that''? This version of the second law makes it abundantly clear that we're talking about a specific, mathematically rigorous statement about heat flow, not some general philosophical statement about order and chaos. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:51, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Oh, yes, I forgot to weigh in on the page protection issue. Tonya Harding strategy, right?

:A while ago, I [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Page_protection_policy suggested to ASchlafly] that a written policy on when page protection should be used, and for how long it should last would be helpful. Anyone else agree? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:58, 4 March 2007 (EST)

== The following is incorrect ==

From the article:

"It is impossible for the total entropy of an isolated system to decrease, therefore the universe is becoming more and more disordered. In this way the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution."

The first sentence is true, but the second is false. Evolution does not cause the total entropy in the universe to decrease, only local variations. By analogy, a fridge does not cool the universe, only a small part of it at the expense of the rest. Please correct this clear error to avoid the increasing levels of criticisms being levelled at this wiki. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 07:45, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:To add my thoughts on this: there are two errors in this article. First, the second law ''only'' applies to ''isolated'' systems, not to systems that are merely closed, let alone open. Then it becomes clear that the "disproving" of evolution by referring to the second law is severely flawed. There is nothing against a local decrease in entropy, as long as it is balanced by at least as large an increase elsewhere. Moreover, the assumption that evolution is directly linked to a decrease in thermodynamic entropy is not immediately obvious. I agree with Nematocyte that in its present state, this article will just serve to invite more criticism. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 09:16, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Strictly speaking, second law applies to all systems; for instance, consider the Clausius statement, which I posted up the page. No mention of an isolated system there. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:01, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That not what my stat.mech. text says ;-). Let's put it this way: the ''entropy'' formulation only applies to isolated systems. In fact, I think that the heat engine in the Clausius formulation should itself be taken as isolated. If we allow it to be (thermally or otherwise) coupled to anything else than a hot and a cold "temperature bath", I think we could make the heat flow up the temperature gradient, at the expense of course of something happening outside the engine. Of course, these thermal reservoirs are abstractions, etc. etc. Anyway, here as well, either we should take the system (engine) as isolated, or we should take it as the entire universe. Both cases are not going to help disprove evolution at any rate. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 12:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I think even the entropy formulation will work with open systems, so long as one takes care to quantify the entropy flow through the boundary. The requirement then becomes that entropy decrease within the boundary is no greater than the net entropy flow out of the system through the boundary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:37, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I think it's effectively the same as looking at an isolated system made out of two parts, inside and outside, and applying the second law to the total system. But what you propose should indeed work. I hadn't thought of doing it that way. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 13:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Absolutely; you can always expand the boundary of an open system to obtain an isolated one, in principle. But it's very useful to be able to work with open systems, if the boundary terms can be computed, since it allows one to ignore entropy generation in the environment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Time to unprotect ==

OK, it's been over a week now, and no one has attempted to defend the inclusion of such rubbish. Might we have the article unprotected so that those of us who actually understand elementary thermodynamics can fix it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Nothing doing sir, the numbskulls are the experts. Who said Sri Lanka became independent in the 1970s, none other than the owner of this site! [[User:Zaheerabbas|Zaheerabbas]] 02:12, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Ressurection a violation? ==

I think we should add a section about the resurrection of Jesus and that it "technically" violates the second law of thermodynamics, but that since it was a miracle, it does not need to adhere to the second law. Thoughts?
:...*blinks* Are there sources that are actually saying that? *honestly curious* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]]

:I think the latter part is pretty obvious, and negates the need for the former. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Gonna back Tsumetai up on this one. Also, it's shocking and appalling that this article is protected while containing such tripe in the content of it.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Not to mention the fact that in the ten days since criticisms were first raised, no one who supports the article in its current state has bothered to defend it.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Agreed. I'll leave a message on the protecting admin's Talk page, maybe it'll help. Talking on here doesn't seem to have any impact. =/ --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, of course. Many intellectuals here! Long live the stone age numbskull army!!! [[User:Zaheerabbas|Zaheerabbas]] 02:11, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==This law and evolution==

Timothy Wallace wrote:

*Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began (assuming it had a beginning).

*Beginning with the “Big Bang” and the self-formation and expansion of space and matter, the evolutionist scenario declares that every structure, system, and relationship—down to every atom, molecule, and beyond—is the result of a loosely-defined, spontaneous self-assembly process of increasing organization and complexity, and a direct contradiction (i.e., theorized violation) of the second law. [http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp]

Comments? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Its a considerable misunderstanding. Points:
::*The second law refers to the flow of heat, it is unclear how exactly that translates into "disorder" and "order" when applied to something like life.
::*The second law refers to closed systems, open systems are a much more complex processes and the "law" does not apply cleanly here. Life and Earth are open systems.
::*Evolution is essentially a favored random walk, these systems are able to produce violations of "disorder" all the time. For example any [[Monte Carlo method]] algorithm demonstrates this beautifully, you can reach local "maximum" and avoid "minimums" by using evolutionary algorithms and many other variations on the theme.
::*Complexity theory and Self-organizing systems also routinely violate the maxim that order can not be created from disorder. The sorts of things needed to produce an SOS or complex system are just the kinds of things we find in life.

:Life is not a good place to be trying to appeal a mathematical description of heat. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 16:31, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, applying the second law to evolution reflects a plain misunderstanding. Beings today are not "more perfect" than those that came before. Greater "perfection" may be a violation of the idea of entropy. However, evolved organisms are not more "perfect" than earlier organisms, since Darwin's point is that there is no biological level of "perfection." Evolved organisms don't violate entropy anymore than ''older'' organisms (a 20 year old relative to a 10 year old) do!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:02, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Ames, you're disagreeing with one of the best Renaissance minds, [[William Shakespeare]]:
:*"What a piece of work is man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals! ". - ([[Hamlet]], Act II, Scene II).

:Now, how does Evolution explain man evolving through an unguided process from one-celled organisms? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:56, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Shakespeare is not a scientist. Science and art are different. I realize they may not be for creationists, which is shocking and kind of funny. But they are different in the real world.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Discuss here before deleting information ==

OK. I deleted the "three types of systems the Second Law can apply to," because it only applies to closed systems. I also deleted the claim that it disproves evolution and relativity, because it doesn't. Evolution is nonsense, but isn't disproved by the Second Law because EARTH IS NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM. As for relativity, the Second Law has no connection to it at all. This article is about one of the key laws of science, and if it's blatant nonsense the credibility of the whole site suffers. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 23:47, 16 February 2012 (EST)

:There is no such thing as a perfectly closed system, so your attempt to limit the important Second Law to closed systems is misplaced. The Second Law is far more meaningful than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 16 February 2012 (EST)
::Irrelevant. The Second Law only applies to closed systems. If a system isn't closed then energy can be added, thus reducing entropy. That is the MEANING of the Second Law. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 23:52, 16 February 2012 (EST)
:::OK, give me a statement of the Second Law that works in an open system. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 23:53, 16 February 2012 (EST)

::::Your approach would appear to limit the Second Law to something that doesn't exist. It's more meaningful than that. Its entry here explains its insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 16 February 2012 (EST)
:::::No ''ideal gas'' exists either, yet the Ideal Gas Law only applies to this non-existent hypothetical gas. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 00:00, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::::The Second Law isn't an ''insight''. It's a description of energy available for work in a closed system. It doesn't have some deep ''meaning'' that can be applied to whatever you like. The Second Law is an accurate description of entropy (note: ''entropy'', not ''disorder'') in a closed system, and if ever a closed system is found then rest assured that overall entropy will not decrease inside it. But to say it disproves evolution is nonsense, especially when you yourself admit that Earth is NOT a closed system! --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 00:05, 17 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::And your point is ....? Attempts to limit the Ideal Gas Law to perfectly ideal gases would be misguided also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::Uh what? How can the Ideal Gas law be applied to something that isn't an ideal gas? --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 00:06, 17 February 2012 (EST)

:::::::::The Ideal Gas Law has insights that extend beyond ideal gases. Ditto for the Second Law with respect to closed systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:10, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::::OK then, tell me an "insight" that the Second Law can bring to a system that is ''not'' closed. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 00:14, 17 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::The entry explains this well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:25, 17 February 2012 (EST)
After going back and re-reading the article a few times, I think I know where the confusion lies with some editors. It appears that the article is conflating the thermal definition of entropy with the information theory definition of entropy. This conflation allows the topic of "disorder" to arise. Which has absolutely nothing to do with thermaldynamics. The basic definition of thermal entropy is simply a measure of energy that is unusable to perform work in a system. How a law that breaks down in layman's terms to: "heat won't travel from a cooler body to a hotter body without an additional input of energy" or "no process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body" can be used to "disprove" evolution or relativity escapes me. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 02:19, 17 February 2012 (EST)

:Perhaps [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth#Major earthquakes are doubling every 40 years? |this discussion]] sheds some light on Aschlafly's misconception of the 2nd law. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:27, 17 February 2012 (EST)

The thing is, is that there is a link between thermodynamics and disorder. This is the tour de force result of statistical thermodynamics vs classical thermodynamics - i.e. that the macroscopic quantity which we can measure called "entropy" is related to the number of possible microstates the system can explore. As has been correctly pointed out, the problems start when we directly equate this with "information", or entropy as defined in information theory i.e. "Shannon entropy". This is an analogous concept, based on the fundamental information content of a system. But there isn't an equivalence between information-theoretic entropy and thermodynamic entropy. In the actual physical world, there is no need to directly connect the quantities of "disorder" and "information". This, in part, along with the more important facts that all these things apply to closed systems and the Earth is not a closed system, means that any argument based on how "entropy" disproves evolution due to some information argument is bogus. [[User:DanPW]]

Talk:Perpetual motion machine

2012-05-05T18:52:20Z

DanPW: /* The Uncertainty principle doesn't invalidate Perpetual motion... */

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2012-05-05T18:36:25Z

DanPW: /* A mathematician's take */

'''''For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth/Archive Index|Archive Index]].'''''

----



__TOC__
==Page moved==
Archive index also created.
[[User:JonM|JonM]] 00:49, 22 December 2011 (EST)

== Major earthquakes are doubling every 40 years? ==

This claim should come out because it's false. Proof that it's false can be found here:[http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/nndc/struts/form?t=101650&s=1&d=1]. For example between 1900 and 1909 there were 120 major earthquakes; between 2000 and 2009 there were 99. 100 years and no doubling - in fact, a 20% decrease. It doesn't help our case to make arguments that can be demonstrated to be false in 5 minutes. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 18:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:That database appears to depend in part on the amount of property damage, which would distort the results beyond recognition.

:Large earthquakes increased by 20% over the past decade, which fits almost perfectly the estimate of doubling every 40 years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:03, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::They've doubled every 40 years if you only go back 40 years. If you go back 110 years they've stayed constant or decreased slightly. That database includes ALL major earthquakes; property damage is just one of the criteria you can search on. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 19:10, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
::Actually I'm wrong. They've increased by 80% in the last 30 years. They've only increased by 20% in the last 40 years. They've stayed constant over the last 110 years. Numbers fluctuate but is always about 100, +/-30, per decade. There is NO INCREASE in major earthquakes and we shouldn't be claiming there is, because we can easily be proven wrong. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 19:14, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::: The table in the cited reference shows an increase factor of 1.5-4 every 38 years, and recent trends confirm a substantial increase over the past few decades. The statement seems well-supported by the table and recent data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:56, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Yes, but the cited reference contradicts its own cited reference, which is the USGS earthquake data (found in the NOAA database.) There has been a substantial increase per decade since 1980, a MINOR increase per decade since 1970 and no increase whatsoever since 1900. The 1970s had exceptionally low earthquake activity and the increase since then is a statistical phenomena known as regression to the mean; it's the same numbers trick that makes it appear that speed cameras placed at accident blackspots reduce accidents. Anyone can cherry-pick figures to prove anything, but the long-term increase simply isn't there. There were more severe earthquakes between 1900 and 1910 than between 2000 and 2010. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 20:13, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::However you decide to constrain the categorical cutoffs for statistical analysis, they are quite irrelevant to the discussion on the age of the Earth. One need only investigate the actual cause behind any earthquake (crustal strain accumulation) to realize that earthquake frequency in the 20th century is meaningless to this debate. You cannot extrapolate this trend into history, because 1) there is no statistically significant trend in the first place, and 2) there is no '''physical''' basis for doing so. Point number 2 is most pertinent. --[[User:RainyD|RainyD]] 01:07, 2 May 2012 (EDT)

Today the study ''[http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/12/12/1118525109.abstract Global risk of big earthquakes has not recently increased]'' was published: the authors show that the earthquakes of the last hundred years fit well into the model of a homogeneous Poisson process, i.e., there is no increase of the number of big quakes. ''Together these facts suggest that the global risk of large earthquakes is no higher today than it has been in the past. '' [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:50, 20 December 2011 (EST)
:AugustO pulls out the heavy artillery: The Poisson distribution! The material on multiple regression and the Poisson distribution were my favorite parts of the last statistics course I took. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:08, 20 December 2011 (EST)

::AugustO, the article states, "The global rate of M≥8 earthquakes has been at a record high roughly since 2004." Its conclusion that earthquakes have not been increasing based on its view that "no plausible physical mechanism predicts real changes in the underlying global rate of large events." They need to spend more time studying and learning from [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]. Of course there is a plausible mechanism: increased disorder affects the Earth just as it affects everything else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::Mr. Schlafly (Andy? What's the etiquette when user name = real name?), respectfully, I believe your short quotations from the abstract of the paper distort the context in which they were made. Here's the surrounding context:
{{cquote|We examine the timing of large (magnitude M ≥ 7) earthquakes from 1900 to the present, after removing local clustering related to aftershocks '''The global rate of M ≥ 8 earthquakes has been at a record high roughly since 2004''', but rates have been almost as high before, and the rate of smaller earthquakes is close to its historical average. Some features of the global catalog are improbable in retrospect, but so are some features of most random sequences—if the features are selected after looking at the data. For a variety of magnitude cutoffs and three statistical tests, the global catalog, with local clusters removed, is not distinguishable from a homogeneous Poisson process. Moreover, '''no plausible physical mechanism predicts real changes in the underlying global rate of large events.''' Together these facts suggest that the global risk of large earthquakes is no higher today than it has been in the past.}}
:::(your quotations emphasized). I believe their point is that it isn't enough to simply note that there have been more large earthquakes now than previously. In any random sequence there will always be some strange results, but we can't look at those anomalies in isolation. For example, if we flip a coin a thousand times and it's overall about 50-50, but the last 10 flips are all heads, we shouldn't immediately assume that the coin has recently become biased. Instead, we should consider the likelihood that chance alone could generate such a streak. I don't know enough about the math to evaluate their conclusion, but I think their premise is sound and I think you've mischaracterized it.--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 01:04, 21 December 2011 (EST)

:@Conservative: just take another course on statistics and you may find out the distinction between the Poisson distribution and a Poisson process.
:@Aschlafly: ''increased disorder affects the Earth just as it affects everything else'' that's not a ''plausible physical mechanism'', that's a philosophical statement.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:08, 21 December 2011 (EST)

::Entropy is physics, not philosophy. If you don't think increased disorder affects the [[Earth]], then please explain your view on whether [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::It also relates to the second law of Thermodynamics, which states that Entropy in a system must always increase. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:17, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::::Actually no; it states that entropy in a CLOSED system cannot DECREASE. It doesn't have to increase; it can remain constant. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 17:13, 22 December 2011 (EST)

*If I ask you: ''"How does a grandfather clock work?"'' and you answer with ''"gravity"'', you are somewhat right. But your answer isn't helpful, as you aren't describing a mechanism, you only invoke a general principle. That's not enough, a ''plausible physical mechanism'' has to be described in a little more detail. The same holds for answering the question: ''"What is the reason for earthquakes to occur?"'' with ''"entropy"''.
*Even though the the laws of thermodynamics hold, you can observe places on Earth where the entropy locally decreases - even without the help of an intelligent agent: Look a sky - do you see clouds? They show that water isn't distributed uniformly throughout the atmosphere. And even though there is the tendency to get to such a uniform distribution, we don't get rid of clouds. Why? Because new clouds are created. How do these abnormalities arise? Because there is an energy gradient, provided by the Sun, powering the water cycle.
*The same is true for processes in the Earth: here, an energy gradient is given by the radioactive elements.
*without these effects, the increasing entropy wouldn't result in more and bigger quakes, but in less and smaller, as disequilibria would be resolved over time.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:09, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:Are you saying that earthquakes are partly caused by radioactive decay? That's interesting. I thought convection currents were the main factor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:24, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::Indeed. But what creates the convection currents? The heat from within the Earth, mainly caused by radioactive decay. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:31, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:::August, increasing disorder affects all processes. I didn't see a response by you to my [[perpetual motion machine]] question. Earthquakes, regardless of their mechanism, reflect the truth that perpetual motion machines are impossible. The corollary is that earthquakes must be increasing, just as disorder does for an attempt at a perpetual motion machine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 22 December 2011 (EST)
:::::But earthquakes AREN'T increasing. They fluctuate from year to year but there just isn't a long-term increase. The trend is stable. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 14:02, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::::::Exactly. It doesn't seem very helpful to discuss ''how'' or ''why'' earthquakes are increasing in frequency before we determine ''whether'' or ''if'' they're increasing. And the paper cited by AugustO claims that there is no increase, despite recent appearances. So before we talk about radioactive decay or tectonics, we should decide if the study is to be trusted. If it is, there's little benefit to discussing mechanics. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 16:34, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::::In addition, the other examples August listed were not closed systems; tectonics is a closed system. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 12:13, 22 December 2011 (EST)
:::::No, it's not. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 12:44, 22 December 2011 (EST)
:::::Let me clarify: We have a heat source at the center of the Earth, resulting mainly from decay of radioactive nuclei. We also have a heat sink at the surface (dissipation of energy due to earthquakes, volcano eruptions, a bit of radiation, etc.). Tectonics is caused by the temperature gradient inbetween, an open system. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:39, 22 December 2011 (EST)

*''August, increasing disorder affects all processes.'' As does gravity. This is a general principle, to get a ''physical mechanism'' you need to fill in some details.
*''I didn't see a response by you to my [[perpetual motion machine]] question.'' I thought my remarks on entropy were clear enough. But let's get back to your question: '''If you don't think increased disorder affects the [[Earth]], then please explain your view on whether [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible.''' Of course, increasing disorder affects the Earth, just not the way you imagine it. [[Perpetual motion machine]]s aren't possible. But an isolated system doesn't become more violent over time, it becomes more boring :-) All the models of things which were thought to be perpetual mobiles by their creators slowly grind to an halt, they don't disrupt themselves in quakes.
*''The corollary is that earthquakes must be increasing, just as disorder does for an attempt at a perpetual motion machine.'' '''That's not a corollary, that is just wrong, and won't become true just by repeating it like a mantra.''' For an earthquake to happen, you have first to built up tension in a place - and that means lowering the entropy locally, using energy. When the earthquake happens, the energy stored is freed, entropy rises again.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:48, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:Entropy '''''does''''' cause disruptions to mechanical systems, and not simply due to friction and slowing down. Your comment acknowledges that entropy exists and that perpetual motion machines are impossible, but then stops short of recognizing '''''why'''''. The [[Earth]]'s rapidly rotating system and other internal dynamics must be increasingly disrupted by entropy, and that does not necessarily mean merely slowing down in a mostly frictionless atmosphere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:47, 26 December 2011 (EST)

::*''Entropy '''''does''''' cause disruptions to mechanical systems, and not simply due to friction and slowing down.'' Well, if I throw a grenade into the aforementioned grandfather-clock, we get a fine example of such a disruption. But machines (and mechanism) are generally not halted that way.
::*''Your comment acknowledges that entropy exists and that perpetual motion machines are impossible, but then stops short of recognizing '''''why'''''.'' Do you expect me to know ''why'' the laws of thermodynamics hold?
::*''The [[Earth]]'s rapidly rotating system and other internal dynamics must be increasingly disrupted by entropy, and that does not necessarily mean merely slowing down in a mostly frictionless atmosphere.'' Who says so? The Earth is gradually slowing down, the heating through radioactive elements is declining (though ever so slowly, as the half-lives of the elements involved are so great). Why do you expect a more volatile behavior? Again, simply saying ''"entropy"'' isn't enough, you should describe a mechanism: the current model of continental plates driven by convection currents doesn't lead to such a conclusion.
::*Will you ever give us a similar mechanism explaining what you think is an increase in the rate of earthquakes? I doubt it. It's like the whole sad [[User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive49#New_namespace_for_the_CBP|ἰδού-affair]]: you may have convinced yourself that you gave satisfying answers to all question, when in fact those were only superficial - or plain wrong (I'm still waiting for a scholarly source which backs up your translation!)
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:40, 26 December 2011 (EST)

:::Perpetual motion machines are not impossibly simply because of friction, or dispersion of energy. Disorder increases and that is the fundamental reason that perpectual motion machines are impossible. Many of the finest systems imaginable eventually fail for reasons unrelated to energy dispersion or friction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 1 January 2012 (EST)

::::Please give some examples! ¨[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:40, 2 January 2012 (EST)

===Conclusion===
*There is no evidence for a doubling of earthquakes every 40 years.
*In fact, there is evidence that the rate of major earthquakes hasn't changed over the last hundred years.
*Aschlafly's proposed ''"mechanism"'' (increasing entropy) wouldn't result in an increase of major earthquakes, so even from this ''"model"'' we wouldn't expect to see such an increase.

I alerted Aschlafly to these points (in my answer above) at his talk-page and he [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=947978&oldid=947963 is aware of this comment] ;-)

Now, I'll outcomment this ''"counterexample"''. Please keep in mind that deleting ''false'' information is not an act of censorship!

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:00, 26 December 2011 (EST)

[[User:ScottDG]] reverted my edit, stating: ''Open your mind, August. Aschlafly says so, that's good enough for me.'' I don't think that this is enough to justify the reversion of a well-substantiated edit. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:08, 26 December 2011 (EST)
:Is it just me or do "Open your mind" and "Aschlafly says so, that's good enough for me" seem to be a bit on the contradictory side? In any case well done for getting that incorrect claim out of the article, and let's hope it stays out. --[[User:Uxbridge|Uxbridge]] 13:49, 26 December 2011 (EST)

== Rates ==

I find it interesting to note that some of the attempts to disprove the Old Earth theory are based upon assuming that the rate by which various factors change are constant. This does seem troubling when a core element of a number of articles ([[Old Earth]], [[Age of the Earth]], etc) is an attack on the assumption that radioactive decay rates have been constant.

Just a few examples include: There's the assumption that the moon is receding from the Earth at a constant rate, that human intelligence has declined at a constant rate, that the rate of the decline of biodiversity on Earth has been constant, and that the rate at which land has fallen into the oceans has been constant. This does somewhat undermine the points this article is trying to make. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 11:48, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Dog Races ==

Dog races are somewhat artificial creations: a garden which isn't tended to runs to seed, a building not kept in shape becomes a ruin. Nothing of this is an example of an Old Earth, just for relatively recent neglect. That should be obvious.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:53, 11 January 2012 (EST)

== too many repeated removals of certain entries are being done; discuss first on talk page ==

The problem aren't the removals: these are generally discussed here on the talk-page. The real problem is the unilateral reinsertion of debunked examples without any discussion.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:56, 11 January 2012 (EST)

== Historical Counterexamples ==

''The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C.''

*There are tree rings which are older than 3000 B.C (see [[dendrochronology]]) - I think that for the [[bristlecone pine]]s you will find a fully anchored chronology of 8,500 years - going back to 6000 B.C.
*There are many reports about older clothing, woven textiles are date to be from 6000 B.C. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/13/science/site-in-turkey-yields-oldest-cloth-ever-found.html?pagewanted=all NYTimes 1993: Site in Turkey Yields Oldest Cloth ever Found]</ref>
*And there are other older remnants of civilizations, i.e. [[Lascaux]]

But of course you can claim that these things can't be dated probably, as no one of the contemporaries has ''written'' about them: this reduces your point to:

''The oldest written documents are no older than about 3000 B.C.''

I'll change the page accordingly. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:55, 29 January 2012 (EST)

:These claims that you cite are far from persuasive and even reinforce the underlying point: the oldest direct evidence of life is consistent with an Young Earth, not an Old Earth. Note that the NY Times had to run a correction on its story, and at any rate even it admitted that "no other piece of prehistoric cloth produced earlier than 6000 to 6500 B.C. had been found anywhere in the world."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:14, 29 January 2012 (EST)

::''Note that the NY Times had to run a correction on its story, '' That is misleading (at least), as the correction had nothing to do with the content of the article, but the illustration:
{{cquote|'''Correction:''''' July 19, 1993, Monday An artist's rendering in Science Times on Tuesday, showing the weaving method believed to have been used in the earliest known piece of cloth, depicted the pattern incorrectly. The pairs of weft, or horizontal, strands probably wound around each other as well as around the warp, or vertical, strands.}}
::Older clothing has been found, made from leather of fur. I just gave this example of woven cloth, which contradicts your statement in the article. Please change the article accordingly, as it is protected. Thanks.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:22, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:::I'm not aware of any "Old Earth" finds of '''''any''''' clothing, and your recent statement lacks sufficient detail or citation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:41, 30 January 2012 (EST)

'' your recent statement lacks sufficient detail or citation'' - as does your statement in the article, BTW! Could you add some? And have a look [http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2002/03/21/excavations-eastern-europe-reveal-ancient-human-lifestyles here]. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:49, 30 January 2012 (EST)

== References ==
<references />

== Earth's magnetic field ==

Mr. Schlafly, you wrote: "The magnetism of the Earth is vanishing so quickly that it will disappear in 1,500 to 2,000 years". I don't see how this contradicts the scientists' hypothesis that the Earth is billions of years old, since they think that the magnetic field regularly reverses itself [http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/ link source]. I think the readers would benefit from a clarification of this point. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:43, 27 April 2012 (EDT)
:Agreed. The article you cited, Mr. Schlafly, states that ''"this could imply a reversal of the Earth's magnetic fields"''.
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="border:1px dashed Gainsboro;margin:+.1em;width:20%"
|-
! style="border:1px solid lightgray;margin:+.1em;text-align:center;padding:+.2em" | [[user:Brenden|Brenden]].
|-
| style="padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
*[[Special:Contributions/Brenden|Contribs]]
*[[user talk:Brenden|talk]]
*[[Special:Log&user=Brenden|log]]
|} 14:00, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

::If magnetic fields would reverse themselves over thousands of years, then that is even more evidence for a young earth. Scientists think that many species, from turtles to birds, rely on a constant magnetic field to find their way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:09, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
:::What precludes the possibility that the population changes over time as the magnetic field slowly changes to adapt to the new magnetic field? [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:18, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::::Scientists claim that a moderate magnetic field is essential for many species to find their way around. If that magnetic field disappears, then those species go extinct. They wouldn't exist today. It's that simple.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:41, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::I'm no evolutionist, but Andy I think in this case you are severely underestimating nature's (God given) ability to adapt and find a way to survive.[[User:BruceDownUnder|BruceDownUnder]] 20:50, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::That "God given" ability requires a young Earth. Many, many species go extinct '''''every year''''' - something that is also downplayed by people who deny God's existence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::And many more continue to thrive, despite changes to their environment. I am surprised that you underestimate God's creation, Mr. Schlafly.[[User:BruceDownUnder|BruceDownUnder]] 22:06, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::I don't underestimate God's creation. [[Entropy]] is part of it; the [[Book of Hebrews (Translated)|Book of Hebrews]], perhaps the most intellectual book in all of history, explains that God created the earth and the universe to wear out. See [[Book of Hebrews (Translated)#1:10-11]]. God presumably does not plan to spend eternity on this particular creation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:21, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

== A mathematician's take ==

Hello,
I find this to be an interesting article, but I must take issue with the following claim:

<blockquote>
If each of 43 counterexamples has merely a 10% chance of being valid -- an underestimate -- then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 1%.
</blockquote>

I understand what you are trying to do here (0.9^43=0.01). However, you a making the assumption that all these observations are independent, when in reality, they are likely highly positively correlated. Instead of calculating Pr(A and B)=Pr(A)*Pr(B), you should be doing Pr(A and B)=Pr(A)*Pr(B|A).

For example, in this article, I count four entries in the "Geology" section that talk about the persistency of bodies of water. Under your math, these four alone indicate that there is only a 65% chance of an old earth. However, these three are likely to be highly, or even perfectly, correlated. If we assume they are all perfectly correlated (which they are not, but just for illustration), then there is a 90% chance of an old earth.

Another way of looking at it is from the other perspective. Let's say Radiocarbon dating and universe expansion calculations point to an old earth, and only have a 1% of being true. Under your math, their is only a 98% chance of a young earth. However, that means there is only a 99% chance of the earth being young OR old, but since those two events completely specify the probability space, it should be a 100% chance. But, since we are wrongly assuming independence, our math is wrong.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad point you are trying to make here. The math, however, is flat wrong, and we shouldn't give a quantification for something we have no way of quantifying.

Just my two cents. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 12:26, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

:You raise an interesting point; a lack of independence among variables does affect the probability of the outcome. But that effect is offset by the greater likelihood (more than 10%) that those indicators of a young earth are correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:11, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

::I would like to come in on the side of EricAlstrom here. For one thing, his analysis of your use of probability theory is bang on, and in no way does your response answer his points. Even deeper, your basis for "the likelihood of the counterexamples being greater than 10%" is based purely on your own opinion. Why exactly are these counterexamples more likely to be correct than radio carbon dating is to be false? [[User:DanPW| Dan W]] 5 May 2012

== AGW if true, would prove a young earth ==

If the earths systems were so unstable that a very very small amount of carbon released by humans could disrupt them, then they could not have lasted billions of years. --[[User:HHB|HHB]] 13:44, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

== Only 99% certain? ==

I see you have doubts about your chosen theory Ashafly. I would have thought a Bible believing Christian like yourself would have no doubts about the Creation account as told in Genesis. What contradictions in the Bible have convinced you to believe that the Biblical account may not be 100% true? [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 15:29, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

:EJames, entries on a wiki are collaborative efforts. Also, this particularly entry does not utilize [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:55, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

::What do you mean? I don't understand about your statement about 'utilizing faith'. Is the Biblical account of Creation 100% true or not? If you feel you can't commit to 100% you must have serious doubts. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 16:11, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2012-05-05T18:35:55Z

DanPW: /* A mathematician's take */

'''''For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth/Archive Index|Archive Index]].'''''

----



__TOC__
==Page moved==
Archive index also created.
[[User:JonM|JonM]] 00:49, 22 December 2011 (EST)

== Major earthquakes are doubling every 40 years? ==

This claim should come out because it's false. Proof that it's false can be found here:[http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/nndc/struts/form?t=101650&s=1&d=1]. For example between 1900 and 1909 there were 120 major earthquakes; between 2000 and 2009 there were 99. 100 years and no doubling - in fact, a 20% decrease. It doesn't help our case to make arguments that can be demonstrated to be false in 5 minutes. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 18:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:That database appears to depend in part on the amount of property damage, which would distort the results beyond recognition.

:Large earthquakes increased by 20% over the past decade, which fits almost perfectly the estimate of doubling every 40 years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:03, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::They've doubled every 40 years if you only go back 40 years. If you go back 110 years they've stayed constant or decreased slightly. That database includes ALL major earthquakes; property damage is just one of the criteria you can search on. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 19:10, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
::Actually I'm wrong. They've increased by 80% in the last 30 years. They've only increased by 20% in the last 40 years. They've stayed constant over the last 110 years. Numbers fluctuate but is always about 100, +/-30, per decade. There is NO INCREASE in major earthquakes and we shouldn't be claiming there is, because we can easily be proven wrong. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 19:14, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::: The table in the cited reference shows an increase factor of 1.5-4 every 38 years, and recent trends confirm a substantial increase over the past few decades. The statement seems well-supported by the table and recent data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:56, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Yes, but the cited reference contradicts its own cited reference, which is the USGS earthquake data (found in the NOAA database.) There has been a substantial increase per decade since 1980, a MINOR increase per decade since 1970 and no increase whatsoever since 1900. The 1970s had exceptionally low earthquake activity and the increase since then is a statistical phenomena known as regression to the mean; it's the same numbers trick that makes it appear that speed cameras placed at accident blackspots reduce accidents. Anyone can cherry-pick figures to prove anything, but the long-term increase simply isn't there. There were more severe earthquakes between 1900 and 1910 than between 2000 and 2010. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 20:13, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::However you decide to constrain the categorical cutoffs for statistical analysis, they are quite irrelevant to the discussion on the age of the Earth. One need only investigate the actual cause behind any earthquake (crustal strain accumulation) to realize that earthquake frequency in the 20th century is meaningless to this debate. You cannot extrapolate this trend into history, because 1) there is no statistically significant trend in the first place, and 2) there is no '''physical''' basis for doing so. Point number 2 is most pertinent. --[[User:RainyD|RainyD]] 01:07, 2 May 2012 (EDT)

Today the study ''[http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/12/12/1118525109.abstract Global risk of big earthquakes has not recently increased]'' was published: the authors show that the earthquakes of the last hundred years fit well into the model of a homogeneous Poisson process, i.e., there is no increase of the number of big quakes. ''Together these facts suggest that the global risk of large earthquakes is no higher today than it has been in the past. '' [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:50, 20 December 2011 (EST)
:AugustO pulls out the heavy artillery: The Poisson distribution! The material on multiple regression and the Poisson distribution were my favorite parts of the last statistics course I took. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:08, 20 December 2011 (EST)

::AugustO, the article states, "The global rate of M≥8 earthquakes has been at a record high roughly since 2004." Its conclusion that earthquakes have not been increasing based on its view that "no plausible physical mechanism predicts real changes in the underlying global rate of large events." They need to spend more time studying and learning from [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]. Of course there is a plausible mechanism: increased disorder affects the Earth just as it affects everything else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::Mr. Schlafly (Andy? What's the etiquette when user name = real name?), respectfully, I believe your short quotations from the abstract of the paper distort the context in which they were made. Here's the surrounding context:
{{cquote|We examine the timing of large (magnitude M ≥ 7) earthquakes from 1900 to the present, after removing local clustering related to aftershocks '''The global rate of M ≥ 8 earthquakes has been at a record high roughly since 2004''', but rates have been almost as high before, and the rate of smaller earthquakes is close to its historical average. Some features of the global catalog are improbable in retrospect, but so are some features of most random sequences—if the features are selected after looking at the data. For a variety of magnitude cutoffs and three statistical tests, the global catalog, with local clusters removed, is not distinguishable from a homogeneous Poisson process. Moreover, '''no plausible physical mechanism predicts real changes in the underlying global rate of large events.''' Together these facts suggest that the global risk of large earthquakes is no higher today than it has been in the past.}}
:::(your quotations emphasized). I believe their point is that it isn't enough to simply note that there have been more large earthquakes now than previously. In any random sequence there will always be some strange results, but we can't look at those anomalies in isolation. For example, if we flip a coin a thousand times and it's overall about 50-50, but the last 10 flips are all heads, we shouldn't immediately assume that the coin has recently become biased. Instead, we should consider the likelihood that chance alone could generate such a streak. I don't know enough about the math to evaluate their conclusion, but I think their premise is sound and I think you've mischaracterized it.--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 01:04, 21 December 2011 (EST)

:@Conservative: just take another course on statistics and you may find out the distinction between the Poisson distribution and a Poisson process.
:@Aschlafly: ''increased disorder affects the Earth just as it affects everything else'' that's not a ''plausible physical mechanism'', that's a philosophical statement.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:08, 21 December 2011 (EST)

::Entropy is physics, not philosophy. If you don't think increased disorder affects the [[Earth]], then please explain your view on whether [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::It also relates to the second law of Thermodynamics, which states that Entropy in a system must always increase. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:17, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::::Actually no; it states that entropy in a CLOSED system cannot DECREASE. It doesn't have to increase; it can remain constant. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 17:13, 22 December 2011 (EST)

*If I ask you: ''"How does a grandfather clock work?"'' and you answer with ''"gravity"'', you are somewhat right. But your answer isn't helpful, as you aren't describing a mechanism, you only invoke a general principle. That's not enough, a ''plausible physical mechanism'' has to be described in a little more detail. The same holds for answering the question: ''"What is the reason for earthquakes to occur?"'' with ''"entropy"''.
*Even though the the laws of thermodynamics hold, you can observe places on Earth where the entropy locally decreases - even without the help of an intelligent agent: Look a sky - do you see clouds? They show that water isn't distributed uniformly throughout the atmosphere. And even though there is the tendency to get to such a uniform distribution, we don't get rid of clouds. Why? Because new clouds are created. How do these abnormalities arise? Because there is an energy gradient, provided by the Sun, powering the water cycle.
*The same is true for processes in the Earth: here, an energy gradient is given by the radioactive elements.
*without these effects, the increasing entropy wouldn't result in more and bigger quakes, but in less and smaller, as disequilibria would be resolved over time.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:09, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:Are you saying that earthquakes are partly caused by radioactive decay? That's interesting. I thought convection currents were the main factor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:24, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::Indeed. But what creates the convection currents? The heat from within the Earth, mainly caused by radioactive decay. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:31, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:::August, increasing disorder affects all processes. I didn't see a response by you to my [[perpetual motion machine]] question. Earthquakes, regardless of their mechanism, reflect the truth that perpetual motion machines are impossible. The corollary is that earthquakes must be increasing, just as disorder does for an attempt at a perpetual motion machine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 22 December 2011 (EST)
:::::But earthquakes AREN'T increasing. They fluctuate from year to year but there just isn't a long-term increase. The trend is stable. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 14:02, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::::::Exactly. It doesn't seem very helpful to discuss ''how'' or ''why'' earthquakes are increasing in frequency before we determine ''whether'' or ''if'' they're increasing. And the paper cited by AugustO claims that there is no increase, despite recent appearances. So before we talk about radioactive decay or tectonics, we should decide if the study is to be trusted. If it is, there's little benefit to discussing mechanics. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 16:34, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::::In addition, the other examples August listed were not closed systems; tectonics is a closed system. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 12:13, 22 December 2011 (EST)
:::::No, it's not. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 12:44, 22 December 2011 (EST)
:::::Let me clarify: We have a heat source at the center of the Earth, resulting mainly from decay of radioactive nuclei. We also have a heat sink at the surface (dissipation of energy due to earthquakes, volcano eruptions, a bit of radiation, etc.). Tectonics is caused by the temperature gradient inbetween, an open system. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:39, 22 December 2011 (EST)

*''August, increasing disorder affects all processes.'' As does gravity. This is a general principle, to get a ''physical mechanism'' you need to fill in some details.
*''I didn't see a response by you to my [[perpetual motion machine]] question.'' I thought my remarks on entropy were clear enough. But let's get back to your question: '''If you don't think increased disorder affects the [[Earth]], then please explain your view on whether [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible.''' Of course, increasing disorder affects the Earth, just not the way you imagine it. [[Perpetual motion machine]]s aren't possible. But an isolated system doesn't become more violent over time, it becomes more boring :-) All the models of things which were thought to be perpetual mobiles by their creators slowly grind to an halt, they don't disrupt themselves in quakes.
*''The corollary is that earthquakes must be increasing, just as disorder does for an attempt at a perpetual motion machine.'' '''That's not a corollary, that is just wrong, and won't become true just by repeating it like a mantra.''' For an earthquake to happen, you have first to built up tension in a place - and that means lowering the entropy locally, using energy. When the earthquake happens, the energy stored is freed, entropy rises again.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:48, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:Entropy '''''does''''' cause disruptions to mechanical systems, and not simply due to friction and slowing down. Your comment acknowledges that entropy exists and that perpetual motion machines are impossible, but then stops short of recognizing '''''why'''''. The [[Earth]]'s rapidly rotating system and other internal dynamics must be increasingly disrupted by entropy, and that does not necessarily mean merely slowing down in a mostly frictionless atmosphere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:47, 26 December 2011 (EST)

::*''Entropy '''''does''''' cause disruptions to mechanical systems, and not simply due to friction and slowing down.'' Well, if I throw a grenade into the aforementioned grandfather-clock, we get a fine example of such a disruption. But machines (and mechanism) are generally not halted that way.
::*''Your comment acknowledges that entropy exists and that perpetual motion machines are impossible, but then stops short of recognizing '''''why'''''.'' Do you expect me to know ''why'' the laws of thermodynamics hold?
::*''The [[Earth]]'s rapidly rotating system and other internal dynamics must be increasingly disrupted by entropy, and that does not necessarily mean merely slowing down in a mostly frictionless atmosphere.'' Who says so? The Earth is gradually slowing down, the heating through radioactive elements is declining (though ever so slowly, as the half-lives of the elements involved are so great). Why do you expect a more volatile behavior? Again, simply saying ''"entropy"'' isn't enough, you should describe a mechanism: the current model of continental plates driven by convection currents doesn't lead to such a conclusion.
::*Will you ever give us a similar mechanism explaining what you think is an increase in the rate of earthquakes? I doubt it. It's like the whole sad [[User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive49#New_namespace_for_the_CBP|ἰδού-affair]]: you may have convinced yourself that you gave satisfying answers to all question, when in fact those were only superficial - or plain wrong (I'm still waiting for a scholarly source which backs up your translation!)
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:40, 26 December 2011 (EST)

:::Perpetual motion machines are not impossibly simply because of friction, or dispersion of energy. Disorder increases and that is the fundamental reason that perpectual motion machines are impossible. Many of the finest systems imaginable eventually fail for reasons unrelated to energy dispersion or friction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 1 January 2012 (EST)

::::Please give some examples! ¨[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:40, 2 January 2012 (EST)

===Conclusion===
*There is no evidence for a doubling of earthquakes every 40 years.
*In fact, there is evidence that the rate of major earthquakes hasn't changed over the last hundred years.
*Aschlafly's proposed ''"mechanism"'' (increasing entropy) wouldn't result in an increase of major earthquakes, so even from this ''"model"'' we wouldn't expect to see such an increase.

I alerted Aschlafly to these points (in my answer above) at his talk-page and he [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=947978&oldid=947963 is aware of this comment] ;-)

Now, I'll outcomment this ''"counterexample"''. Please keep in mind that deleting ''false'' information is not an act of censorship!

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:00, 26 December 2011 (EST)

[[User:ScottDG]] reverted my edit, stating: ''Open your mind, August. Aschlafly says so, that's good enough for me.'' I don't think that this is enough to justify the reversion of a well-substantiated edit. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:08, 26 December 2011 (EST)
:Is it just me or do "Open your mind" and "Aschlafly says so, that's good enough for me" seem to be a bit on the contradictory side? In any case well done for getting that incorrect claim out of the article, and let's hope it stays out. --[[User:Uxbridge|Uxbridge]] 13:49, 26 December 2011 (EST)

== Rates ==

I find it interesting to note that some of the attempts to disprove the Old Earth theory are based upon assuming that the rate by which various factors change are constant. This does seem troubling when a core element of a number of articles ([[Old Earth]], [[Age of the Earth]], etc) is an attack on the assumption that radioactive decay rates have been constant.

Just a few examples include: There's the assumption that the moon is receding from the Earth at a constant rate, that human intelligence has declined at a constant rate, that the rate of the decline of biodiversity on Earth has been constant, and that the rate at which land has fallen into the oceans has been constant. This does somewhat undermine the points this article is trying to make. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 11:48, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Dog Races ==

Dog races are somewhat artificial creations: a garden which isn't tended to runs to seed, a building not kept in shape becomes a ruin. Nothing of this is an example of an Old Earth, just for relatively recent neglect. That should be obvious.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:53, 11 January 2012 (EST)

== too many repeated removals of certain entries are being done; discuss first on talk page ==

The problem aren't the removals: these are generally discussed here on the talk-page. The real problem is the unilateral reinsertion of debunked examples without any discussion.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:56, 11 January 2012 (EST)

== Historical Counterexamples ==

''The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C.''

*There are tree rings which are older than 3000 B.C (see [[dendrochronology]]) - I think that for the [[bristlecone pine]]s you will find a fully anchored chronology of 8,500 years - going back to 6000 B.C.
*There are many reports about older clothing, woven textiles are date to be from 6000 B.C. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/13/science/site-in-turkey-yields-oldest-cloth-ever-found.html?pagewanted=all NYTimes 1993: Site in Turkey Yields Oldest Cloth ever Found]</ref>
*And there are other older remnants of civilizations, i.e. [[Lascaux]]

But of course you can claim that these things can't be dated probably, as no one of the contemporaries has ''written'' about them: this reduces your point to:

''The oldest written documents are no older than about 3000 B.C.''

I'll change the page accordingly. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:55, 29 January 2012 (EST)

:These claims that you cite are far from persuasive and even reinforce the underlying point: the oldest direct evidence of life is consistent with an Young Earth, not an Old Earth. Note that the NY Times had to run a correction on its story, and at any rate even it admitted that "no other piece of prehistoric cloth produced earlier than 6000 to 6500 B.C. had been found anywhere in the world."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:14, 29 January 2012 (EST)

::''Note that the NY Times had to run a correction on its story, '' That is misleading (at least), as the correction had nothing to do with the content of the article, but the illustration:
{{cquote|'''Correction:''''' July 19, 1993, Monday An artist's rendering in Science Times on Tuesday, showing the weaving method believed to have been used in the earliest known piece of cloth, depicted the pattern incorrectly. The pairs of weft, or horizontal, strands probably wound around each other as well as around the warp, or vertical, strands.}}
::Older clothing has been found, made from leather of fur. I just gave this example of woven cloth, which contradicts your statement in the article. Please change the article accordingly, as it is protected. Thanks.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:22, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:::I'm not aware of any "Old Earth" finds of '''''any''''' clothing, and your recent statement lacks sufficient detail or citation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:41, 30 January 2012 (EST)

'' your recent statement lacks sufficient detail or citation'' - as does your statement in the article, BTW! Could you add some? And have a look [http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2002/03/21/excavations-eastern-europe-reveal-ancient-human-lifestyles here]. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:49, 30 January 2012 (EST)

== References ==
<references />

== Earth's magnetic field ==

Mr. Schlafly, you wrote: "The magnetism of the Earth is vanishing so quickly that it will disappear in 1,500 to 2,000 years". I don't see how this contradicts the scientists' hypothesis that the Earth is billions of years old, since they think that the magnetic field regularly reverses itself [http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/ link source]. I think the readers would benefit from a clarification of this point. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:43, 27 April 2012 (EDT)
:Agreed. The article you cited, Mr. Schlafly, states that ''"this could imply a reversal of the Earth's magnetic fields"''.
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="border:1px dashed Gainsboro;margin:+.1em;width:20%"
|-
! style="border:1px solid lightgray;margin:+.1em;text-align:center;padding:+.2em" | [[user:Brenden|Brenden]].
|-
| style="padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
*[[Special:Contributions/Brenden|Contribs]]
*[[user talk:Brenden|talk]]
*[[Special:Log&user=Brenden|log]]
|} 14:00, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

::If magnetic fields would reverse themselves over thousands of years, then that is even more evidence for a young earth. Scientists think that many species, from turtles to birds, rely on a constant magnetic field to find their way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:09, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
:::What precludes the possibility that the population changes over time as the magnetic field slowly changes to adapt to the new magnetic field? [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:18, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::::Scientists claim that a moderate magnetic field is essential for many species to find their way around. If that magnetic field disappears, then those species go extinct. They wouldn't exist today. It's that simple.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:41, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::I'm no evolutionist, but Andy I think in this case you are severely underestimating nature's (God given) ability to adapt and find a way to survive.[[User:BruceDownUnder|BruceDownUnder]] 20:50, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::That "God given" ability requires a young Earth. Many, many species go extinct '''''every year''''' - something that is also downplayed by people who deny God's existence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::And many more continue to thrive, despite changes to their environment. I am surprised that you underestimate God's creation, Mr. Schlafly.[[User:BruceDownUnder|BruceDownUnder]] 22:06, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::I don't underestimate God's creation. [[Entropy]] is part of it; the [[Book of Hebrews (Translated)|Book of Hebrews]], perhaps the most intellectual book in all of history, explains that God created the earth and the universe to wear out. See [[Book of Hebrews (Translated)#1:10-11]]. God presumably does not plan to spend eternity on this particular creation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:21, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

== A mathematician's take ==

Hello,
I find this to be an interesting article, but I must take issue with the following claim:

<blockquote>
If each of 43 counterexamples has merely a 10% chance of being valid -- an underestimate -- then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 1%.
</blockquote>

I understand what you are trying to do here (0.9^43=0.01). However, you a making the assumption that all these observations are independent, when in reality, they are likely highly positively correlated. Instead of calculating Pr(A and B)=Pr(A)*Pr(B), you should be doing Pr(A and B)=Pr(A)*Pr(B|A).

For example, in this article, I count four entries in the "Geology" section that talk about the persistency of bodies of water. Under your math, these four alone indicate that there is only a 65% chance of an old earth. However, these three are likely to be highly, or even perfectly, correlated. If we assume they are all perfectly correlated (which they are not, but just for illustration), then there is a 90% chance of an old earth.

Another way of looking at it is from the other perspective. Let's say Radiocarbon dating and universe expansion calculations point to an old earth, and only have a 1% of being true. Under your math, their is only a 98% chance of a young earth. However, that means there is only a 99% chance of the earth being young OR old, but since those two events completely specify the probability space, it should be a 100% chance. But, since we are wrongly assuming independence, our math is wrong.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad point you are trying to make here. The math, however, is flat wrong, and we shouldn't give a quantification for something we have no way of quantifying.

Just my two cents. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 12:26, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

:You raise an interesting point; a lack of independence among variables does affect the probability of the outcome. But that effect is offset by the greater likelihood (more than 10%) that those indicators of a young earth are correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:11, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

::I would like to come in on the side of EricAlstrom here. For one thing, his analysis of your use of probability theory is bang on, and in no way does your response answer his points. Even deeper, your basis for "the likelihood of the counterexamples being greater than 10%" is based purely on your own opinion. Why exactly are these counterexamples more likely to be correct than radio carbon dating is to be false? [[User:DanPW| Dan W]]

== AGW if true, would prove a young earth ==

If the earths systems were so unstable that a very very small amount of carbon released by humans could disrupt them, then they could not have lasted billions of years. --[[User:HHB|HHB]] 13:44, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

== Only 99% certain? ==

I see you have doubts about your chosen theory Ashafly. I would have thought a Bible believing Christian like yourself would have no doubts about the Creation account as told in Genesis. What contradictions in the Bible have convinced you to believe that the Biblical account may not be 100% true? [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 15:29, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

:EJames, entries on a wiki are collaborative efforts. Also, this particularly entry does not utilize [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:55, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

::What do you mean? I don't understand about your statement about 'utilizing faith'. Is the Biblical account of Creation 100% true or not? If you feel you can't commit to 100% you must have serious doubts. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 16:11, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

Entropy

2012-05-02T00:15:11Z

DanPW: /* Entropy in Quantum Information Theory */

Entropy is a measure of disorder or information content in a system, first postulated by [[Lazare Carnot]] in 1803.

The [[second law of thermodynamics]] states that entropy will never decrease over time within a [[closed system]], defining a closed system as one in which neither matter nor energy may enter or leave.

Entropy is undeniable and yet creates perhaps insurmountable difficulties for many modern theories of physics. For example, it renders time asymmetric, resulting in an [[arrow of time]] that is difficult to reconcile with the [[theory of relativity]]. Entropy casts doubt on whether physical laws or the speed of light are invariant and perpetual.

==Definitions==
===Thermodynamic definition===
In classical [[thermodynamics]], if a small amount of energy dQ is supplied to a system from a reservoir held at temperature T, the change in entropy is given by

<math>
dS=\frac{dQ}{T}
</math>

For a measurable change between two states i and f this expression integrates to

<math>
\Delta S=\int_{i}^{f}\frac{dQ}{T}
</math>

===Statistical mechanics definition 1 (Boltzmann Entropy)===
If a system can be arranged in W different ways, the entropy is

<math> S= k_B \log W </math>

where <math>k_B</math> is Boltzmann's constant.

===Statistical mechanics definition 2 (Gibbs Entropy)===
Label the different states a thermodynamic system can be in by <math>i=1,2,3\ldots N</math>. If the probability of finding the system in state i is <math>p_i</math>, then the entropy is

<math>
S=-k_B \sum_{i=1}^N p_i \log p_i
</math>

where <math>k_B</math> is the Bolzmann constant. This definition is closely related to ideas in [[information theory]], where the definition of information content is very similar to the definition of entropy.

===Entropy in information Theory (Shannon Entropy) ===
For a [[discrete]] [[random variable]], entropy is defined as

<math>
H(X)=-\sum_{x\in \mathcal{X}} P(X=x)\log_2 \left(P(X=x)\right)
</math>

For a [[continuous]] [[random variable]], the analogous description for entropy, which in this case represents the number of bits necessary to quantize a signal to a desired accuracy, is given by

<math>
h(X)=-\int_{x\in \mathcal{X}} f_X (x) \log_2 \left(f_X (x)\right)
</math>

===Entropy in Quantum Information Theory (Von Neumann Entropy)===

In entangled systems, a useful quantity is the Von Neumann Entropy, defined (for a system with density matrix <math> \rho </math> by

<math>
H(\rho) = -\bold{Tr} \left( \rho \ln \rho \right)
</math>

where Tr() indicates taking the Trace of a matrix (the sum of the diagonal elements). This is a useful measure of entanglement, which is zero for a pure state, and maximal for a fully mixed state.

==See also==

* [[history of entropy|History of the development of entropy]]

==References==
<references/>
[[category:physics]]

Entropy

2012-05-02T00:14:48Z

DanPW: /* Entropy in information Theory */

Entropy is a measure of disorder or information content in a system, first postulated by [[Lazare Carnot]] in 1803.

The [[second law of thermodynamics]] states that entropy will never decrease over time within a [[closed system]], defining a closed system as one in which neither matter nor energy may enter or leave.

Entropy is undeniable and yet creates perhaps insurmountable difficulties for many modern theories of physics. For example, it renders time asymmetric, resulting in an [[arrow of time]] that is difficult to reconcile with the [[theory of relativity]]. Entropy casts doubt on whether physical laws or the speed of light are invariant and perpetual.

==Definitions==
===Thermodynamic definition===
In classical [[thermodynamics]], if a small amount of energy dQ is supplied to a system from a reservoir held at temperature T, the change in entropy is given by

<math>
dS=\frac{dQ}{T}
</math>

For a measurable change between two states i and f this expression integrates to

<math>
\Delta S=\int_{i}^{f}\frac{dQ}{T}
</math>

===Statistical mechanics definition 1 (Boltzmann Entropy)===
If a system can be arranged in W different ways, the entropy is

<math> S= k_B \log W </math>

where <math>k_B</math> is Boltzmann's constant.

===Statistical mechanics definition 2 (Gibbs Entropy)===
Label the different states a thermodynamic system can be in by <math>i=1,2,3\ldots N</math>. If the probability of finding the system in state i is <math>p_i</math>, then the entropy is

<math>
S=-k_B \sum_{i=1}^N p_i \log p_i
</math>

where <math>k_B</math> is the Bolzmann constant. This definition is closely related to ideas in [[information theory]], where the definition of information content is very similar to the definition of entropy.

===Entropy in information Theory (Shannon Entropy) ===
For a [[discrete]] [[random variable]], entropy is defined as

<math>
H(X)=-\sum_{x\in \mathcal{X}} P(X=x)\log_2 \left(P(X=x)\right)
</math>

For a [[continuous]] [[random variable]], the analogous description for entropy, which in this case represents the number of bits necessary to quantize a signal to a desired accuracy, is given by

<math>
h(X)=-\int_{x\in \mathcal{X}} f_X (x) \log_2 \left(f_X (x)\right)
</math>

===Entropy in Quantum Information Theory===

In entangled systems, a useful quantity is the Von Neumann Entropy, defined (for a system with density matrix <math> \rho </math> by

<math>
H(\rho) = -\bold{Tr} \left( \rho \ln \rho \right)
</math>

where Tr() indicates taking the Trace of a matrix (the sum of the diagonal elements). This is a useful measure of entanglement, which is zero for a pure state, and maximal for a fully mixed state.

==See also==

* [[history of entropy|History of the development of entropy]]

==References==
<references/>
[[category:physics]]

Entropy

2012-05-02T00:14:21Z

DanPW: /* Statistical mechanics definition 1 */

Entropy is a measure of disorder or information content in a system, first postulated by [[Lazare Carnot]] in 1803.

The [[second law of thermodynamics]] states that entropy will never decrease over time within a [[closed system]], defining a closed system as one in which neither matter nor energy may enter or leave.

Entropy is undeniable and yet creates perhaps insurmountable difficulties for many modern theories of physics. For example, it renders time asymmetric, resulting in an [[arrow of time]] that is difficult to reconcile with the [[theory of relativity]]. Entropy casts doubt on whether physical laws or the speed of light are invariant and perpetual.

==Definitions==
===Thermodynamic definition===
In classical [[thermodynamics]], if a small amount of energy dQ is supplied to a system from a reservoir held at temperature T, the change in entropy is given by

<math>
dS=\frac{dQ}{T}
</math>

For a measurable change between two states i and f this expression integrates to

<math>
\Delta S=\int_{i}^{f}\frac{dQ}{T}
</math>

===Statistical mechanics definition 1 (Boltzmann Entropy)===
If a system can be arranged in W different ways, the entropy is

<math> S= k_B \log W </math>

where <math>k_B</math> is Boltzmann's constant.

===Statistical mechanics definition 2 (Gibbs Entropy)===
Label the different states a thermodynamic system can be in by <math>i=1,2,3\ldots N</math>. If the probability of finding the system in state i is <math>p_i</math>, then the entropy is

<math>
S=-k_B \sum_{i=1}^N p_i \log p_i
</math>

where <math>k_B</math> is the Bolzmann constant. This definition is closely related to ideas in [[information theory]], where the definition of information content is very similar to the definition of entropy.

===Entropy in information Theory===
For a [[discrete]] [[random variable]], entropy is defined as

<math>
H(X)=-\sum_{x\in \mathcal{X}} P(X=x)\log_2 \left(P(X=x)\right)
</math>

For a [[continuous]] [[random variable]], the analogous description for entropy, which in this case represents the number of bits necessary to quantize a signal to a desired accuracy, is given by

<math>
h(X)=-\int_{x\in \mathcal{X}} f_X (x) \log_2 \left(f_X (x)\right)
</math>

===Entropy in Quantum Information Theory===

In entangled systems, a useful quantity is the Von Neumann Entropy, defined (for a system with density matrix <math> \rho </math> by

<math>
H(\rho) = -\bold{Tr} \left( \rho \ln \rho \right)
</math>

where Tr() indicates taking the Trace of a matrix (the sum of the diagonal elements). This is a useful measure of entanglement, which is zero for a pure state, and maximal for a fully mixed state.

==See also==

* [[history of entropy|History of the development of entropy]]

==References==
<references/>
[[category:physics]]

Entropy

2012-05-02T00:13:58Z

DanPW: /* Statistical mechanics definition 2 */

Entropy is a measure of disorder or information content in a system, first postulated by [[Lazare Carnot]] in 1803.

The [[second law of thermodynamics]] states that entropy will never decrease over time within a [[closed system]], defining a closed system as one in which neither matter nor energy may enter or leave.

Entropy is undeniable and yet creates perhaps insurmountable difficulties for many modern theories of physics. For example, it renders time asymmetric, resulting in an [[arrow of time]] that is difficult to reconcile with the [[theory of relativity]]. Entropy casts doubt on whether physical laws or the speed of light are invariant and perpetual.

==Definitions==
===Thermodynamic definition===
In classical [[thermodynamics]], if a small amount of energy dQ is supplied to a system from a reservoir held at temperature T, the change in entropy is given by

<math>
dS=\frac{dQ}{T}
</math>

For a measurable change between two states i and f this expression integrates to

<math>
\Delta S=\int_{i}^{f}\frac{dQ}{T}
</math>

===Statistical mechanics definition 1===
If a system can be arranged in W different ways, the entropy is

<math> S= k_B \log W </math>

where <math>k_B</math> is Boltzmann's constant.

===Statistical mechanics definition 2 (Gibbs Entropy)===
Label the different states a thermodynamic system can be in by <math>i=1,2,3\ldots N</math>. If the probability of finding the system in state i is <math>p_i</math>, then the entropy is

<math>
S=-k_B \sum_{i=1}^N p_i \log p_i
</math>

where <math>k_B</math> is the Bolzmann constant. This definition is closely related to ideas in [[information theory]], where the definition of information content is very similar to the definition of entropy.

===Entropy in information Theory===
For a [[discrete]] [[random variable]], entropy is defined as

<math>
H(X)=-\sum_{x\in \mathcal{X}} P(X=x)\log_2 \left(P(X=x)\right)
</math>

For a [[continuous]] [[random variable]], the analogous description for entropy, which in this case represents the number of bits necessary to quantize a signal to a desired accuracy, is given by

<math>
h(X)=-\int_{x\in \mathcal{X}} f_X (x) \log_2 \left(f_X (x)\right)
</math>

===Entropy in Quantum Information Theory===

In entangled systems, a useful quantity is the Von Neumann Entropy, defined (for a system with density matrix <math> \rho </math> by

<math>
H(\rho) = -\bold{Tr} \left( \rho \ln \rho \right)
</math>

where Tr() indicates taking the Trace of a matrix (the sum of the diagonal elements). This is a useful measure of entanglement, which is zero for a pure state, and maximal for a fully mixed state.

==See also==

* [[history of entropy|History of the development of entropy]]

==References==
<references/>
[[category:physics]]

Entropy

2012-05-02T00:11:57Z

DanPW: /* Definitions */

Entropy is a measure of disorder or information content in a system, first postulated by [[Lazare Carnot]] in 1803.

The [[second law of thermodynamics]] states that entropy will never decrease over time within a [[closed system]], defining a closed system as one in which neither matter nor energy may enter or leave.

Entropy is undeniable and yet creates perhaps insurmountable difficulties for many modern theories of physics. For example, it renders time asymmetric, resulting in an [[arrow of time]] that is difficult to reconcile with the [[theory of relativity]]. Entropy casts doubt on whether physical laws or the speed of light are invariant and perpetual.

==Definitions==
===Thermodynamic definition===
In classical [[thermodynamics]], if a small amount of energy dQ is supplied to a system from a reservoir held at temperature T, the change in entropy is given by

<math>
dS=\frac{dQ}{T}
</math>

For a measurable change between two states i and f this expression integrates to

<math>
\Delta S=\int_{i}^{f}\frac{dQ}{T}
</math>

===Statistical mechanics definition 1===
If a system can be arranged in W different ways, the entropy is

<math> S= k_B \log W </math>

where <math>k_B</math> is Boltzmann's constant.

===Statistical mechanics definition 2===
Label the different states a thermodynamic system can be in by <math>i=1,2,3\ldots N</math>. If the probability of finding the system in state i is <math>p_i</math>, then the entropy is

<math>
S=-k_B \sum_{i=1}^N p_i \log p_i
</math>

where <math>k_B</math> is the Bolzmann constant. This definition is closely related to ideas in [[information theory]], where the definition of information content is very similar to the definition of entropy.

===Entropy in information Theory===
For a [[discrete]] [[random variable]], entropy is defined as

<math>
H(X)=-\sum_{x\in \mathcal{X}} P(X=x)\log_2 \left(P(X=x)\right)
</math>

For a [[continuous]] [[random variable]], the analogous description for entropy, which in this case represents the number of bits necessary to quantize a signal to a desired accuracy, is given by

<math>
h(X)=-\int_{x\in \mathcal{X}} f_X (x) \log_2 \left(f_X (x)\right)
</math>

===Entropy in Quantum Information Theory===

In entangled systems, a useful quantity is the Von Neumann Entropy, defined (for a system with density matrix <math> \rho </math> by

<math>
H(\rho) = -\bold{Tr} \left( \rho \ln \rho \right)
</math>

where Tr() indicates taking the Trace of a matrix (the sum of the diagonal elements). This is a useful measure of entanglement, which is zero for a pure state, and maximal for a fully mixed state.

==See also==

* [[history of entropy|History of the development of entropy]]

==References==
<references/>
[[category:physics]]

British Broadcasting Corporation

2012-05-02T00:02:44Z

DanPW: /* Regional bias */

<big>''"The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias"''-</big> Andrew Marr- BBC reporter.

[[Image:BBC Logo 1997-Present.png|right|thumb]]
The '''British Broadcasting Corporation''' (BBC) is the major national public service broadcaster of the [[United Kingdom]]. It is the leading broadcaster in the UK and is the largest broadcaster in the world by audience figures.

BBC was given a royal charter in 1927 as a public body; it replaced a private, commercially run British Broadcasting Company, which began in 1922. The royal charter and license, constitute the BBC as a public corporation with a mandate to provide broadcasting as a public service. BBC is funded by an annual license fee levied on the majority of UK residents owning a television set regardless of income. The BBC's monopoly on lasted from 1922 until 1973 and the introduction of commercial radio. It monopolised television from 1936 to 1954, when the Television Act allowed for the establishment of commercial stations financed by spot advertising.

The BBC is criticised for political bias by members of the Conservative Party for particularly [[liberal]] ideology, and for being overly [[politically correct]] and overly supportive and selective in its coverage of the [[Labour Party]]. And likewise those in the Labour Party accuse it of having an inbuilt Conservative bias and being overtly hostile to the working class. Analysts have accused the numerous extremist links to this BBC indicates a possible propaganda media network connection to [[Al Qaeda]]. <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8472430/WikiLeaks-Leaked-files-accuse-BBC-of-being-part-of-a-possible-propaganda-media-network.html BBC part of 'possible propaganda media network', Telegraphe UK, April 25, 2011]</ref>

== Broadcasting ==
The BBC operates eight national television channels (nine including the High-Definition service- BBC HD)[http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/] in the UK and ten national radio stations[http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/]. Alongside these are its regional television services, which are variations of the national services, and separate regional radio stations.

The BBC produces many well-known television programmes, including ''The Ten O'Clock News'', ''Newsnight'', ''Question Time'', ''Eastenders'', ''Holby City'', ''Casualty'', ''Top Gear'', ''Match of the Day'', ''Have I Got News For You'' and ''Doctor Who''.

Its best known TV channels in the UK are BBC 1 and BBC 2. The other channels are broadcast as digital-only services and are available to owners of terrestrial digital receiving equipment. BBC 1 typically shows more mainstream programmes while BBC 2 has a reputation for more diversity and special interest content.

Outside the UK the best known service is the BBC World Service radio network which transmits in 33 languages to an estimated 163 million listeners a week[http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/05_may/21/global.shtml]. The BBC operates a number of commercially-funded international television channels including BBC World, the international news channel.

== Funding ==
The BBC is a Crown corporation supported by a licensing fee applied to television owners<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/</ref> of £135.50 (about $250 ) per year. All owners of TV receiving equipment are obliged to pay the fee whether they watch BBC content or not. As such the license fee is often criticised as being a tax.

BBC programming is free of commercial advertising. However, it has some obligations to transmit statements by political parties and it advertises its own programmes. BBC channels transmitted in the UK are nevertheless free of commercial advertising - with the exception of sporting events, during which it is still permitted to display commercial advertising. Cricket matches were a previous source of contention as adverts projected onto the field of play are only visible to television viewers. This results in much greater non-advertising broadcasting time and uninterrupted broadcast of feature films. However, since the funding is determined by the government, the BBC can be slow to criticise those in power. This arrangement means the government has to do very little to apply pressure on the BBC and often the BBC will self regulate in favour of the government without any formal instruction being given.<ref>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldbbc/50/5006.htm</ref> This in turn leads to the government and the BBC being able to declare independence and neutrality officially, while in reality this is far from the case.

Whilst there is a vocal minority campaign to have the BBC changed into a commercial company, this appears highly unlikely to happen.

== Ownership ==
The BBC is an independent body which is held in trust for the British people. The BBC was most recently given a ten-year royal charter in 2006 that defines its purposes and allows it to act somewhat autonomously, free from commercial and government influence.

Control rests with the 12-person BBC Trust, which replaced the Board of Governors in 2007. Trust members are paid and are appointed by the British prime minister and are supposed to represent the interests of a broad cross-section of the British listening and viewing public. Day-to-day management is handled by the board of management, headed by the director general; its members are appointed by the board of governors.

==BBC News==
BBC News and Current Affairs is the largest news organisation in the world. It has at least 2,000 journalists and 44 news-gathering bureaus, three in the UK and 41 overseas. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/] It produces some 120 hours of news broadcasts daily.

News programmes are produced for both TV and radio stations. Much of the TV news programming is delivered in a few major news bulletins throughout the day, the most recognised of which is the flagship Ten O'Clock News in the evening on BBC1. On BBC radio, news is delivered in mostly smaller segments on the hour or half hour. However, the Today programme on Radio 4 is broadcast from 7am to 9am and is often considered the most influential news broadcast in the UK.

News produced by the BBC is made available and archived on the BBC news website.

==Internet==
The BBC has a news and archive website, one of the top twenty most popular English language websites. Like its TV and radio broadcasting it is not allowed to show advertising if the site is viewed from within the UK. This has prompted some criticism from within the BBC as it means funds from the licensing fee used for the website are not available for TV and radio programming. However, some costs of the site are now, since late 2007, offset by advertising to non-UK based visitors to the site.

Competitors have also criticised the BBC website due to its ability to fund itself non-commercially without advertising to the detriment of its commercial competitors such as on-line versions of national newspapers and other news broadcasters such as Sky and ITN.
==History==
From its inception in 1922, J. C. W. Reith, the first director-general of the BBC, envisioned the organisation as an integral advocate of patriotism and the empire at home.

===Second World War===
From June 1940 to March 1941, the writer J. B. Priestley (1894-1984), broadcast a widely popular series of Sunday-night radio talks, 'Postscripts to the News.' He became the best known, most gifted, and probably most popular BBC commentator, for he had caught the mood of the British people during the Battle of Britain and the Blitz. His forced departure was controversial and harmful to the BBC. Priestley blamed Prime Minister Churchill's negative reaction to his left-wing views on postwar reconstruction. Actually his firing was mainly due to Ministry of Information and BBC reluctance to allow an extended forum to a 'demagogic' personality who might attract a personal following, as [[Father Coughlin]] had done in the United States in the 1930s. The upshot was employment of a wider range of speakers and careful avoidance of controversy.

The BBC played a major role in promoting the British Empire worldwide during [[World War II|The Second World War, 1939-45]]. The BBC became the voice of Britain, reflecting as well as constructing the nation's history, culture, and tradition. At first the BBC worked aggressively to deflect criticism and insure that the Empire appeared as a source of strength. It presented British imperialism as a benefit to both Britain and the colonised areas. However, as the war progressed and postwar objectives became a concern, the focus of the BBC expanded to include the importance of maintaining Britain as an imperial power.<ref> Thomas Hajkowski, "The BBC, the Empire, and the Second World War, 1939-1945," ''Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television'' 2002 22(2): 135-155 </ref>

Special programs were directed to peoples controlled by the Nazis; listening to the short-wave broadcasts was illegal but widespread. The German-language Austrian Service was directed by Patrick Smith, who emphasised the 'separateness' of Austria from Germany and on 'freedom and independence' as the Austrian goal. As victory approached the BBC stressed the need for Austrians themselves to take part in their own liberation. There were interviews with Austrian prisoners of war held in Britain.

Until 1944, broadcasts by the BBC's Hungarian service avoided describing the plight of the Jews in Hungary for fear that it would create an anti-Semitic backlash against one of the few Jewish populations in Europe which, though persecuted, was still allowed to live. Shortly after the Nazi occupation of Hungary in March 1944 the rounding up and deporting of Jews to death camps began. For the next four months, until Hungarian regent Horthy suspended the deportations, the Hungarian service repeatedly broadcast news of the deportation of Jews and urged Hungarians to obstruct, delay, and hinder the deportations in the name of humanity and Hungarian patriotism. Altering BBC Hungarian service policies regarding the Final Solution would perhaps have done little to slow the [[Holocaust]] in Hungary.<ref> Gabriel Milland, "The BBC Hungarian Service and the Final Solution in Hungary," ''Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television'' 1998 18(3): 353-373 online in [[EBSCO]]</ref> The BBC Home Service rarely mentioned the massacre of Jews for many reasons, including the restraints formally imposed by a government at war, the notions that such reports simply would not be believed (or, being incomprehensible, written off as propaganda) or might spur a latent anti-Semitism, and the fact that people were not interested in gloomy stories but wanted to hear about the war effort.<ref>Jeremy D. Harris, "Broadcasting the Massacres: an Analysis of the BBC's Contemporary Coverage of the Holocaust." ''Yad Vashem Studies'' 1996 25: 65-98 </ref>

===Cultural Impact===
====Monopoly years====
As the only TV broadcaster until the mid 1950s and only radio broadcaster until the mid 1970s, the BBC had a monopoly hold on British electronic media. As such its content was highly influential.

'Children's Hour', begun in the late 1920s, was intended as a medium for democracy and the production of exemplary citizens through the dissemination of idealised middle-class values. In time, this approach proved to be out of touch with the listening habits and working class context of many 'Children's Hour' listeners.

Music broadcasts for schools were begun in 1924, and did much to disseminate new ideas, especially through 'music and movement' programs and the enormously popular 'Singing Together' during the Second World War. However, the more formal programs, designed to teach the rudiments of music and notation, were less successful, and Sir Walford Davies's idea of tune building by children was abandoned in 1934. Radio's ability to teach music formally appeared severely limited, and serious doubts as to its precise function in relationship to music teachers were constantly voiced and never answered.<ref>Gordon Cox, "School Music Broadcasts and the BBC 1924-47," ''History of Education'' 1996 25(4): 363-371 online in [[EBSCO]]</ref>

Scottish broadcasters forged a unique and specifically Scottish tradition of radio programming in the 1920s, led by the Aberdeen studies of the BBC. However its role was weakened by a policy of centralisation in London after 1932. Radio drama based on collaboration with local theatre companies was especially strong, included much original work, and made a major contribution to the development of professional theatre in Scotland. The centralisation of radio broadcasting in London reflected the shift in the organisation of the British state toward greater involvement in the everyday lives of its citizens during the interwar years.<ref> Adrienne Scullion, "BBC Radio in Scotland, 1923-1939: Devolution, Regionalism and Centralisation." ''Northern Scotland'' 1995 15: 63-93 </ref>
====Competitive years====
Since the late 1970s the BBC, while exposed to high volumes and variable quality of competition, has remained popular with the British public and its cultural influence is still a major force. The BBC is considered the default choice by many when viewing major events such as breaking news or state occasions, even though competitors may be broadcasting the same content.

The BBC has had enormous influence over British attitudes to not just politics but also comedy, [[multiculturalism]], travel, natural history, international culture, popular trends, fashion and even the way the British speak. Through its foreign broadcasts on the BBC World Service, it has also had significant cultural influence outside the UK.

==Accusations of Bias==

The BBC has a long history of being criticised for bias. As well as persistent criticisms of [[liberal bias]], it also receives accusations of cultural [[bias]], regional bias, [[political correctness]], bias towards multiculturalism and minority interests, as well as both pro- and anti-government bias.

The BBC is often accused of right-wing bias by those on the left and of left-wing bias by those on the right. This is sometimes attributed to UK governments of either persuasion simply objecting to negative reporting of its policies. However, it is also common for opposition to the government to be critical of the BBC. In some cases, the BBC can be subject to criticism from both sides citing bias in favour of their opposition, as in its reporting of the war in Iraq.

While the BBC had been accused of bias many times in its history, a liberal bias became prevalent during the reign of Prime Minster [[Margaret Thatcher]], likely as a direct result of her government's efforts to streamline the corporation and make it more efficient. Before her reign, the BBC's overall ideology had fluctuated quite often between being pro-Conservative and pro-Liberal, mostly depending on which party was in power.

===Bias against the US and Israel===
Although its charter requires it to be impartial, critics often accuse it of bias against [[United States]] and [[Israel]],<ref>http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/index.html</ref> and because of these complaints of bias, an internal investigation was conducted on the BBC's coverage of the [[Arab-Israeli conflict]]. However, after the investigation was completed, BBC officials decided to withhold the 20,000-word report of the investigation, compiled in 2004 by senior editorial adviser Malcolm Balen. Steven Sugar, a Jewish critic of the BBC, attempted to get access to the report under the 2000 Freedom of Information Act, but was denied by the High Court of England and Wales. The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, backed the BBC's decision to block access to the report, but the information tribunal ruled on appeal in August, 2006, in favour of Steven Sugar. Still, the BBC argued at the High Court in London that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the case, and the High Court ruled in favour of the BBC on April 28, 2007. The BBC maintains that the internal investigation found no deliberate or systematic bias. Conservative MP David Davies commented: "An organisation which is funded partly to scrutinise governments and other institutions in Britain appears to be using tax-payers' money to prevent its customers from finding out how it is operating. That is absolutely indefensible" and called the BBC's actions a "shameful hypocrisy". It has been estimated that the BBC has spent around £200,000 - £300,000 on the case so far.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2044130,00.html</ref>
<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2067542,00.html</ref>

In 2003, Media Tenor, an independent, Bonn-based research group, conducted a study and found that the BBC’s Middle East coverage was 85 percent negative, 15 percent neutral, and 0 percent positive toward Israel.<ref>“Beeb Outdoes Itself”, Tzvi Fleischer, The Review, September 2003, p. 8.</ref>

During a 2006 internal "impartiality summit", BBC executives said they would happily broadcast an image of a [[Bible]] being thrown away, but would not do the same with a [[Koran]].<ref>[[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411977/Yes-biased-religion-politics-admit-BBC-executives.html]]</ref> At the summit, the BBC's Washington correspondent Justin Webb also accused the executives of being anti-American, saying they treated the nation with scorn and derision and no moral weight.

On June 15, 2007, BBC drew criticism due to their apology over calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel.<ref>http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181813036973&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull</ref> The incident is one of many examples of repeated and systematic anti-Israeli bias from the BBC over a number of years.

However, the BBC was also criticised by some for refusing to show a Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for Gaza following the fighting in the region in December 2008 - January 2009. <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/4789700/BBC-Trust-chairman-attacks-politicians-over-Gaza-appeal-pressure.html</ref>

===Liberal bias===
Details of the BBC's alleged bias were further tabled in an official report<ref>'''Revoir, Paul''', ''BBC comes under fire for institutional Left-wing bias'' [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=462679&in_page_id=1770&ct=5 Daily Mail] June 18, 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/nbbc217.xml BBC report finds bias within corporation], Gary Cleland,''Telegraph'', June 18, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/13530 BBC Report: Network’s Bias Due to 'The Inherent Liberal Culture of its Staff’], Noel Sheppard, [[NewsBusters]], June 17, 2007</ref> - in preparation since 2005 - which found that the BBC:
*has an "institutional Left-wing bias" (its 'Play for Today' series in the 1960s/70s was known as the '[[Trotskyist|Trot]] Slot')
*has "a tendency to 'group think' with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone."
*promotes anti-Christian sentiment
*promotes anti-American sentiment
*allows schedules to be "hijacked by special interest groups promoting trendy issues"
*over-represents homosexuals
*over-represents ethnic minorities
*fails to reflect the views of the [[British]] public on issues such as [[capital punishment]]
*fails to reflect the broader views of British people
*fails to reflect concerns about pornography and family-unfriendly broadcasting (1960s Director General Hugh Carleton-Greene notoriously refused ever to meet broadcasting standards campaigner [[Mary Whitehouse]] and would commonly refer to her in opprobrious terms)
*allows itself to be used by "sinister" campaign groups
*finds it difficult to understand there may be alternative views of the world

[[Antony Jay]], a former producer on Tonight, a nightly BBC current affairs television programme, said the BBC News and Current Affairs are part of the "liberal media consensus". Jay also said his ex-colleagues "were anti-industry, anti-capitalism, anti-advertising, anti-selling, anti-profit, anti-patriotism, anti-monarchy, anti-Empire, anti-police, anti-armed forces, anti-bomb, anti-authority. Almost anything that made the world a freer, safer and more prosperous place, you name it, we were anti it." <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/14114 Former BBC Producer Explains Why Media Are Liberally Biased], Noel Sheppard, [[NewsBusters]], July 15, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/14/nbeeb314.xml&page=1 Here is the news (as we want to report it)], [[Telegraph]], July 15, 2007</ref>Paul Dacre, the editor of the British newspaper, the [[Daily Mail]], in his January 2007 Hugh Cudlipp Memorial Lecture, said that "the BBC is, in every corpuscle of its corporate body, against the values of conservatism, with a small 'c', which just happen to be the values held by millions of Britons." He also accused the BBC of being hostile to the "traditional Right, Britain's past and British values, America, Ulster Unionism, Euro-scepticism, capitalism and big business, the countryside, Christianity and family values."

A survey of BBC employees with profiles on the [[Facebook]] site showed that 11 times more of them class themselves as "[[liberal]]" than "[[conservative]]". <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/10/27/facebook-provides-fascinating-glimpse-society-media-demographics Facebook Provides Fascinating Glimpse Into Society, Media Demographics], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], October 27, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490047&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490 Facebook reveals the BBC as a liberal hotbed], Jane Merrick and Kirsty Walker, [[Daily Mail]], October 27, 2007</ref>

===Regional bias===
The BBC is based in [[London]], in the South East of England. It often faces accusations of being London-centric, with events in the North of England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland having a reduced profile. A perceived disproportionately private school education is often claimed to be illustrated in the output, with a disproportionate emphasis on private school events and sports. Recently, this London emphasis is shifting, with many high profile BBC programs including Doctor Who being produced in Wales<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/arts/map/doctor-who-wales/</ref>, and production of some programs and channels being moved to Salford in 2012. <ref>http://www.mediacityuk.co.uk/</ref>

It is also argued that the BBC also systematically discriminates against [[Scots]] speakers. Although over 1.5 million<ref>[http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/SLF/EngluVglSW/schule25.pdf Language Policy in Scotland and Northern Ireland]</ref> people speak it there is no service in the language of those licence fee payers<ref>[http://www.scotslanguage.com/article/Trust_the_BBC%3F.html/translate/english Trust the BBC?]</ref><ref>[http://www.artscouncil-ni.org/departs/all/report/research/art_of_ulster_scots.rtf BBC NI less than generous]</ref>. Supporters of the BBC and some linguists argue that the large number of regional dialects of Scots makes it no more viable to programme for the language than it would be with English<ref>[http://www.eng.umu.se/city/Fredrik/city/scottish.htm Scottish Dialects and Accents]</ref>. In September 2008, the BBC launched BBC Alba, a [[Gaelic]] service consisting of a digital TV channel, a radio station and an online portal<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/alba/</ref>.

===Other===
BBC employees have changed [[Wikipedia]] entries, including a derogatory word in the entry for [[George W. Bush]] and changing the word “[[Terrorism|terrorists]]” to "[[freedom fighter]]s". <ref>[http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26669&only&rss Wikipedia EditGate: BBC Edits], [[LittleGreenFootballs]], August 15, 2007</ref>

The BBC cancelled the commission for a 90-minute drama about Britain's youngest surviving Victoria Cross hero because it feared it would alienate members of the audience opposed to the war in Iraq.
<ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/11982 BBC Cancels TV Movie On Iraq War Hero As 'Too Positive,' Would 'Alienate' War Opponents], Lynn Davidson, [[NewsBusters]], April 11, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/08/wiraq308.xml Hero's tale is 'too positive' for the BBC], Chris Hastings, [[Telegraph]], July 4, 2007</ref>

The BBC funded a [[Paintball|paintballing]] trip for men later accused of [[Islamic terrorism]] and didn't pass on information about the 21/7 [[Terrorism|bombers]] to [[police]]. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/12/06/paintball-terrorists-bbc-paid-islamic-radical Paintball for Terrorists? BBC Paid for Islamic Radicals' Amusement], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], December 6, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=499795&in_page_id=1770 BBC 'funded paintballing trip for Islamic terrorists and didn't pass on information about 21/7 bombers'], Daniel Bates, [[Daily Mail]], December 5, 2007</ref>

[[Pauline Neville Jones]], who is a member of [[United Kingdom|Britain's]] [[British_politics#Conservatives|Conservative party]], a former [[Espionage|spy]] chief and former BBC governor, accused the BBC of "parroting" [[Al Qaeda]] [[propaganda]] to [[children]]. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/09/29/bbc-still-blaming-u-s-9-11 BBC Still Blaming U.S. for 9/11], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], September 29, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=484577&in_page_id=1770 BBC's Newsround fed youngsters Al Qaeda propaganda, claims ex-spy chief], James Chapman , [[Daily Mail]], September 29, 2007</ref>

==External Links==
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/ BBC official site]
*[http://www.tvlicensing.biz/ BBCresistance - Campaigns against the television licence]
*[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article1942930.ece Bias at the Beeb - official], June 17, 2007, ''UK Times Online''.
*[http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ Biased BBC]
==Bibliography==
* Briggs, Asa, and Peter Burke. '' A Social History of the Media: From Gutenberg to the Internet'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Social-History-Media-Gutenberg-Internet/dp/0745623751/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197415587&sr=1-10 excerpt and text search]
* Briggs Asa. ''The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom'' (Oxford University Press, 1961).
** Briggs Asa. '' History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume I: The Birth of Broadcasting'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Broadcasting-United-Kingdom-Birth/dp/0192129260/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197415587&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
** Briggs Asa. '' History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume II: The Golden Age of Wireless,'' (1995)
** Briggs Asa. ''History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume III: The War of Words'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Broadcasting-United-Kingdom-Words/dp/0192129562/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197415587&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]
** Briggs Asa. ''The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, Volume IV: Sound & Vision'' (1979)
** Briggs Asa. ''History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume V: Competition'' (1995)
* Crisell, Andrew ''An Introductory History of British Broadcasting.'' 2nd ed. London: Routledge. (2002)
* Nicholas, Siân. ''The Echo of War: Home Front Propaganda and the Wartime BBC, 1939-45.'' (1996) 307p.
* Hickman, Tom. ''What Did You Do in the War, Auntie? The BBC at War, 1939-45.'' (1995) 224p.
* Scannell, Paddy, and Cardiff, David. ''A Social History of British Broadcasting, Volume One, 1922-1939'' (Basil Blackwell, 1991).
* Smith, Anthony, and Richard Paterson. ''Television: An International History'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Television-International-History-Anthony-Smith/dp/0198159285/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197416369&sr=1-6 excerpt and text search]

{{Liberalism}}
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
* [http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ Biased BBC]

[[Category:Broadcasters]][[Category:Television]][[Category:Radio]]