Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:E=mc²

2012-04-05T21:05:51Z

DenisTR: /* Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman */

==I'm Finding This a Little Hard to Understand==
First off, E = mc2 describing a relationship between energy and matter is only one corollary. It is also part of a well known problem in chemistry... Or is isotopic mass not less than the sum of it's parts? The equation itself HAS been derived from the Theory of Relativity, and is a direct consequence of the energy momentum four vector for an object with 0-momentum. The quote you provide from the paper states that the theory is not enough for a rigorous PROOF, but it never tries to deny the derivability of the equation. Derivation and proof are two entirely different things.

==This Article Could Use Sources or Better Explanation==
Wow. Classic Andy. Unsourced statements supposedly contradicting well-established theories of physics. No real proof other than "the Bible says it's not true," even though this is an extremely uncommon interpretation Genesis. --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 01:06, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:It's a start for now, and will expand over time. That's how wikis work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:18, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::Doesn't it relate energy to mass? The speed of light is just a constant here. [[User:IanR|IanR]] 02:22, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

== Humbug ==

The phrase ''meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement '' (as used in the article) fits the first paragraph to a t.

Aschlafly, please try to refute the explanation of the experiments of John Cockroft and Ernest Walton, which is accepted generally under physicists. And try to give some sources - or if not, some of your own calculations!

If not, just erase the first section.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:23, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

== Nobel Lecture ==

I took out the link to the Nobel lecture, it can be found in the short summary. But be aware that John Cockroft is using the dreaded formula with ease (but without stating so explicitly - why should he, it's already generally accepted!) An astute reader, who not only searches for the formula finds e.g., the formulation:

:'''This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass units.'''

Indeed, these are the ≈ 17MeV!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:51, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

==Irrelevant claims==
Are these claims of so called "experimental verification" valid or useful? If you look at enough so-called science you can find people claiming anything. --[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 12:59, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:''you can find people claiming anything'' Indeed - and that's why there is a difference between the unsubstantiated claims in the first section, and the actual experiments in the following paragraphs. If you have a good explanation of the outcome of these experiments (some math would be nice), feel free to add your personal ''claim''.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:03, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::Why do you feel that I need to do that? I understand that you may wish to believe relativity is true, but that is no reason to impose your personal beliefs on others.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 13:40, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::Thinking that all claims have the same validity seems not a very conservative position. I don't expect you to accept my personal beliefs, but there is a tendency in physics that the claims which are backed up by those willing to do the experiments and the maths have a greater following than random insights. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:47, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::I don't understand why your personal beliefs are even included in the article.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 13:58, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::*Because they are bolstered by experiments...
:::::*...and they aren't just my beliefs - in fact it will be very hard to find a physicist who doesn't share them. And that's something which shouldn't be easy to ignore in an article on a physical subject.
:::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::If science is your religion then you will find scientists who share your views. I still don't see why they should be hosted here. The introduction makes the Biblical position clear.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 14:07, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Religion is my religion, science is my hobby. And just because there is one single interpretation of a few verses of Genesis out there which you think to contradict the experiments of the physicists doesn't shatter my religious beliefs nor my trust in physics. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::::Then why do you insist with this anti-religious pseudoscience?--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 14:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
← Now you have intrigued me: what's your definition of pseudoscience? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:45, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

Pssst! DavidEdwards! You're trying waaaaay too hard. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 21:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:Too hard about what?
:As far as the pseudoscience question is concerned - "science" which is used to promote a worldview which has no basis in moral reality is pseudoscience. Science which is designed to suggest that morality is relative clearly falls into this category.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 18:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

==Question==
This snipet of sentence appears in the introduction: "...''a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory.''" Let's compare that to the entire sentence it was lifted from: "'''''Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally,''' a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory.''" One can't help but notice that the part of the sentence that states that the theory has been observed to be valid in real world experimentation, has been surgically removed. Why is this? Is it because it stands in contradiction to the claim the lead author of this article is trying to promulgate? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 20:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:Peer-reviewed journals won't publish a criticism of relativity. That's obvious. Although I don't have a copy of the full paper, I doubt it attempts to fully support the [[hearsay]] that was excluded, and I would not be surprised if it was included simply to safeguard against complaints for what followed. It adds nothing to the basic point that follows and is quoted here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::Why won't a peer-reviewed journal publish a criticism of SR or GR? Liberal conspiracy? Also, do you not accept that mass and energy are interchangeable or is it a problem with this specific equation? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 21:24, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::JoshuaB, do you accept the possibility that the [[Theory of Relativity]] may be false, and would you approve a well-written paper that criticized it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Yes. We already know the Theory of Relativity is an incomplete model of our universe. So yes, the theory may be "false", but the one that takes it's place will most likely have many of the same properties. Secondly, would I approve of a "well-written paper that criticized it"? I don't know what that means. I'm not a physicist, so I don't see what difference my "approval" of said paper would make. Now that I've been so kind as to answer your questions, would you return the courtesy and answer the ones I posted above? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 22:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::The qualifications on your answer render it almost meaningless. I'm not asking whether your approval of a paper would make a difference, or your opinion about whether you think the replacement of the [[Theory of Relativity]] will "most likely" be another theory of relativity. The question was simple and straightforward, referring to a paper critical of the theory of relativity without any appeasement to those who insist on believing in it. An unqualified answer is requested.

:::::Also, did you ever answer my simple question on [[Talk:Main Page]] about how much time you've spent reading the [[Bible]] this month?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::Come off it Schlafly. This article is not about my Bible reading, is it? No. Does my opinion of the publishing criteria of physics academia have any bearing on the assertions you are trying make? No. Again: Do you not accept that mass and energy are interchangeable or is it a problem with this specific equation? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 23:11, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::Andy, do you accept the possibility that the Theory of Relativity may be correct, and would you approve a well-written paper or book that supported it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:28, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Some points ==

*''Misplaced claims of experimental verification'': if you want to put on the disclaimer ''misplaced'', please explain the results of the experiments in another way.
*''Why won't a peer-reviewed journal publish a criticism of SR or GR?'' But they do: remember the neutrino thing? Or the papers of H. Ives? In fact the first event has shown that especially the publication of experiments (seemingly) violating currently accepted theories gets attention!
*Taking only the second half of ''"Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."'' makes you looking deceptive. Take the whole sentence and try to explain the motivation of the first half. Otherwise anyone who looks the quote up will suspect an ulterior motive!
*The whole first section is a train wreck.
*''[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of [[gravity]].'' Only when you accept the general theory of relativity it is, otherwise inertial mass and gravitational mass are quite different animals.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:46, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::I have attempted to clarify the last point on the [[Mass]] page, and also removed the fact template from the first paragraph, since the explanation is given later on. As it stood, the "citation needed" banners following important points tended to undercut the authority of the article.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:29, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::The problem is not a confusion of weight and mass, but the conflation of gravitational and inertial mass. In the classical theory, there is no reason why both should be the same, it's just an experimental fact.
::So, I'm sorry, your new entry didn't help.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::But they always are the same, aren't they? I don't see why knowing or not knowing the reason (yet) has any bearing on the question.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:43, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly writes: ''Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of gravity. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity.''
::::E=mc² isn't about gravity, to invoke it here is a deflection. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:49, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::::: OK. But bear in mind that this page clearly exists to provide a counterweight to certain liberal views. To do that, clarity of message is needed, and a "citation needed" banner has a deflating effect on the strength of that clarity. So perhaps you could suggest a wording that might be acceptable without the "citation needed" bit?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:03, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

No, I can't. Frankly, I don't see the clarity in this piece: at the moment, it is still sadly missing. So I hope, that Aschlafly taking care of the fact-tags (other then trimming them away) will add to this clarity! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:13, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman ==

Try to explain a complicated formula in 1-2min, then have a single sentence of this soundbit taken out. You can bet that this may sound meaningless. That's no fault of the formula. I'll change the title back. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:58, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:The quotes (and others that could be added) illustrate how meaningless the formula is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::The quotes illustrate how difficult it is to explain the concept to a layman. Take a look [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/expe-text.html here], where you can find the quotes in context. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:16, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::The quotes were solicited to describe the meaning of the equation to laymen, not to illustrate how difficult that is. The difficulty arises from the meaningless nature of the equation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::Actually the meaning of the equation is very clear: the total energy contained in matter is its mass multiplied by the speed of light in a vaccum squared. Experiment after experiment, and nuclear reactor after nuclear reactor, has clearly demonstrated that the total energy released by a reaction is the lost mass multiplied by c2. Therefore whether the theories of relativity are true or not, E=mc2 is true. Equally, even if classical Newtonian mechanics was false, the kinetic energy of a moving mass would still be accurately described by Ek=1/2mv2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:34, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::::Indeed. Internet quotes are really not very useful. A skilled researcher can always find someone saying something to justify their position however bizarre or immoral. This is a typical weakness (and response!) of those who have no real moral or religious basis for their convictions. --[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 19:04, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::These quotes are absolutely meaningless. It looks like you took random sentences from the PBS article and then inserted them into the article as if they had any real significance. This is made even more moot when you consider the fact that the article claims that "Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc²" and then you go on to quote three. Not to mention, most of the quotes aren't actually explaining what the equation means - a basic understanding of algebra and what the symbols mean is sufficient to understand its basic meaning - but rather what it entails, its implications. Tim Halpin-Healy's quote I think is better than taking some random sentences and then implying that they mean that physicists don't know what E=mc² means. --[[User:Tyg13|Tyg13]] 15:58, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::The problem is that '''E=m2does not meaning anythimg that makes sense. Anyone is welcome to try to explain it here. Eating a pound of cake does not cause one's energy to increase by the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:06, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::No, it doesn't. It causes your energy to increase by a number of foot-pounds equal to '''one pound''' times the speed of light squared. I've explained this to you already and it isn't difficult. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:23, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::The equation is essentially just a conversion ratio, its not difficult to understand that units of energy (Whether it is Joules, pound-foot, or erg) look essentially like a velocity squared times a mass (in SI units - kg m^2/s^2) this is not relativity or theory dependent, its the definition of Energy. The Special Relativistic analysis that results in the basic equation just determines that the conversion ratio is precisely that universal constant '''c''' in whatever units are convenient. There is no blindingly obvious or intuitive reason why this SHOULD be the case (conceivably the conversion ratio could have any number of complicated dimensionless constants in front), but basic mathematical logic allows us to derive this simple relationship from the postulates of Special Relativity. That being said, its a rather useless equation on everyday scales. In reality, after consuming a pound of cake your body begins to break down the chemical bonds in the sugars/fats/proteins to extract usable energy, about 1500 food calories worth of it. If you had a precise enough scale and could somehow keep a human in a hermetically sealed bag that prevents the escape of any moisture/gas etc. you would be able to measure that after consuming and digesting the cake your bodyweight would not be +1 lb, but about 70 pg (picograms - 10^-12 grams) less, so if you weighed 150.0lb and ate a pound of cake (total of 151lb), after digestion you would actually weigh 70pg less than 151lb. It is important to note that this "mass" isn't "lost" it is merely the "weight" of the energy stored in the chemical bonds, in other words in a pound of cake there is (1lb - 70pg) of stuff and 70pg worth of "chemical energy" with a conversion ratio of c^2. If you had some magic machine that could convert mass to energy at 100% efficiency the detonation of a body sized bomb would release 20 times more energy than the largest nuclear weapon detonated by man kind, however due to the nature of nuclear transitions/processes such a 100% conversion rate is not possibe . On the scale of nuclear bonds (order of MeV) this difference becomes conceivably measurable, but even so, in the detonation of a hiroshima sized nuclear weapon, the loss of mass due to the nuclear fission is approximately 500mg, the rest of the nuclear material is dispersed as fallout, considering that there was ~60kg of nuclear material in the weapon, this corresponds to an energy "efficiency" ~1%, which is typical of fission devices. In a 100MT nuclear bomb this is conceivably larger at nearly 5kg, and the fusion type weapon that can achieve this high yields has considerably higher mass-energy conversion efficiency at around ~20% [[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 16:53, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::: Another way of thinking about is this. Consider your typical AA batery, it is not a difficult stretch of the mind to understand that this battery stores electrical energy, approximately 2Ampere-hours at 1.5v which is approximately 5000J worth of STORED electical energy. Now, CONSUMING this battery does not cause your kinetic energy to increase by 5000J the same way that consuming a pound of cake does not cause your kinetic energy to increase by 1lb*c^2, you are still limited by your ability to convert between different energy sources. So A RC car would be able to use that battery to move around for several hours, YOU on the other hand will most likely just pass the battery through your body and the basic chemicals that are storing this electric energy will come out unaltered. The same way that a pound of cake can sustain you for a day, but try stuffing it into the battery compartment of your RC car and it won't move an inch. "Mass-energy" works much the same way, sure consuming a pound of cake increases your "rest energy" or by an enormous amount, but in reality there is no way to convert mass directly to energy so its much the same as swallowing a battery or stuffing cake into the RC car. [[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 17:05, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:At any rate, eating a pound of cake, is not nuclear physics, it is chemistry, where your cells digest and utilize the sugars within. Protiens are also converted into sugar.[[User:JonM|JonM]] 18:28, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

== Aschlafly, could you give us... ==

... your interpretation of the results of the experiment by Cockroft and Walton? Cockroft describes in his Nobel Lecture how the kinetic energy of the alpha-particles could be provided by ''diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass
units.'' (p. 170). Please take into account that this isn't about energy in form of electromagnetic waves!

If you don't address the results of the actual experiments, all your claims are just meaningless verbiage.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:39, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:Cockcroft (please spell his name correctly) does not even cite E=mc2 in his Nobel lecture.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::You don't think that it is ''implied'' by the quote that AugustO provided? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::No, I don't. E=mc2 is supposedly a general truth of universal applicability. The case for it, if true, needs to be far stronger than what is quoted above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:15, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

From the lecture: ''It was obvious then that lithium was being disintegrated into two α-particles with a total energy release of 17.2 million volts. This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass
units.''

Aschlafly, your ignorance is showing:
17.2 MeV /c² = 1.602*10-19kg m²/s² *17.2 *109/(3*108 m/s)² = 3.0616 * 10-29kg = 0.0184 amu

In fact as this is such a ''general truth of universal applicability'', J. Cockroft could take it for granted that his scientifically literate audience would be able to make this calculation.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:26, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::One question, though: We have four protons and four neutrons on the left hand side of the equation, and four protons and four neutrons on the right hand side. So why the difference in mass?
:::Also, forgive my ignorance, but why is the 'energy' measured in volts? Volts are not a measure of energy.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

*Bainbridge measured the mass of 7Li directly, using mass spectrometry.
*Indeed, three protons and four neutrons weight less than a 7Li - kernel
*Energy is measured in this cases in [[Electron-Volts]]. One electron volt is the energy of an electron which passed through a potential of 1 Volt.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:54, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:AugustO, please contribute something substantive instead of talking up a storm. Thanks.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 11:56, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::James Wilson, please don't interfere in interesting and substantive discussions. Thank you! [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 12:12, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::"Baobab", please state what substance is coming out of this conversation. You have had a history of engaging in hefty talk. Please start contributing. I have had some great insights contributing in a few articles today and will continue to do so. Many thanks for your future contributions.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 12:47, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::"James Wilson", AugustO is clarifying things and giving us some great insights, as CPalmer's latest reply shows. Discussions will often lead to better articles, which is why your interference was totally uncalled for. I guess your only motive was to defend Mr. Schlafly, but he can take care of himself and really doesn't need your help. Regards, [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 13:30, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::Thanks, AugustO. Relativity or no relativity, I am learning a lot from this discussion.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:00, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::You are posing excellent questions! Indeed it should be of interest for Aschlafly, too:
:::'''Aschlafly, two protons (1.0073amu) and two neutrons (1.0087amu) have a combined mass of 4.0320 amu. An alpha-particle - existing from two protons and two neutrons - has a mass of 4.0015 amu. How do you explain this diminution of mass?
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:42, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::What real evidence do you have that these particles even exist? No doubt you've read it in a book or some "qualified person" has said it is true. In reality you accept these things on the word of somebody else - in other words your belief in the existence of these particles is a matter of scientific faith in something which you have no personal knowledge. There is obviously no problem with believing things on faith, but please don't pretend it's "true because science says it's true". Christians get their real truth from a higher authority.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 18:49, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::I find Mr O's position to be rather odd. He insists that Mr Schlafly - and only Mr Schlafly answers his questions. Yet at the same time Mr O steadfastly ignores comments specifically directed at him.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 16:11, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::If you're referring to your question about how he knows that protons and neutrons really exist, I suspect he thought it wasn't worth answering. I tend to agree. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:15, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

@DavidEdwards: Sorry, [[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]], I didn't want to ignore you. I hadn't caught up after the databank mishap, I'm afraid.
So, to answer your questions: At school, we performed a couple experiments -there were teltron tubes, the Millikan the photo-electric effect, the Millikan Oil Drop experiment, de Broglie's electron diffraction experiments, etc. These experiments confirmed my persuasion that the electrons, protons and neutrons are physically real entities. The proposed theories explained these effects - and sitting in front of a computer, I'm surprised that you aren't willing to accept the theories behind semi-conductors. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:25, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
@SamCoulter: There is some truth in your statement, too: it's like asking a priest: ''let's talk about your religion without mentioning Jesus''... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:28, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

== Restoration ==

I could restore this page to the last version which I had edited. I don't know whether there were more entries. This should help to restore the article: perhaps one positive effect could be that Aschlafly marvels about the questions in the previous section for a while and rethinks his position! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:36, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Instead of the source - tag ==

*''E=mc² is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate all matter to light.''
It relates matter to energy, the square of the speed of light is just the conversation factor
*''In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism).''
It isn't about gravitational mass, but about inertial mass. To identify both means to invoke the General Theory of Relativity
* ''Simply put, E=mc² is liberal claptrap. ''
How so? It works!
* ''Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis.''
So, physicists should just give up looking for it? I dare to say that there are many Christian physicists - they may just not follow your special interpretation of Genesis!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:29, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

== A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockroft and Walton ==

I'd appreciate an answer by Aschlafly (and him alone) to the following questions:

'''1.''' Do you accept that the mass of the Lithium-kernel (7Li), of alpha-particles (4He) and of protons (1H) can be measured fairly accurately, as these are charged particles?

'''2.''' Do you accept the measurements for the mass of the particles as used by Cockroft and Walton, i.e.
:::{|
!particle
!mass
|-
|1H||1.0072 amu
|-
|4He||4.0011 amu
|-
|7Li||7.0130 amu
|}
If not, which values do you think to be right?

'''3.''' Do you agree that before the reaction the mass of the particles involved was 8.0202 amu?

'''4.''' Do you agree that after the reaction the mass of the particles involved is 8.00220 amu?

'''5.''' Do you agree that there is a mass decrease of 0.0180 amu?

'''6.''' Before the experiment, the Li was at rest and the proton had a kinetic energy of less than 1MeV. Do you accept these values?

'''7.''' After the experiment, a pair of alpha-particles was observed, both having an kinetic energy of 8.6MeV. Do you think that this value is correct?

'''8.''' Can you tell me where the mass went? Can you tell me where the energy came from?

'''9.''' If your answer to question 8. is ''no'' in both accounts, than my answer is that there is a theory which explains the conversion of mass to energy, even if you don't like it!

As this theory works for this experiment, and for all the other fissions and fusions, it isn't liberal claptrap, but a meaningful theory. And you can't blame physicists for using it! Of course, you can blame journalist to abuse the formula - but this isn't the result of ''liberal physics'', but of ''bad reporting'', as an abuse of the dictum ''1+1=2'' doesn't reflect badly on number-theorists, but only on the person misattributing it.

Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:04, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:AugustO, chemical reactions can release energy, typically based not on the size of their mass but on the electrostatic energy prior to the reaction. Cockcroft's own paper accepting the Nobel Prize does not claim that his work proved that '''''E=mc2'''''. Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula, or else we'd have seen far more claims of experimental verification of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:20, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly, you haven't answered any of the questions above! Instead you are talking about something completely different:
*We are not talking about a ''chemical'' reaction! You should know the difference.
*Cockroft claims that the energy comes from the loss of mass - and he calculates it according to ''E=mc²''. Please read (and understand!) his lecture.
*Please give a list of a few (or at least a single) experiment which contradicts the formula. This should be easy, as you stated that ''Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula''. Oh, wait, you made that up...
*Please answer the questions 1 to 9: all the question are covered in Cockroft's lecture, so I'd be interested in your explanation!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:32, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
:AugustO, if you cannot even spell Cockcroft's name properly, how can Andy take anything you say seriously? --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 22:03, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

== Move ==

Could you please move this article to [[Essay:E=mc²]]? Then I could ignore all the misleading and outright wrong statements in the first section! Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:57, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

== Experimental Facts ==

Aschlafly, on the one hand side, you state that ''no experiment distinguishes between "gravitational" and "inertial" mass'' - and that seems good enough for you. On the other hand side, you have a problem with the statement that E=mc² ''continues to be affirmed experimentally''. Do you spot the inconsistency? Indeed, I could write: ''the equivalence between inertial mass and gravitational mass has never been mathematically derived from first principles in classical mechanics, indeed, a rigorous proof of this equivalence is probably beyond the purview of classical theory.''

BTW, omitting the first part of the sentence ''"Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally..."'' makes you look very disingenuous (even if you have good motives) to anyone who looks up the link to the abstract!

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:07, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:It's hair-splitting jargon of doubtful significance. 99% of people know what mass is, and it's directly related to weight, not electrostatic energy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:38, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::And the remaining percent are the physicists which draw such distinctions with good reason! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]]
:::Even more confusing is that the article states mass is a measure of inertia. Inertia is resistance to acceleration, and that has nothing to do with gravity at all. The article as it stands is simply inaccurate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:51, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly: ''....may not even have any justification in the paper''
::::Aschlafly, havn't you read the paper? Here is a part of the conclusion:
:::::''Einstein produced about 18 virtuoso derivations and demonstrations all aimed at establishing the mass-energy principle. We have shown that although each of them gave evidence for the applicability of E0 = mc² to a particular set of circumstances, no one derivation, or collection of them taken together, succeeded in providing a definitive proof of its complete generality. That should not be surprising because the same situation occurs, for example, with F = ma, which is a different kind of relation than E0 = mc². Even so, 300 years of successful theoretical work have not proven the correctness of F = ma. Indeed, relativity showed that this expression, one of the bedrocks of classical mechanics, holds only approximately.
::::Here is another excerpt, on mass, electromagnetism etc:
:::::''In the 19th century, a number of European physicists, including the leading theoretician of the time, Hendrik Lorentz, were working to establish that mass was, in whole or in part, electromagnetic. There were primarily two competing theories, one by Lorentz, the other by Max Abraham. Both agreed that depending on the relative direction of its velocity and acceleration, an “electron” a generic charged particle moving through the aether could manifest both transverse and longitudinal speed-dependent mass components. There was even experimental evidence that seemed to confirm as much. Electromagnetic theory was then at the center of physics.''
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:56, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::(May I add that I think one shouldn't make such fundamental statements as ''E=mc² has no meaning'', if one only skims a few abstracts! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]])

Aschlafly, maybe you have not the time (or the access) to read the actual papers - as you should when drawing conclusions. But perhaps you can take a look at [http://www.lbl.gov/abc/Basic.html Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's ABC of Nuclear Science] to refresh the basics?Even there, they use ''Einstein's famous equation...''... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:44, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== ...purports to relate all matter to light ==

When I write that for iron I get:
::V [cm³] * 7.874 g/cm³ = M [g]
I don't relate the mass to 7.8474, but to the volume. So, similarly Einstein's equations says that mass is proportional to energy, not light. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:38, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:But the constant applied in this case is the (square of the) speed of light! Are you saying that that is a coincidence? If so, why not just say "E=mc"?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:57, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
::no, of course not, but we could write, e.g., Eε0 = m/μ0: the relationship is given between mass and energy... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:04, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:::But the relationship itself is somehow connected to light. Or maybe, the relationship is connected with some third factor that also determines the speed of light.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:58, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
::::yes, but the c² is a constant. Does the equation E/c²=m relate all energy to light? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:18, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::Yes - the equation in any form relates mass, energy, and the speed of light. I think the article doesn't emphasise the light-energy relationship because it's the mass-energy relationship that appears absurd once the theory of relativity is discounted.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:22, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Even if you discount the theory of relativity, the experimental facts remain: in experiments where mass is deleted or created, this happens with the release or absorption of energy. And this energy is given by ≈8.99*1016m²/s² times the mass... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:31, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== Misleading footnote ==

::(Your footnote about the units is bogus. SI units are not arbitrary, since eg Joules can be derived from other SI units including kilograms, metres and seconds. Therefore, the relationship to light ''is'' (purported to be) a natural one.)--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:00, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Which footnote about units? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:04, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Ah, I see, no, not ''my'' footnote. The text was inserted by [[User:GregG/RSS_6#Mon.2C_26_Mar_2012_18:05:11_GMT_.28edit_by_MihailD.29_2|MihailD]], and obviously the equation holds in other systems, too. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:10, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

I took out the main part of the footnote: it should be obvious that in a physical equation only compatible physical units can be used, and that otherwise conversion factors have to be introduced. But there is no problem, if we have c in feet/h, m in pounds, and E in pound*feet²/h²
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:30, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

:I see - my apologies. I thought you had added the footnote in order to try and make the point above. I agree that in any sensible unit system the equation will work (assuming the theory is right of course).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:32, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

:Looks like [[User:MihailD|MihailD]] received a lifetime block for this and related edits, so he'll be unable to explain or justify his comments. --[[User:JasperK|JasperK]] 08:58, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::That's a pity! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:38, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== We will, we will, we will ==

Generally I enjoy the great contribution of SamHB. My only rub: the ''royal we'' - ''we will dispel'', ''we will show'', ''we don't do''. I don't think that this is the best way to phrase an encyclopedic article, and I'd like to see alternatives. For the moments, I just commented out some of the occurrences which in my opinion spoiled the fun of reading the article....

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:38, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:It is a bit chatty. The first one could be rephrased "This article sets out to...". I have reworded two of the others, and the rest might possibly be omitted entirely.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:44, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== I don't understand... ==

Why you guys destroyed a wonderful original piece of work by Mr. Schlafly. There are hundreds of books and web sites that explain relativity, why did you feel the need to reproduce that content here? --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:18, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
:Perhaps because they are right and he is wrong? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, you still haven't answered my [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|reasonable questions abouts this subject]]. To be ignorant on a subject isn't that big a deal, but to willfully stay ignorant while lecturing about it, that is! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:32, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

BTW, the ''wonderful original piece of work'' was not destroyed - you find it embedded in the text. A blanket reversion of the work of a couple of editors should be a no-no, please give reasons for reverting at least for each paragraph! And answer the [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|questions!]] [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:42, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== Protection of the Article ==

Stated reason: ''(with reluctance, and repeated reversions; for now, post specific suggestions for edits on the talk page)''

Aschlafly, this must be one of these definitions of irony, as I asked for specific reasons for your deletions of material. Isn't that censorship? BTW, you still haven't replied to the [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|sections above]], and frankly I'm starting to call your knowledge on this matter in question! Ignorance is not always bliss!

And if you are not willing to address the points made above by various contributors, are you at least willing to read and answer to ''specific suggestions for edits on the talk page''? Or is this a sham to force-feed your view to the readers?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:The lead focus of the entry was converted into a parade of [[hearsay]] rather than logical analysis. Simply put, the entry had denigrated into the ''antithesis'' of the truth-seeking integrity expected of ''Conservapedia''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:41, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
::And what about the current entry? The fact is that E=mc2 is a perfectly valid equation demonstrating the equivalence of matter and energy and it has been thoroughly verified; the energy a piece of matter contains DOES equal its mass times ''c'' squared. This has been repeatedly demonstrated by experiments, which consistently show that the energy released by a reaction is equal within measuring limits to the overall mass lost. It's perfectly reasonable to reject any claim that this demonstrates the truth of moral relativism, atheism or anything else, but to criticise the equation itself as "meaningless" or "liberal claptrap" demonstrates no truth-seeking or integrity. E=mc2 is no more liberal than d=vt or 1+1=2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:53, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::The entry explains how nonsensical the formula is as a general principle -- and how it has never been derived as a matter of logic or demonstrated in any general, meaningful manner. Reliance on [[hearsay]] is not a serious alternative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::But it ''isn't'' a general principle. It's a mathematical expression of matter-energy equivalence and it's perfectly valid. Whether or not it's ever been derived as a matter of logic or not is irrelevant because it's been repeatedly demonstrated to be true in the most meaningful manner possible: if you turn matter into energy the amount of energy that comes out is always equal to the lost mass times ''c'' squared. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:59, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::You restate the claim as though its repetition would make it true. It doesn't. If someone gains one pound in weight, then it is preposterous for anyone to claim that his energy has thereby increased in proportion to the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::Yes, it would be absolutely preposterous. In fact his energy would have increased by a number of foot-pounds equal to one pound times ''c''2 in feet per second. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:11, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::::To explain that further, his energy would have increased in proportion to his '''weight''', not to the speed of light. If a person who weighed 150lb gained 1lb the energy contained in their mass would increase from 1.4467x1017 ft lb to 1.4564x1017 ft lb. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::::The formula '''E=mc2''' does assert that his energy for a fixed gain in weight would increase in proportion to the speed of light squared and, as you say, that is preposterous.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::No, his energy for a fixed gain in weight will increase in proportion to his '''weight'''. In my example of a 150lb man gaining 1lb, his new energy content will be 0.6667% higher, '''as will his weight'''. ''c''2 is just a constant. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:52, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::::::Andy seems to imagine that this energy should be immediately available for sports or doing work around the house, and that we should all be superheroes after having eaten a bar of chocolate. This is, of course, not so. The energy is still locked up in the mass, and it would require nuclear or particle reactions to convert even small parts of it into useful forms of energy. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:28, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
''The lead focus of the entry was converted into a parade of [[hearsay]] rather than logical analysis''. Then let's get factual: just answer a [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|few questions]]. Shouldn't be difficult, as you are so insightful. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:26, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

Of course this is hearsay - and so it should be. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia - a collection of established information cited from other sources. Hearsay may be inappropriate in court, but it is the lifeblood of an encyclopedia. Anything that is not 'hearsay' is personal opinion or original research, and should be reserved for articles prefixed 'Essay:'. --[[User:JasperK|JasperK]] 08:23, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:Then again, heresy tends to be more reputable when it comes from a professional who has studied the issue for years, instead of a man who doesn't understand how food works. [[User:JackFerner|JackFerner]] 12:23, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Bare links ==

I noticed that [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&diff=971455&oldid=971446 this edit] removed publication information about the references. Personally, I think this information is useful for two reasons: it helps Conservapedia editors locate the references from other sources if (and when) the links go dead, and it helps who print out Conservapedia articles and wish to look up the references offline. (Of course, I'm not suggesting that the URLs be removed, but this could be in addition to the publication information). Of course, there may be perfectly good reasons for removing the publication information of which I am not aware, but I otherwise think that the publication information should be included again (and I plan to do this once the protection expires). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:17, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:Great point. I retrieved and added many of the citations back. If I missed any then I'd be happy to add them also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== Niels Bohr ==
Andy, for how often you rail against the Nobel Prize I'm surprised that you would try and use a former winner as an authority to support your misguided assertion. [[User:DennisR|DennisR]] 21:48, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:Even a broken clock (like the Nobel Prize) gets it right every once in a while!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:07, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

::''. As a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light, it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, including Niels Bohr. '' Who were these physicists? And what said Niels Bohr? I couldn't find anything. In the famous ''Gedankenexperiment'' at Solvay, he accepted ''E=mc²! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:14, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

:::And of course it ''isn't'' a "general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light." It's a statement of equivalence between energy and matter. Andy seems to be obsessed with the idea that light is involved somehow, and that conflicts with his rather odd idea that the Bible forbids a unified theory. I can only wonder what he'll do if science comes up with a unified theory. Probably deny that too. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:16, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly, according to the information I found (Einstein and Bohr at the Solvay-conference), Niels Bohr accepted ''E=mc²''. So, a fact-tag was the only alternative to downright deleting the sentence: it allows you to bring up your sources! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:31, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
:I'd have been amazed if he hadn't. Bohr was on the British team for the Manhattan Project, and he wouldn't have been much use at nuclear weapon design if he didn't accept E=mc2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:41, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, you have a tendency to make up claims (''As a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light, it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, including Niels Bohr. '', ''Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula'', and, yes, '' "suddenly" or "at that time" is a nuance of the Greek ἰδού''). And when your bluff is called, you are miffed! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:00, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
::''Protected "E=mc²": insertion of a fact tag instead of finding and adding a reference.'' That is ridiculous: there is no way of ''finding and adding a reference'' for this made-up "''fact''"!
::It is, however, not very difficult to show that the ''fact'' was invented: just take a look into ''"Foundations of Quantum Physics I''", a book written by Niels Bohr and Jorgen Kalckar. Here Bohr uses what he calls ''Einstein's relation'' without any trepidation! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:00, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Presumably, then, the relevant text should be changed to something like "it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, although Niels Bohr later accepted it." and then add the citation. Or you could clarify with something like "the liberal Nobel Prizewinner Niels Bohr".--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:18, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
::::*There is no reason to think that there was a time at which Niels Bohr didn't accept it!
::::*Is there any source which shows that it was ''widely rejected at the time''? Of course, there was the [[Deutsche Physik]], but does this count?
::::*That said: the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag was absolutely appropriate.
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:44, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::You make some valid points as the online evidence is remarkably scant, even though the disagreement between Bohr and Einstein is well-known. This may be a (rare) example where the internet is less adequate than books. I did add an explanatory footnote and the protection to the page should be expiring soon, if not already.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

*Einstein disagreed with Bohr regarding quantum mechanics. Could you provide a source that Bohr disagreed with Einstein on the theory of relativity? I can't find one!
*As I said, the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag was absolutely appropriate, and I'll reinsert it, as I don't think that there are any sources to back-up your claim.
*Furthermore, I have difficulties to believe that Lord Rutherford had problems with ''E=mc²'', he seemed to appreciate the liquid-drop-model of Gamov, Bohr, et al.
*''a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light'': no one claims that the '''three''' are equivalent!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:22, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== First sentence ==

I've changed the introduction to something a bit more encyclopaedic. Please don't revert without discussing it first. Thanks. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:28, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Political Pressure ==

''Political pressure has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of this nonsensical equation''

More likely the fact that similar experiments as the one Cockcroft and Walton are performed by undergraduates in each department teaching physics around the world! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:30, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

:No, that would not explain why it "is impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of" E=mc2. Even if you think the formula is somehow true, surely you do not deny the political pressure in academia against anyone who might consider questioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:37, 3 April 2012 (EDT)
::It's entirely possible for someone who questions the validity of E=mc2 to pursue a career in science; scientists are encouraged to question the validity ''everything''. However if they ''deny'' the validity of E=mc2 then a scientific career is indeed off-limits to them, for the same reason as it's off-limits to someone who denies that 1+1=2. The fact is, E=mc2. It's been verified time and time again. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 18:44, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

To talk about political pressure in this context is ridiculous. The conversion of Mass to Energy and vice versa and the validity of E=mc2 has been demonstrated experimentally so often(an early example is given in the main page) that to deny that the equation describes observed nature flies in the face of observation and is thus unscientific. To question its validity without hard experimental evidence or a sound theoretical argument (neither of which has been demonstrated) would simply be a matter of scientific (in)competance.[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:16, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

:*Aschlafly, if you argue against ''E=mc²'' out of a position of (willful) ignorance, you won't be taken seriously. Unfortunately this is what you are doing, as your (non-) answer [[Talk:E=mc²#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockroft and Walton|above]] is showing.
:*Criticism of ''E=mc²'' on ideological grounds just doesn't work, as the adherents of the [[Deutsche Physik]] found out in the early 1940s.
:*But obviously, the theory is under constant discussion, as is the concept of energy or mass.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:34, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

== Matter-light relationship ==

Mr. Schafly, I think you are misunderstanding the nature of the <math>E=mc^2</math> relationship. To illustrate, I will give an example.

Suppose we have a map where 1 inch of distance on the map corresponds to 5 miles actual distance. If points A and B are located 2.5 inches apart on the map, we can compute the actual distance between them as follows:
:<math>2.5 \textrm{ map\,in} \cdot \frac{5 \textrm{ mi}}{\textrm{map\,in}} = 12.5 \textrm{ mi}</math>
In general, if the map distance between two points is <math>d</math> and the actual distance between the points is <math>D</math>, then the following formula is satisfied:
:<math>D = dc</math>
where <math>c</math> is the conversion factor <math>\frac{5 \textrm{ mi}}{\textrm{map\,in}}</math>. The equation above does not relate distance to five or map distance to quintessence. Rather, it posits a direct relationship (or equivalence) between the map distance and the actual distance, related by a conversion factor.

Likewise, <math>E=mc^2</math> posits a direct relationship between mass and energy. It does not relate mass to the speed of light (or light itself), nor does the equation related light to energy. Rather, <math>c^2</math> is a conversion factor, just like the <math>c</math> was in our equation for computing actual distances from map distances. I hope this helps explain why some editors have concern with your statement of the relationship posited by <math>E=mc^2</math>. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:19, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:But Energy and mass have known meanings in other contexts, unlike the distances (in inches) on the map page in your example. If Energy or mass were being redefined by E=mc2, then I think your analogy would work. But people are not defending E=mc2 by saying it entails a redefinition of Energy or mass.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
::The equation postulates how mass and energy can be interchanged while conserving the total amount of mass energy. For example, according to the equation, a nuclear reaction that causes 1.0 kg of mass to be lost will produce 9.0 x 1016 J energy. The amount of energy produced ''by the loss of mass'' is proportional to the mass lost. It is the same sort of equivalence between the number of pounds you get at a currency exchange and the number of dollars you pay (which, come to think of it, is probably an even better analogy). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:13, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:::(inserted reply here) E=mc2 claims more than the relation between mass and energy is linear (which is itself implausible). It also claims that the proportional factor is precisely equal to the speed of light squared. Restating the meaning of the equation in plain terms demonstrates how implausible it is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:41, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Energy and mass have known meanings in THIS context! The equation tells us how much energy will be liberated by losing a set amount of mass, or how much energy (for example hard gamma rays) is required to create a set amount of mass. It is a valid equation. It doesn't matter ''what'' objections anyone has to it based on principle or logic; it's been tested and it's correct. This is getting pretty frustrating. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 01:56, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

Perhaps we should have two articles [[E=mc² (science)]] and [[E=mc² (new age)]]: every sentence Aschlafly writes on this subjects shows that he knows so very little about the science involved - and has no interest to get informed any further. Instead his methods reminds me of homeopaths and other quacks advertising their craft by misrepresenting sources, cherry-picking evidence and generally repeating false statements over and over again despite of better knowledge. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:05, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

===A question===

Mr Schlafly, you've said that this equation "purports" to describe the equivalence of matter and energy. The fact is, it's been repeatedly tested and it ''does'' describe the equivalence of matter and energy. However I get the feeling that there's some misunderstanding here. What, exactly, is your objection to E=mc2? Do you think it's incorrect - in which case go check the experimental data - or do you think it's being used to advance some sort of political agenda? I think we've reached a deadlock here and to make any progress on improving the article it would be helpful to know what you think is wrong with the equation. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:02, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
:The problem is that it is a self-sustaining myth presented as "fact" by the same self-serving scientific establishment who have built an tautological edifice on nothing. It is designed to subtly indoctrinate children into the world of moral, social and scientific relativity by suggesting that "everything is relative".--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 17:03, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:The equation is nonsensical. Mass has nothing to do with the speed of light, and cannot be equated to energy simply by multiplying it twice by the speed of light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
::Andy, how do you explain the result of the Cockcroft- Walton experiment? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 01:42, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:::A very good question! Aschlafly, you could try to answer it by responding to [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|this section above]]! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:01, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

== Bohr disagreed with Einstein's 1905 paper ==

Aschlafly, do you have any source for this claim? It seems to be factual incorrect. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:27, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

I looked into it and for me it is an ''ad-hoc'' fabrication to make a point - even the time-line doesn't work out: a '''''trustworthy''''' encyclopedia shouldn't work this way! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:58, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

Talk:E=mc²

2012-04-05T20:53:43Z

DenisTR: /* Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman */

==I'm Finding This a Little Hard to Understand==
First off, E = mc2 describing a relationship between energy and matter is only one corollary. It is also part of a well known problem in chemistry... Or is isotopic mass not less than the sum of it's parts? The equation itself HAS been derived from the Theory of Relativity, and is a direct consequence of the energy momentum four vector for an object with 0-momentum. The quote you provide from the paper states that the theory is not enough for a rigorous PROOF, but it never tries to deny the derivability of the equation. Derivation and proof are two entirely different things.

==This Article Could Use Sources or Better Explanation==
Wow. Classic Andy. Unsourced statements supposedly contradicting well-established theories of physics. No real proof other than "the Bible says it's not true," even though this is an extremely uncommon interpretation Genesis. --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 01:06, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:It's a start for now, and will expand over time. That's how wikis work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:18, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::Doesn't it relate energy to mass? The speed of light is just a constant here. [[User:IanR|IanR]] 02:22, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

== Humbug ==

The phrase ''meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement '' (as used in the article) fits the first paragraph to a t.

Aschlafly, please try to refute the explanation of the experiments of John Cockroft and Ernest Walton, which is accepted generally under physicists. And try to give some sources - or if not, some of your own calculations!

If not, just erase the first section.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:23, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

== Nobel Lecture ==

I took out the link to the Nobel lecture, it can be found in the short summary. But be aware that John Cockroft is using the dreaded formula with ease (but without stating so explicitly - why should he, it's already generally accepted!) An astute reader, who not only searches for the formula finds e.g., the formulation:

:'''This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass units.'''

Indeed, these are the ≈ 17MeV!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:51, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

==Irrelevant claims==
Are these claims of so called "experimental verification" valid or useful? If you look at enough so-called science you can find people claiming anything. --[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 12:59, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:''you can find people claiming anything'' Indeed - and that's why there is a difference between the unsubstantiated claims in the first section, and the actual experiments in the following paragraphs. If you have a good explanation of the outcome of these experiments (some math would be nice), feel free to add your personal ''claim''.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:03, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::Why do you feel that I need to do that? I understand that you may wish to believe relativity is true, but that is no reason to impose your personal beliefs on others.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 13:40, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::Thinking that all claims have the same validity seems not a very conservative position. I don't expect you to accept my personal beliefs, but there is a tendency in physics that the claims which are backed up by those willing to do the experiments and the maths have a greater following than random insights. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:47, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::I don't understand why your personal beliefs are even included in the article.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 13:58, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::*Because they are bolstered by experiments...
:::::*...and they aren't just my beliefs - in fact it will be very hard to find a physicist who doesn't share them. And that's something which shouldn't be easy to ignore in an article on a physical subject.
:::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::If science is your religion then you will find scientists who share your views. I still don't see why they should be hosted here. The introduction makes the Biblical position clear.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 14:07, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Religion is my religion, science is my hobby. And just because there is one single interpretation of a few verses of Genesis out there which you think to contradict the experiments of the physicists doesn't shatter my religious beliefs nor my trust in physics. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::::Then why do you insist with this anti-religious pseudoscience?--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 14:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
← Now you have intrigued me: what's your definition of pseudoscience? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:45, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

Pssst! DavidEdwards! You're trying waaaaay too hard. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 21:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:Too hard about what?
:As far as the pseudoscience question is concerned - "science" which is used to promote a worldview which has no basis in moral reality is pseudoscience. Science which is designed to suggest that morality is relative clearly falls into this category.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 18:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

==Question==
This snipet of sentence appears in the introduction: "...''a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory.''" Let's compare that to the entire sentence it was lifted from: "'''''Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally,''' a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory.''" One can't help but notice that the part of the sentence that states that the theory has been observed to be valid in real world experimentation, has been surgically removed. Why is this? Is it because it stands in contradiction to the claim the lead author of this article is trying to promulgate? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 20:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:Peer-reviewed journals won't publish a criticism of relativity. That's obvious. Although I don't have a copy of the full paper, I doubt it attempts to fully support the [[hearsay]] that was excluded, and I would not be surprised if it was included simply to safeguard against complaints for what followed. It adds nothing to the basic point that follows and is quoted here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::Why won't a peer-reviewed journal publish a criticism of SR or GR? Liberal conspiracy? Also, do you not accept that mass and energy are interchangeable or is it a problem with this specific equation? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 21:24, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::JoshuaB, do you accept the possibility that the [[Theory of Relativity]] may be false, and would you approve a well-written paper that criticized it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Yes. We already know the Theory of Relativity is an incomplete model of our universe. So yes, the theory may be "false", but the one that takes it's place will most likely have many of the same properties. Secondly, would I approve of a "well-written paper that criticized it"? I don't know what that means. I'm not a physicist, so I don't see what difference my "approval" of said paper would make. Now that I've been so kind as to answer your questions, would you return the courtesy and answer the ones I posted above? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 22:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::The qualifications on your answer render it almost meaningless. I'm not asking whether your approval of a paper would make a difference, or your opinion about whether you think the replacement of the [[Theory of Relativity]] will "most likely" be another theory of relativity. The question was simple and straightforward, referring to a paper critical of the theory of relativity without any appeasement to those who insist on believing in it. An unqualified answer is requested.

:::::Also, did you ever answer my simple question on [[Talk:Main Page]] about how much time you've spent reading the [[Bible]] this month?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::Come off it Schlafly. This article is not about my Bible reading, is it? No. Does my opinion of the publishing criteria of physics academia have any bearing on the assertions you are trying make? No. Again: Do you not accept that mass and energy are interchangeable or is it a problem with this specific equation? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 23:11, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::Andy, do you accept the possibility that the Theory of Relativity may be correct, and would you approve a well-written paper or book that supported it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:28, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Some points ==

*''Misplaced claims of experimental verification'': if you want to put on the disclaimer ''misplaced'', please explain the results of the experiments in another way.
*''Why won't a peer-reviewed journal publish a criticism of SR or GR?'' But they do: remember the neutrino thing? Or the papers of H. Ives? In fact the first event has shown that especially the publication of experiments (seemingly) violating currently accepted theories gets attention!
*Taking only the second half of ''"Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."'' makes you looking deceptive. Take the whole sentence and try to explain the motivation of the first half. Otherwise anyone who looks the quote up will suspect an ulterior motive!
*The whole first section is a train wreck.
*''[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of [[gravity]].'' Only when you accept the general theory of relativity it is, otherwise inertial mass and gravitational mass are quite different animals.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:46, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::I have attempted to clarify the last point on the [[Mass]] page, and also removed the fact template from the first paragraph, since the explanation is given later on. As it stood, the "citation needed" banners following important points tended to undercut the authority of the article.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:29, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::The problem is not a confusion of weight and mass, but the conflation of gravitational and inertial mass. In the classical theory, there is no reason why both should be the same, it's just an experimental fact.
::So, I'm sorry, your new entry didn't help.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::But they always are the same, aren't they? I don't see why knowing or not knowing the reason (yet) has any bearing on the question.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:43, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly writes: ''Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of gravity. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity.''
::::E=mc² isn't about gravity, to invoke it here is a deflection. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:49, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::::: OK. But bear in mind that this page clearly exists to provide a counterweight to certain liberal views. To do that, clarity of message is needed, and a "citation needed" banner has a deflating effect on the strength of that clarity. So perhaps you could suggest a wording that might be acceptable without the "citation needed" bit?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:03, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

No, I can't. Frankly, I don't see the clarity in this piece: at the moment, it is still sadly missing. So I hope, that Aschlafly taking care of the fact-tags (other then trimming them away) will add to this clarity! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:13, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman ==

Try to explain a complicated formula in 1-2min, then have a single sentence of this soundbit taken out. You can bet that this may sound meaningless. That's no fault of the formula. I'll change the title back. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:58, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:The quotes (and others that could be added) illustrate how meaningless the formula is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::The quotes illustrate how difficult it is to explain the concept to a layman. Take a look [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/expe-text.html here], where you can find the quotes in context. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:16, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::The quotes were solicited to describe the meaning of the equation to laymen, not to illustrate how difficult that is. The difficulty arises from the meaningless nature of the equation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::Actually the meaning of the equation is very clear: the total energy contained in matter is its mass multiplied by the speed of light in a vaccum squared. Experiment after experiment, and nuclear reactor after nuclear reactor, has clearly demonstrated that the total energy released by a reaction is the lost mass multiplied by c2. Therefore whether the theories of relativity are true or not, E=mc2 is true. Equally, even if classical Newtonian mechanics was false, the kinetic energy of a moving mass would still be accurately described by Ek=1/2mv2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:34, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::::Indeed. Internet quotes are really not very useful. A skilled researcher can always find someone saying something to justify their position however bizarre or immoral. This is a typical weakness (and response!) of those who have no real moral or religious basis for their convictions. --[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 19:04, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::These quotes are absolutely meaningless. It looks like you took random sentences from the PBS article and then inserted them into the article as if they had any real significance. This is made even more moot when you consider the fact that the article claims that "Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc²" and then you go on to quote three. Not to mention, most of the quotes aren't actually explaining what the equation means - a basic understanding of algebra and what the symbols mean is sufficient to understand its basic meaning - but rather what it entails, its implications. Tim Halpin-Healy's quote I think is better than taking some random sentences and then implying that they mean that physicists don't know what E=mc² means. --[[User:Tyg13|Tyg13]] 15:58, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::The problem is that '''E=m2does not meaning anythimg that makes sense. Anyone is welcome to try to explain it here. Eating a pound of cake does not cause one's energy to increase by the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:06, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::No, it doesn't. It causes your energy to increase by a number of foot-pounds equal to '''one pound''' times the speed of light squared. I've explained this to you already and it isn't difficult. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:23, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::The equation is essentially just a conversion ratio, its not difficult to understand that units of energy (Whether it is Joules, pound-foot, or erg) look essentially like a velocity squared times a mass (in SI units - kg m^2/s^2) this is not relativity or theory dependent, its the definition of Energy. The Special Relativistic analysis that results in the basic equation just determines that the conversion ratio is precisely that universal constant '''c''' in whatever units are convenient. There is no blindingly obvious or intuitive reason why this SHOULD be the case (conceivably the conversion ratio could have any number of complicated dimensionless constants in front), but basic mathematical logic allows us to derive this simple relationship from the postulates of Special Relativity. That being said, its a rather useless equation on everyday scales. In reality, after consuming a pound of cake your body begins to break down the chemical bonds in the sugars/fats/proteins to extract usable energy, about 1500 food calories worth of it. If you had a precise enough scale and could somehow keep a human in a hermetically sealed bag that prevents the escape of any moisture/gas etc. you would be able to measure that after consuming and digesting the cake your bodyweight would not be +1 lb, but about 70 pg (picograms - 10^-12 grams) less, so if you weighed 150.0lb and ate a pound of cake (total of 151lb), after digestion you would actually weigh 70pg less than 151lb. It is important to note that this "mass" isn't "lost" it is merely the "weight" of the energy stored in the chemical bonds, in other words in a pound of cake there is (1lb - 70pg) of stuff and 70pg worth of "chemical energy" with a conversion ratio of c^2. If you had some magic machine that could convert mass to energy at 100% efficiency the detonation of a body sized bomb would release 20 times more energy than the largest nuclear weapon detonated by man kind, however due to the nature of nuclear transitions/processes such a 100% conversion rate is not possibe . On the scale of nuclear bonds (order of MeV) this difference becomes conceivably measurable, but even so, in the detonation of a hiroshima sized nuclear weapon, the loss of mass due to the nuclear fission is approximately 500mg, the rest of the nuclear material is dispersed as fallout, considering that there was ~60kg of nuclear material in the weapon, this corresponds to an energy "efficiency" ~1%, which is typical of fission devices. In a 100MT nuclear bomb this is conceivably larger at nearly 5kg, and the fusion type weapon that can achieve this high yields has considerably higher mass-energy conversion efficiency at around ~20% [[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 16:53, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:At any rate, eating a pound of cake, is not nuclear physics, it is chemistry, where your cells digest and utilize the sugars within. Protiens are also converted into sugar.[[User:JonM|JonM]] 18:28, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

== Aschlafly, could you give us... ==

... your interpretation of the results of the experiment by Cockroft and Walton? Cockroft describes in his Nobel Lecture how the kinetic energy of the alpha-particles could be provided by ''diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass
units.'' (p. 170). Please take into account that this isn't about energy in form of electromagnetic waves!

If you don't address the results of the actual experiments, all your claims are just meaningless verbiage.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:39, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:Cockcroft (please spell his name correctly) does not even cite E=mc2 in his Nobel lecture.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::You don't think that it is ''implied'' by the quote that AugustO provided? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::No, I don't. E=mc2 is supposedly a general truth of universal applicability. The case for it, if true, needs to be far stronger than what is quoted above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:15, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

From the lecture: ''It was obvious then that lithium was being disintegrated into two α-particles with a total energy release of 17.2 million volts. This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass
units.''

Aschlafly, your ignorance is showing:
17.2 MeV /c² = 1.602*10-19kg m²/s² *17.2 *109/(3*108 m/s)² = 3.0616 * 10-29kg = 0.0184 amu

In fact as this is such a ''general truth of universal applicability'', J. Cockroft could take it for granted that his scientifically literate audience would be able to make this calculation.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:26, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::One question, though: We have four protons and four neutrons on the left hand side of the equation, and four protons and four neutrons on the right hand side. So why the difference in mass?
:::Also, forgive my ignorance, but why is the 'energy' measured in volts? Volts are not a measure of energy.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

*Bainbridge measured the mass of 7Li directly, using mass spectrometry.
*Indeed, three protons and four neutrons weight less than a 7Li - kernel
*Energy is measured in this cases in [[Electron-Volts]]. One electron volt is the energy of an electron which passed through a potential of 1 Volt.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:54, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:AugustO, please contribute something substantive instead of talking up a storm. Thanks.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 11:56, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::James Wilson, please don't interfere in interesting and substantive discussions. Thank you! [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 12:12, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::"Baobab", please state what substance is coming out of this conversation. You have had a history of engaging in hefty talk. Please start contributing. I have had some great insights contributing in a few articles today and will continue to do so. Many thanks for your future contributions.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 12:47, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::"James Wilson", AugustO is clarifying things and giving us some great insights, as CPalmer's latest reply shows. Discussions will often lead to better articles, which is why your interference was totally uncalled for. I guess your only motive was to defend Mr. Schlafly, but he can take care of himself and really doesn't need your help. Regards, [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 13:30, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::Thanks, AugustO. Relativity or no relativity, I am learning a lot from this discussion.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:00, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::You are posing excellent questions! Indeed it should be of interest for Aschlafly, too:
:::'''Aschlafly, two protons (1.0073amu) and two neutrons (1.0087amu) have a combined mass of 4.0320 amu. An alpha-particle - existing from two protons and two neutrons - has a mass of 4.0015 amu. How do you explain this diminution of mass?
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:42, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::What real evidence do you have that these particles even exist? No doubt you've read it in a book or some "qualified person" has said it is true. In reality you accept these things on the word of somebody else - in other words your belief in the existence of these particles is a matter of scientific faith in something which you have no personal knowledge. There is obviously no problem with believing things on faith, but please don't pretend it's "true because science says it's true". Christians get their real truth from a higher authority.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 18:49, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::I find Mr O's position to be rather odd. He insists that Mr Schlafly - and only Mr Schlafly answers his questions. Yet at the same time Mr O steadfastly ignores comments specifically directed at him.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 16:11, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::If you're referring to your question about how he knows that protons and neutrons really exist, I suspect he thought it wasn't worth answering. I tend to agree. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:15, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

@DavidEdwards: Sorry, [[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]], I didn't want to ignore you. I hadn't caught up after the databank mishap, I'm afraid.
So, to answer your questions: At school, we performed a couple experiments -there were teltron tubes, the Millikan the photo-electric effect, the Millikan Oil Drop experiment, de Broglie's electron diffraction experiments, etc. These experiments confirmed my persuasion that the electrons, protons and neutrons are physically real entities. The proposed theories explained these effects - and sitting in front of a computer, I'm surprised that you aren't willing to accept the theories behind semi-conductors. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:25, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
@SamCoulter: There is some truth in your statement, too: it's like asking a priest: ''let's talk about your religion without mentioning Jesus''... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:28, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

== Restoration ==

I could restore this page to the last version which I had edited. I don't know whether there were more entries. This should help to restore the article: perhaps one positive effect could be that Aschlafly marvels about the questions in the previous section for a while and rethinks his position! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:36, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Instead of the source - tag ==

*''E=mc² is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate all matter to light.''
It relates matter to energy, the square of the speed of light is just the conversation factor
*''In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism).''
It isn't about gravitational mass, but about inertial mass. To identify both means to invoke the General Theory of Relativity
* ''Simply put, E=mc² is liberal claptrap. ''
How so? It works!
* ''Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis.''
So, physicists should just give up looking for it? I dare to say that there are many Christian physicists - they may just not follow your special interpretation of Genesis!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:29, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

== A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockroft and Walton ==

I'd appreciate an answer by Aschlafly (and him alone) to the following questions:

'''1.''' Do you accept that the mass of the Lithium-kernel (7Li), of alpha-particles (4He) and of protons (1H) can be measured fairly accurately, as these are charged particles?

'''2.''' Do you accept the measurements for the mass of the particles as used by Cockroft and Walton, i.e.
:::{|
!particle
!mass
|-
|1H||1.0072 amu
|-
|4He||4.0011 amu
|-
|7Li||7.0130 amu
|}
If not, which values do you think to be right?

'''3.''' Do you agree that before the reaction the mass of the particles involved was 8.0202 amu?

'''4.''' Do you agree that after the reaction the mass of the particles involved is 8.00220 amu?

'''5.''' Do you agree that there is a mass decrease of 0.0180 amu?

'''6.''' Before the experiment, the Li was at rest and the proton had a kinetic energy of less than 1MeV. Do you accept these values?

'''7.''' After the experiment, a pair of alpha-particles was observed, both having an kinetic energy of 8.6MeV. Do you think that this value is correct?

'''8.''' Can you tell me where the mass went? Can you tell me where the energy came from?

'''9.''' If your answer to question 8. is ''no'' in both accounts, than my answer is that there is a theory which explains the conversion of mass to energy, even if you don't like it!

As this theory works for this experiment, and for all the other fissions and fusions, it isn't liberal claptrap, but a meaningful theory. And you can't blame physicists for using it! Of course, you can blame journalist to abuse the formula - but this isn't the result of ''liberal physics'', but of ''bad reporting'', as an abuse of the dictum ''1+1=2'' doesn't reflect badly on number-theorists, but only on the person misattributing it.

Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:04, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:AugustO, chemical reactions can release energy, typically based not on the size of their mass but on the electrostatic energy prior to the reaction. Cockcroft's own paper accepting the Nobel Prize does not claim that his work proved that '''''E=mc2'''''. Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula, or else we'd have seen far more claims of experimental verification of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:20, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly, you haven't answered any of the questions above! Instead you are talking about something completely different:
*We are not talking about a ''chemical'' reaction! You should know the difference.
*Cockroft claims that the energy comes from the loss of mass - and he calculates it according to ''E=mc²''. Please read (and understand!) his lecture.
*Please give a list of a few (or at least a single) experiment which contradicts the formula. This should be easy, as you stated that ''Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula''. Oh, wait, you made that up...
*Please answer the questions 1 to 9: all the question are covered in Cockroft's lecture, so I'd be interested in your explanation!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:32, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
:AugustO, if you cannot even spell Cockcroft's name properly, how can Andy take anything you say seriously? --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 22:03, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

== Move ==

Could you please move this article to [[Essay:E=mc²]]? Then I could ignore all the misleading and outright wrong statements in the first section! Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:57, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

== Experimental Facts ==

Aschlafly, on the one hand side, you state that ''no experiment distinguishes between "gravitational" and "inertial" mass'' - and that seems good enough for you. On the other hand side, you have a problem with the statement that E=mc² ''continues to be affirmed experimentally''. Do you spot the inconsistency? Indeed, I could write: ''the equivalence between inertial mass and gravitational mass has never been mathematically derived from first principles in classical mechanics, indeed, a rigorous proof of this equivalence is probably beyond the purview of classical theory.''

BTW, omitting the first part of the sentence ''"Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally..."'' makes you look very disingenuous (even if you have good motives) to anyone who looks up the link to the abstract!

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:07, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:It's hair-splitting jargon of doubtful significance. 99% of people know what mass is, and it's directly related to weight, not electrostatic energy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:38, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::And the remaining percent are the physicists which draw such distinctions with good reason! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]]
:::Even more confusing is that the article states mass is a measure of inertia. Inertia is resistance to acceleration, and that has nothing to do with gravity at all. The article as it stands is simply inaccurate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:51, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly: ''....may not even have any justification in the paper''
::::Aschlafly, havn't you read the paper? Here is a part of the conclusion:
:::::''Einstein produced about 18 virtuoso derivations and demonstrations all aimed at establishing the mass-energy principle. We have shown that although each of them gave evidence for the applicability of E0 = mc² to a particular set of circumstances, no one derivation, or collection of them taken together, succeeded in providing a definitive proof of its complete generality. That should not be surprising because the same situation occurs, for example, with F = ma, which is a different kind of relation than E0 = mc². Even so, 300 years of successful theoretical work have not proven the correctness of F = ma. Indeed, relativity showed that this expression, one of the bedrocks of classical mechanics, holds only approximately.
::::Here is another excerpt, on mass, electromagnetism etc:
:::::''In the 19th century, a number of European physicists, including the leading theoretician of the time, Hendrik Lorentz, were working to establish that mass was, in whole or in part, electromagnetic. There were primarily two competing theories, one by Lorentz, the other by Max Abraham. Both agreed that depending on the relative direction of its velocity and acceleration, an “electron” a generic charged particle moving through the aether could manifest both transverse and longitudinal speed-dependent mass components. There was even experimental evidence that seemed to confirm as much. Electromagnetic theory was then at the center of physics.''
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:56, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::(May I add that I think one shouldn't make such fundamental statements as ''E=mc² has no meaning'', if one only skims a few abstracts! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]])

Aschlafly, maybe you have not the time (or the access) to read the actual papers - as you should when drawing conclusions. But perhaps you can take a look at [http://www.lbl.gov/abc/Basic.html Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's ABC of Nuclear Science] to refresh the basics?Even there, they use ''Einstein's famous equation...''... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:44, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== ...purports to relate all matter to light ==

When I write that for iron I get:
::V [cm³] * 7.874 g/cm³ = M [g]
I don't relate the mass to 7.8474, but to the volume. So, similarly Einstein's equations says that mass is proportional to energy, not light. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:38, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:But the constant applied in this case is the (square of the) speed of light! Are you saying that that is a coincidence? If so, why not just say "E=mc"?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:57, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
::no, of course not, but we could write, e.g., Eε0 = m/μ0: the relationship is given between mass and energy... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:04, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:::But the relationship itself is somehow connected to light. Or maybe, the relationship is connected with some third factor that also determines the speed of light.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:58, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
::::yes, but the c² is a constant. Does the equation E/c²=m relate all energy to light? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:18, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::Yes - the equation in any form relates mass, energy, and the speed of light. I think the article doesn't emphasise the light-energy relationship because it's the mass-energy relationship that appears absurd once the theory of relativity is discounted.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:22, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Even if you discount the theory of relativity, the experimental facts remain: in experiments where mass is deleted or created, this happens with the release or absorption of energy. And this energy is given by ≈8.99*1016m²/s² times the mass... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:31, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== Misleading footnote ==

::(Your footnote about the units is bogus. SI units are not arbitrary, since eg Joules can be derived from other SI units including kilograms, metres and seconds. Therefore, the relationship to light ''is'' (purported to be) a natural one.)--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:00, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Which footnote about units? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:04, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Ah, I see, no, not ''my'' footnote. The text was inserted by [[User:GregG/RSS_6#Mon.2C_26_Mar_2012_18:05:11_GMT_.28edit_by_MihailD.29_2|MihailD]], and obviously the equation holds in other systems, too. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:10, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

I took out the main part of the footnote: it should be obvious that in a physical equation only compatible physical units can be used, and that otherwise conversion factors have to be introduced. But there is no problem, if we have c in feet/h, m in pounds, and E in pound*feet²/h²
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:30, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

:I see - my apologies. I thought you had added the footnote in order to try and make the point above. I agree that in any sensible unit system the equation will work (assuming the theory is right of course).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:32, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

:Looks like [[User:MihailD|MihailD]] received a lifetime block for this and related edits, so he'll be unable to explain or justify his comments. --[[User:JasperK|JasperK]] 08:58, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::That's a pity! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:38, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== We will, we will, we will ==

Generally I enjoy the great contribution of SamHB. My only rub: the ''royal we'' - ''we will dispel'', ''we will show'', ''we don't do''. I don't think that this is the best way to phrase an encyclopedic article, and I'd like to see alternatives. For the moments, I just commented out some of the occurrences which in my opinion spoiled the fun of reading the article....

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:38, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:It is a bit chatty. The first one could be rephrased "This article sets out to...". I have reworded two of the others, and the rest might possibly be omitted entirely.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:44, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== I don't understand... ==

Why you guys destroyed a wonderful original piece of work by Mr. Schlafly. There are hundreds of books and web sites that explain relativity, why did you feel the need to reproduce that content here? --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:18, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
:Perhaps because they are right and he is wrong? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, you still haven't answered my [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|reasonable questions abouts this subject]]. To be ignorant on a subject isn't that big a deal, but to willfully stay ignorant while lecturing about it, that is! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:32, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

BTW, the ''wonderful original piece of work'' was not destroyed - you find it embedded in the text. A blanket reversion of the work of a couple of editors should be a no-no, please give reasons for reverting at least for each paragraph! And answer the [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|questions!]] [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:42, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== Protection of the Article ==

Stated reason: ''(with reluctance, and repeated reversions; for now, post specific suggestions for edits on the talk page)''

Aschlafly, this must be one of these definitions of irony, as I asked for specific reasons for your deletions of material. Isn't that censorship? BTW, you still haven't replied to the [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|sections above]], and frankly I'm starting to call your knowledge on this matter in question! Ignorance is not always bliss!

And if you are not willing to address the points made above by various contributors, are you at least willing to read and answer to ''specific suggestions for edits on the talk page''? Or is this a sham to force-feed your view to the readers?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:The lead focus of the entry was converted into a parade of [[hearsay]] rather than logical analysis. Simply put, the entry had denigrated into the ''antithesis'' of the truth-seeking integrity expected of ''Conservapedia''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:41, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
::And what about the current entry? The fact is that E=mc2 is a perfectly valid equation demonstrating the equivalence of matter and energy and it has been thoroughly verified; the energy a piece of matter contains DOES equal its mass times ''c'' squared. This has been repeatedly demonstrated by experiments, which consistently show that the energy released by a reaction is equal within measuring limits to the overall mass lost. It's perfectly reasonable to reject any claim that this demonstrates the truth of moral relativism, atheism or anything else, but to criticise the equation itself as "meaningless" or "liberal claptrap" demonstrates no truth-seeking or integrity. E=mc2 is no more liberal than d=vt or 1+1=2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:53, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::The entry explains how nonsensical the formula is as a general principle -- and how it has never been derived as a matter of logic or demonstrated in any general, meaningful manner. Reliance on [[hearsay]] is not a serious alternative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::But it ''isn't'' a general principle. It's a mathematical expression of matter-energy equivalence and it's perfectly valid. Whether or not it's ever been derived as a matter of logic or not is irrelevant because it's been repeatedly demonstrated to be true in the most meaningful manner possible: if you turn matter into energy the amount of energy that comes out is always equal to the lost mass times ''c'' squared. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:59, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::You restate the claim as though its repetition would make it true. It doesn't. If someone gains one pound in weight, then it is preposterous for anyone to claim that his energy has thereby increased in proportion to the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::Yes, it would be absolutely preposterous. In fact his energy would have increased by a number of foot-pounds equal to one pound times ''c''2 in feet per second. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:11, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::::To explain that further, his energy would have increased in proportion to his '''weight''', not to the speed of light. If a person who weighed 150lb gained 1lb the energy contained in their mass would increase from 1.4467x1017 ft lb to 1.4564x1017 ft lb. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::::The formula '''E=mc2''' does assert that his energy for a fixed gain in weight would increase in proportion to the speed of light squared and, as you say, that is preposterous.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::No, his energy for a fixed gain in weight will increase in proportion to his '''weight'''. In my example of a 150lb man gaining 1lb, his new energy content will be 0.6667% higher, '''as will his weight'''. ''c''2 is just a constant. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:52, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::::::Andy seems to imagine that this energy should be immediately available for sports or doing work around the house, and that we should all be superheroes after having eaten a bar of chocolate. This is, of course, not so. The energy is still locked up in the mass, and it would require nuclear or particle reactions to convert even small parts of it into useful forms of energy. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:28, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
''The lead focus of the entry was converted into a parade of [[hearsay]] rather than logical analysis''. Then let's get factual: just answer a [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|few questions]]. Shouldn't be difficult, as you are so insightful. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:26, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

Of course this is hearsay - and so it should be. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia - a collection of established information cited from other sources. Hearsay may be inappropriate in court, but it is the lifeblood of an encyclopedia. Anything that is not 'hearsay' is personal opinion or original research, and should be reserved for articles prefixed 'Essay:'. --[[User:JasperK|JasperK]] 08:23, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:Then again, heresy tends to be more reputable when it comes from a professional who has studied the issue for years, instead of a man who doesn't understand how food works. [[User:JackFerner|JackFerner]] 12:23, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Bare links ==

I noticed that [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&diff=971455&oldid=971446 this edit] removed publication information about the references. Personally, I think this information is useful for two reasons: it helps Conservapedia editors locate the references from other sources if (and when) the links go dead, and it helps who print out Conservapedia articles and wish to look up the references offline. (Of course, I'm not suggesting that the URLs be removed, but this could be in addition to the publication information). Of course, there may be perfectly good reasons for removing the publication information of which I am not aware, but I otherwise think that the publication information should be included again (and I plan to do this once the protection expires). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:17, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:Great point. I retrieved and added many of the citations back. If I missed any then I'd be happy to add them also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== Niels Bohr ==
Andy, for how often you rail against the Nobel Prize I'm surprised that you would try and use a former winner as an authority to support your misguided assertion. [[User:DennisR|DennisR]] 21:48, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:Even a broken clock (like the Nobel Prize) gets it right every once in a while!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:07, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

::''. As a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light, it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, including Niels Bohr. '' Who were these physicists? And what said Niels Bohr? I couldn't find anything. In the famous ''Gedankenexperiment'' at Solvay, he accepted ''E=mc²! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:14, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

:::And of course it ''isn't'' a "general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light." It's a statement of equivalence between energy and matter. Andy seems to be obsessed with the idea that light is involved somehow, and that conflicts with his rather odd idea that the Bible forbids a unified theory. I can only wonder what he'll do if science comes up with a unified theory. Probably deny that too. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:16, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly, according to the information I found (Einstein and Bohr at the Solvay-conference), Niels Bohr accepted ''E=mc²''. So, a fact-tag was the only alternative to downright deleting the sentence: it allows you to bring up your sources! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:31, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
:I'd have been amazed if he hadn't. Bohr was on the British team for the Manhattan Project, and he wouldn't have been much use at nuclear weapon design if he didn't accept E=mc2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:41, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, you have a tendency to make up claims (''As a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light, it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, including Niels Bohr. '', ''Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula'', and, yes, '' "suddenly" or "at that time" is a nuance of the Greek ἰδού''). And when your bluff is called, you are miffed! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:00, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
::''Protected "E=mc²": insertion of a fact tag instead of finding and adding a reference.'' That is ridiculous: there is no way of ''finding and adding a reference'' for this made-up "''fact''"!
::It is, however, not very difficult to show that the ''fact'' was invented: just take a look into ''"Foundations of Quantum Physics I''", a book written by Niels Bohr and Jorgen Kalckar. Here Bohr uses what he calls ''Einstein's relation'' without any trepidation! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:00, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Presumably, then, the relevant text should be changed to something like "it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, although Niels Bohr later accepted it." and then add the citation. Or you could clarify with something like "the liberal Nobel Prizewinner Niels Bohr".--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:18, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
::::*There is no reason to think that there was a time at which Niels Bohr didn't accept it!
::::*Is there any source which shows that it was ''widely rejected at the time''? Of course, there was the [[Deutsche Physik]], but does this count?
::::*That said: the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag was absolutely appropriate.
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:44, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::You make some valid points as the online evidence is remarkably scant, even though the disagreement between Bohr and Einstein is well-known. This may be a (rare) example where the internet is less adequate than books. I did add an explanatory footnote and the protection to the page should be expiring soon, if not already.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

*Einstein disagreed with Bohr regarding quantum mechanics. Could you provide a source that Bohr disagreed with Einstein on the theory of relativity? I can't find one!
*As I said, the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag was absolutely appropriate, and I'll reinsert it, as I don't think that there are any sources to back-up your claim.
*Furthermore, I have difficulties to believe that Lord Rutherford had problems with ''E=mc²'', he seemed to appreciate the liquid-drop-model of Gamov, Bohr, et al.
*''a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light'': no one claims that the '''three''' are equivalent!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:22, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== First sentence ==

I've changed the introduction to something a bit more encyclopaedic. Please don't revert without discussing it first. Thanks. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:28, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Political Pressure ==

''Political pressure has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of this nonsensical equation''

More likely the fact that similar experiments as the one Cockcroft and Walton are performed by undergraduates in each department teaching physics around the world! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:30, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

:No, that would not explain why it "is impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of" E=mc2. Even if you think the formula is somehow true, surely you do not deny the political pressure in academia against anyone who might consider questioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:37, 3 April 2012 (EDT)
::It's entirely possible for someone who questions the validity of E=mc2 to pursue a career in science; scientists are encouraged to question the validity ''everything''. However if they ''deny'' the validity of E=mc2 then a scientific career is indeed off-limits to them, for the same reason as it's off-limits to someone who denies that 1+1=2. The fact is, E=mc2. It's been verified time and time again. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 18:44, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

To talk about political pressure in this context is ridiculous. The conversion of Mass to Energy and vice versa and the validity of E=mc2 has been demonstrated experimentally so often(an early example is given in the main page) that to deny that the equation describes observed nature flies in the face of observation and is thus unscientific. To question its validity without hard experimental evidence or a sound theoretical argument (neither of which has been demonstrated) would simply be a matter of scientific (in)competance.[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:16, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

:*Aschlafly, if you argue against ''E=mc²'' out of a position of (willful) ignorance, you won't be taken seriously. Unfortunately this is what you are doing, as your (non-) answer [[Talk:E=mc²#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockroft and Walton|above]] is showing.
:*Criticism of ''E=mc²'' on ideological grounds just doesn't work, as the adherents of the [[Deutsche Physik]] found out in the early 1940s.
:*But obviously, the theory is under constant discussion, as is the concept of energy or mass.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:34, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

== Matter-light relationship ==

Mr. Schafly, I think you are misunderstanding the nature of the <math>E=mc^2</math> relationship. To illustrate, I will give an example.

Suppose we have a map where 1 inch of distance on the map corresponds to 5 miles actual distance. If points A and B are located 2.5 inches apart on the map, we can compute the actual distance between them as follows:
:<math>2.5 \textrm{ map\,in} \cdot \frac{5 \textrm{ mi}}{\textrm{map\,in}} = 12.5 \textrm{ mi}</math>
In general, if the map distance between two points is <math>d</math> and the actual distance between the points is <math>D</math>, then the following formula is satisfied:
:<math>D = dc</math>
where <math>c</math> is the conversion factor <math>\frac{5 \textrm{ mi}}{\textrm{map\,in}}</math>. The equation above does not relate distance to five or map distance to quintessence. Rather, it posits a direct relationship (or equivalence) between the map distance and the actual distance, related by a conversion factor.

Likewise, <math>E=mc^2</math> posits a direct relationship between mass and energy. It does not relate mass to the speed of light (or light itself), nor does the equation related light to energy. Rather, <math>c^2</math> is a conversion factor, just like the <math>c</math> was in our equation for computing actual distances from map distances. I hope this helps explain why some editors have concern with your statement of the relationship posited by <math>E=mc^2</math>. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:19, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:But Energy and mass have known meanings in other contexts, unlike the distances (in inches) on the map page in your example. If Energy or mass were being redefined by E=mc2, then I think your analogy would work. But people are not defending E=mc2 by saying it entails a redefinition of Energy or mass.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
::The equation postulates how mass and energy can be interchanged while conserving the total amount of mass energy. For example, according to the equation, a nuclear reaction that causes 1.0 kg of mass to be lost will produce 9.0 x 1016 J energy. The amount of energy produced ''by the loss of mass'' is proportional to the mass lost. It is the same sort of equivalence between the number of pounds you get at a currency exchange and the number of dollars you pay (which, come to think of it, is probably an even better analogy). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:13, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:::(inserted reply here) E=mc2 claims more than the relation between mass and energy is linear (which is itself implausible). It also claims that the proportional factor is precisely equal to the speed of light squared. Restating the meaning of the equation in plain terms demonstrates how implausible it is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:41, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Energy and mass have known meanings in THIS context! The equation tells us how much energy will be liberated by losing a set amount of mass, or how much energy (for example hard gamma rays) is required to create a set amount of mass. It is a valid equation. It doesn't matter ''what'' objections anyone has to it based on principle or logic; it's been tested and it's correct. This is getting pretty frustrating. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 01:56, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

Perhaps we should have two articles [[E=mc² (science)]] and [[E=mc² (new age)]]: every sentence Aschlafly writes on this subjects shows that he knows so very little about the science involved - and has no interest to get informed any further. Instead his methods reminds me of homeopaths and other quacks advertising their craft by misrepresenting sources, cherry-picking evidence and generally repeating false statements over and over again despite of better knowledge. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:05, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

===A question===

Mr Schlafly, you've said that this equation "purports" to describe the equivalence of matter and energy. The fact is, it's been repeatedly tested and it ''does'' describe the equivalence of matter and energy. However I get the feeling that there's some misunderstanding here. What, exactly, is your objection to E=mc2? Do you think it's incorrect - in which case go check the experimental data - or do you think it's being used to advance some sort of political agenda? I think we've reached a deadlock here and to make any progress on improving the article it would be helpful to know what you think is wrong with the equation. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:02, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
:The problem is that it is a self-sustaining myth presented as "fact" by the same self-serving scientific establishment who have built an tautological edifice on nothing. It is designed to subtly indoctrinate children into the world of moral, social and scientific relativity by suggesting that "everything is relative".--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 17:03, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:The equation is nonsensical. Mass has nothing to do with the speed of light, and cannot be equated to energy simply by multiplying it twice by the speed of light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
::Andy, how do you explain the result of the Cockcroft- Walton experiment? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 01:42, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:::A very good question! Aschlafly, you could try to answer it by responding to [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|this section above]]! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:01, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

== Bohr disagreed with Einstein's 1905 paper ==

Aschlafly, do you have any source for this claim? It seems to be factual incorrect. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:27, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

I looked into it and for me it is an ''ad-hoc'' fabrication to make a point - even the time-line doesn't work out: a '''''trustworthy''''' encyclopedia shouldn't work this way! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:58, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

Talk:One-child Policy

2011-08-24T18:45:27Z

DenisTR: Needs clarification

== Needs clarification ==

This page needs some clarification. First it states that the one child policy applies only to urban families, and then it says that due to one-child policies rural families are more likely to abort girls in order to have a male heir. Why would this happen if the one-child law does not apply in rural areas as the article says? I think the truth is that the rural exemption is not as all-encompassing as the article suggest [[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 14:45, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

Ring (mathematics)

2011-06-30T02:13:46Z

DenisTR: monoid not a semigroup d'oh

A '''ring''' in [[mathematics]] is a set ''R'' equipped with two [[binary]] [[operation]]s, usually called addition and multiplication, that is a [[group]] under the operation of addition and a monoid (no inverses) under the operation of multiplication.

==Examples==
*<math>(\mathbb{Z},+, \cdot)</math> - the set of the [[integers]] - together with the usual [[addition]] and [[multiplication]] is a ring.
*For any ring <math>R</math> the polynomial ring <math>R[x]</math> consisting of elements of the form <math>b_0 +b_1x+...+b_mx^m</math> where <math>b_i \in R</math> is a Ring as well. All polynomials with integer coefficients form the ring <math>Z[x]</math>
*<math>(\mathbb{Z} / 6\mathbb{Z},+, \cdot)</math> : this is the ring of six elements {0,1,2,3,4,5} and the usual addition and multiplication [[modulo]] six. So, here 1+3= 4, but 4+5 = 3. Interestingly, <math>2 \cdot 3 = 0 </math>, so, you can multiply two elements, neither of which is zero, and get zero as the result!
*<math>M^{n \times n}(\mathbb R)</math>, the set of <math>n \times n</math> real matrices, with operations of matrix addition and multiplication, is a ring.

==Axioms==

Explicitly, a ring <math> R</math> is a set, with two binary operations usually labeled <math>*</math> and <math>+</math> that satisfy the following axioms.

'''Axioms of Addition'''
 
1. '''Identity''' - there exists an element (usually labeled <math> 0</math> ) such that <math> 0+x = x+0 = x \ \forall x \in R </math>
 
2. '''Associativity''' - for any three elements <math>a,b,c\in R\ ,(a+b)+c = a+(b+c)</math>
 
3. '''Inverses''' - for any element <math>a \in R</math> there exists an element (usually labeled as <math>-a</math> such that <math>a+(-a) = (-a)+a = 0</math>
 
4. ''''Commutativity''' - for any two elements <math>a,b \in R\ ,a+b = b+a</math>

'''Axioms of Multiplication'''
 
1. '''Identity*''' - there exists an element (usually labeled <math>1</math> ) such that <math> 1*x = x*1 = x \ \forall x \in R</math>
 
2. '''Associativity''' - for any three elements <math>a,b,c\in R\ ,(a*b)*c = a*(b*c)</math>

'''Distributive Property'''
 
1. For three elements <math>a,b,c \in R\ , a*(b+c) = a*b =a*c</math>

'''*''' - Some texts define a ring without a multiplicative identity. See [[ring (mathematics)#Remarks|rng]]

==Elements==
An element of a ring <math> a \in R</math> is a '''unit''' if it has a multiplicative inverse. The numbers <math>\pm 1 \in \mathbb{Z}</math> are the only units in the Integers

An element of a <math> x \in R </math> is a '''zero divisor''' if there is another element <math> y\in R \ ,\ y \neq 0\mbox{ such that } xy = 0 \mbox{ or } yx = 0 </math> . In the third example above, 2 and 3 are zero divisors. In fact, for any ring of Integers modulo m, all prime factors of m and their producs are zero divisors.

The '''multiplicative identity''' (usually denoted as <math> 1 \in R</math> ) is the unique element of the ring that <math> 1x = x1 = x \ \forall x \in R</math>

The '''additive Identity''' (usually denoted as <math> 0 \in R </math> ) is the unique element of the ring that <math> 0+x = x+0 = x \ \forall x \in R </math>

A '''prime element''' (or prime) is an element of a ''commutative'' ring s.t. a non-unit <math> p \in R</math> is prime if and only if <math>p|ab \rightarrow p|a \mbox{ or } p|b</math> (note that this differs from the definition of a [[prime]] that is more commonly presented in grade school).

An '''irreducible element''' is an element of an [[integral domain]] (a special type of ring) such that <math>a\in R</math> is irreducible if it cannot be written as a product of two non-units. When applied to the integers (which is an integral domain) this means that an irreducible element is any element that only has itself and 1 as prime factors (1 is unit, so we satisfy the definition), this is the common way to define [[prime|prime numbers]]. Note that every ''prime element'' is necessarily irreducible, but not every irreducible element is necessarily a prime element (this motivates us to exclude 1 from the list of prime numbers)
==Remarks==
A '''rng''' (pronounced "rung") is an a ring without a multiplicative identity. In some texts, a ring is defined as rng, it turns out that many of the most elementary theorems (the ones that apply to arbitrary rings) do not require an identity, this ambiguity causes the confusion.

In texts where a ring is defined as a rng - a '''ring with unity''' is a rng with a multiplicative identity (our definition of a ring)

A '''commutative ring''' is a ring in which multiplication is commutative. The first three examples of rings given above are commutative rings: the last is not, since matrix multiplication is not in general commutative. The study of the properties of commutative rings is usually called '''commutative algebra'''.

An '''entire ring''' is a ring that has no zero divisors.

An '''integral domain''' is a commutative entire ring.

A '''Unique Factorization Domain (UFD)''' is an integral domain in which every element that is not 0 or a unit can be written as a product of irreducible elements. i.e. every element can be factored into a product of primes, analogous to the integers (In a related theorem, every irreducible element of a UFD is prime)

A [[Field]] is a commutative ring where every element except 0 is a unit (is invertible). In other words, a field is a ring that is an [[abelian group]] over both addition and multiplication

A '''division ring''' (also known as a skew field) is a ring that is a [[group]] over multiplication (every non-zero element has an inverse, but not necessarily commutative). A division ring can also be thought of as a [[field]] that is not commutative.

[[Category:Algebra]]

Ring (mathematics)

2011-06-30T00:22:43Z

DenisTR: As I've restructured this page to use the definition of a ring with idenity, I've removed the non-ring example (even integers which is a rng) and replaced it with the polynomial ring

A '''ring''' in [[mathematics]] is a set ''R'' equipped with two [[binary]] [[operation]]s, usually called addition and multiplication, that is a [[group]] under the operation of addition and a semi-group (no inverses) under the operation of multiplication.

==Examples==
*<math>(\mathbb{Z},+, \cdot)</math> - the set of the [[integers]] - together with the usual [[addition]] and [[multiplication]] is a ring.
*For any ring <math>R</math> the polynomial ring <math>R[x]</math> consisting of elements of the form <math>b_0 +b_1x+...+b_mx^m</math> where <math>b_i \in R</math> is a Ring as well. All polynomials with integer coefficients form the ring <math>Z[x]</math>
*<math>(\mathbb{Z} / 6\mathbb{Z},+, \cdot)</math> : this is the ring of six elements {0,1,2,3,4,5} and the usual addition and multiplication [[modulo]] six. So, here 1+3= 4, but 4+5 = 3. Interestingly, <math>2 \cdot 3 = 0 </math>, so, you can multiply two elements, neither of which is zero, and get zero as the result!
*<math>M^{n \times n}(\mathbb R)</math>, the set of <math>n \times n</math> real matrices, with operations of matrix addition and multiplication, is a ring.

==Axioms==

Explicitly, a ring <math> R</math> is a set, with two binary operations usually labeled <math>*</math> and <math>+</math> that satisfy the following axioms.

'''Axioms of Addition'''
 
1. '''Identity''' - there exists an element (usually labeled <math> 0</math> ) such that <math> 0+x = x+0 = x \ \forall x \in R </math>
 
2. '''Associativity''' - for any three elements <math>a,b,c\in R\ ,(a+b)+c = a+(b+c)</math>
 
3. '''Inverses''' - for any element <math>a \in R</math> there exists an element (usually labeled as <math>-a</math> such that <math>a+(-a) = (-a)+a = 0</math>
 
4. ''''Commutativity''' - for any two elements <math>a,b \in R\ ,a+b = b+a</math>

'''Axioms of Multiplication'''
 
1. '''Identity*''' - there exists an element (usually labeled <math>1</math> ) such that <math> 1*x = x*1 = x \ \forall x \in R</math>
 
2. '''Associativity''' - for any three elements <math>a,b,c\in R\ ,(a*b)*c = a*(b*c)</math>

'''Distributive Property'''
 
1. For three elements <math>a,b,c \in R\ , a*(b+c) = a*b =a*c</math>

'''*''' - Some texts define a ring without a multiplicative identity. See [[ring (mathematics)#Remarks|rng]]

==Elements==
An element of a ring <math> a \in R</math> is a '''unit''' if it has a multiplicative inverse. The numbers <math>\pm 1 \in \mathbb{Z}</math> are the only units in the Integers

An element of a <math> x \in R </math> is a '''zero divisor''' if there is another element <math> y\in R \ ,\ y \neq 0\mbox{ such that } xy = 0 \mbox{ or } yx = 0 </math> . In the third example above, 2 and 3 are zero divisors. In fact, for any ring of Integers modulo m, all prime factors of m and their producs are zero divisors.

The '''multiplicative identity''' (usually denoted as <math> 1 \in R</math> ) is the unique element of the ring that <math> 1x = x1 = x \ \forall x \in R</math>

The '''additive Identity''' (usually denoted as <math> 0 \in R </math> ) is the unique element of the ring that <math> 0+x = x+0 = x \ \forall x \in R </math>

A '''prime element''' (or prime) is an element of a ''commutative'' ring s.t. a non-unit <math> p \in R</math> is prime if and only if <math>p|ab \rightarrow p|a \mbox{ or } p|b</math> (note that this differs from the definition of a [[prime]] that is more commonly presented in grade school).

An '''irreducible element''' is an element of an [[integral domain]] (a special type of ring) such that <math>a\in R</math> is irreducible if it cannot be written as a product of two non-units. When applied to the integers (which is an integral domain) this means that an irreducible element is any element that only has itself and 1 as prime factors (1 is unit, so we satisfy the definition), this is the common way to define [[prime|prime numbers]]. Note that every ''prime element'' is necessarily irreducible, but not every irreducible element is necessarily a prime element (this motivates us to exclude 1 from the list of prime numbers)
==Remarks==
A '''rng''' (pronounced "rung") is an a ring without a multiplicative identity. In some texts, a ring is defined as rng, it turns out that many of the most elementary theorems (the ones that apply to arbitrary rings) do not require an identity, this ambiguity causes the confusion.

In texts where a ring is defined as a rng - a '''ring with unity''' is a rng with a multiplicative identity (our definition of a ring)

A '''commutative ring''' is a ring in which multiplication is commutative. The first three examples of rings given above are commutative rings: the last is not, since matrix multiplication is not in general commutative. The study of the properties of commutative rings is usually called '''commutative algebra'''.

An '''entire ring''' is a ring that has no zero divisors.

An '''integral domain''' is a commutative entire ring.

A '''Unique Factorization Domain (UFD)''' is an integral domain in which every element that is not 0 or a unit can be written as a product of irreducible elements. i.e. every element can be factored into a product of primes, analogous to the integers (In a related theorem, every irreducible element of a UFD is prime)

A [[Field]] is a commutative ring where every element except 0 is a unit (is invertible). In other words, a field is a ring that is an [[abelian group]] over both addition and multiplication

A '''division ring''' (also known as a skew field) is a ring that is a [[group]] over multiplication (every non-zero element has an inverse, but not necessarily commutative). A division ring can also be thought of as a [[field]] that is not commutative.

[[Category:Algebra]]

Rng

2011-06-29T23:58:30Z

DenisTR: redirect to the ring page where rng is currently defined. Will flesh out a separate page later

#redirect [[ring (mathematics)#Remarks]]

Integral domain

2011-06-29T23:56:18Z

DenisTR: capitalization redirect

#REDIRECT [[Integral Domain]]

Integral Domain

2011-06-29T23:55:30Z

DenisTR: Created as a redirect to a ring, which has a rudimentary definition of a I.D. will flesh out later

#REDIRECT [[ring (mathematics)#Remarks]]

Ring (mathematics)

2011-06-29T23:53:13Z

DenisTR: Rewrite to explicitly state the axioms, also include the hierarchy ring->field in this article as a start to flesh out the abstract algebra topics. Written to consistently include 1 in the definition

A '''ring''' in [[mathematics]] is a set ''R'' equipped with two [[binary]] [[operation]]s, usually called addition and multiplication, that is a [[group]] under the operation of addition and a semi-group (no inverses) under the operation of multiplication.

==Examples==
*<math>(\mathbb{Z},+, \cdot)</math> - the set of the [[integers]] - together with the usual [[addition]] and [[multiplication]] is a ring.
*For any ring <math>R</math> the polynomial ring <math>R[x]</math> consisting of elements of the form <math>b_0 +b_1x+...+b_mx^m</math> where <math>b_i \in R</math> is a Ring as well. All polynomials with integer coefficients form the ring <math>Z[x]</math>
*the [[subring]] of the even numbers is a ring, too: this shows that there is not necessarily a neutral element of the multiplication in a ring. A ring without multiplicative identity is sometimes called (tongue-in-cheek) a "rng".
*<math>(\mathbb{Z} / 6\mathbb{Z},+, \cdot)</math> : this is the ring of six elements {0,1,2,3,4,5} and the usual addition and multiplication [[modulo]] six. So, here 1+3= 4, but 4+5 = 3. Interestingly, <math>2 \cdot 3 = 0 </math>, so, you can multiply two elements, neither of which is zero, and get zero as the result!
*<math>M^{n \times n}(\mathbb R)</math>, the set of <math>n \times n</math> real matrices, with operations of matrix addition and multiplication, is a ring.

==Axioms==

Explicitly, a ring <math> R</math> is a set, with two binary operations usually labeled <math>*</math> and <math>+</math> that satisfy the following axioms.

'''Axioms of Addition'''
 
1. '''Identity''' - there exists an element (usually labeled <math> 0</math> ) such that <math> 0+x = x+0 = x \ \forall x \in R </math>
 
2. '''Associativity''' - for any three elements <math>a,b,c\in R\ ,(a+b)+c = a+(b+c)</math>
 
3. '''Inverses''' - for any element <math>a \in R</math> there exists an element (usually labeled as <math>-a</math> such that <math>a+(-a) = (-a)+a = 0</math>
 
4. ''''Commutativity''' - for any two elements <math>a,b \in R\ ,a+b = b+a</math>

'''Axioms of Multiplication'''
 
1. '''Identity*''' - there exists an element (usually labeled <math>1</math> ) such that <math> 1*x = x*1 = x \ \forall x \in R</math>
 
2. '''Associativity''' - for any three elements <math>a,b,c\in R\ ,(a*b)*c = a*(b*c)</math>

'''Distributive Property'''
 
1. For three elements <math>a,b,c \in R\ , a*(b+c) = a*b =a*c</math>

'''*''' - Some texts define a ring without a multiplicative identity. See [[ring (mathematics)#Remarks|rng]]

==Elements==
An element of a ring <math> a \in R</math> is a '''unit''' if it has a multiplicative inverse. The numbers <math>\pm 1 \in \mathbb{Z}</math> are the only units in the Integers

An element of a <math> x \in R </math> is a '''zero divisor''' if there is another element <math> y\in R \ ,\ y \neq 0\mbox{ such that } xy = 0 \mbox{ or } yx = 0 </math> . In the third example above, 2 and 3 are zero divisors. In fact, for any ring of Integers modulo m, all prime factors of m and their producs are zero divisors.

The '''multiplicative identity''' (usually denoted as <math> 1 \in R</math> ) is the unique element of the ring that <math> 1x = x1 = x \ \forall x \in R</math>

The '''additive Identity''' (usually denoted as <math> 0 \in R </math> ) is the unique element of the ring that <math> 0+x = x+0 = x \ \forall x \in R </math>

A '''prime element''' (or prime) is an element of a ''commutative'' ring s.t. a non-unit <math> p \in R</math> is prime if and only if <math>p|ab \rightarrow p|a \mbox{ or } p|b</math> (note that this differs from the definition of a [[prime]] that is more commonly presented in grade school).

An '''irreducible element''' is an element of an [[integral domain]] (a special type of ring) such that <math>a\in R</math> is irreducible if it cannot be written as a product of two non-units. When applied to the integers (which is an integral domain) this means that an irreducible element is any element that only has itself and 1 as prime factors (1 is unit, so we satisfy the definition), this is the common way to define [[prime|prime numbers]]. Note that every ''prime element'' is necessarily irreducible, but not every irreducible element is necessarily a prime element (this motivates us to exclude 1 from the list of prime numbers)
==Remarks==
A '''rng''' (pronounced "rung") is an a ring without a multiplicative identity. In some texts, a ring is defined as rng, it turns out that many of the most elementary theorems (the ones that apply to arbitrary rings) do not require an identity, this ambiguity causes the confusion.

In texts where a ring is defined as a rng - a '''ring with unity''' is a rng with a multiplicative identity (our definition of a ring)

A '''commutative ring''' is a ring in which multiplication is commutative. The first three examples of rings given above are commutative rings: the last is not, since matrix multiplication is not in general commutative. The study of the properties of commutative rings is usually called '''commutative algebra'''.

An '''entire ring''' is a ring that has no zero divisors.

An '''integral domain''' is a commutative entire ring.

A '''Unique Factorization Domain (UFD)''' is an integral domain in which every element that is not 0 or a unit can be written as a product of irreducible elements. i.e. every element can be factored into a product of primes, analogous to the integers (In a related theorem, every irreducible element of a UFD is prime)

A [[Field]] is a commutative ring where every element except 0 is a unit (is invertible). In other words, a field is a ring that is an [[abelian group]] over both addition and multiplication

A '''division ring''' (also known as a skew field) is a ring that is a [[group]] over multiplication (every non-zero element has an inverse, but not necessarily commutative). A division ring can also be thought of as a [[field]] that is not commutative.

[[Category:Algebra]]

Rational number

2011-06-29T22:29:33Z

DenisTR: A little clarification on the fractions vs rational numbers

{{Math-m}}

The '''rational numbers''' are the numbers representable as ratios of integers, that is, fractions. Mathematicians denote the set of rational numbers with an ornate capital letter: <math>\mathbb{Q}</math>. They are the 3rd item in this hierarchy of types of [[number]]s:

*The "[[natural number]]s", 1, 2, 3, ... (There is controversy about whether zero should be included. It doesn't matter.)
*The "[[integer]]s"—positive, negative, and [[zero]]
*The "rational numbers", which can be represented as [[fraction]]s, like 355/113
*The "[[real number]]s", including irrational numbers
*The "[[complex number]]s, which give solutions to polynomial equations

__TOC__

Rational numbers are actually defined as ''[[equivalence class]]es'' of ratios of integers, so that 2/3 and 4/6 are the same number.

If a rational number were to be represented as a decimal to infinite precision, that decimal would either terminate at some point (e.g. 1.25) or would eventually get into an endless repeating pattern (e.q. 1.250909090909..., which is 1376/1100).

Zero in the denominator of a rational number is not allowed. All rational numbers are [[infinity|finite]].

==Countability and density==
An important theoretical property of the rationals is that they are countable. That is, the entire set of rational numbers can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with the integers. This is surprising at first glance, since the integers are "sparse" while the rationals seem to fill out the real line. To see this correspondence, we need to list all rational numbers in some order. List the rationals (that is, the rationals in which the fraction has been fully reduced) that have the sum of their numerators and denominators equal to one. 0/1 is the only such. Then follow those with the rationals that have the sum of their numerators and denominators equal to two. 1/1 is the only such, since 0/2 is not reduced. Follow those with the rationals that have the sum of their numerators and denominators equal to three. They are 1/2 and 2/1. Continue without end.

A more subtle theoretical property is that the rationals comprise a countable [[dense set|dense subset]] of the reals. This is used in some advanced theorems of topology.

==Algebraic Properties==
The algebraic implications of the rational numbers are both interesting and far reaching. The rational numbers represent a specific example of a [[field (mathematics)|Field of Fractions]] over the [[Integers]]. The [[integers]] constitute a [[ring]], there are two defined operations - addition and multiplication, which follow a certain set of rules (or as Mathematicians would say - have a certain structure). Specifically, the integers are an integral domain, a special type of ring with no zero divisors (There is no integer <math>a,b\neq 0</math> such that <math>a*b = 0</math>) and where the multiplication is commutative. The integers, however, are not a [[field (mathematics)|field]] because not every integer has an integer multiplicative inverse (in fact, only the number 1 and -1 do) .

As mentioned above, we can define an [[equivalence class|equivalence relation]] on (<math>\mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{Z}\backslash\{0\}</math>) (A set of pairs of integers, where the second number in the pair cannot be 0 - thus avoiding the issue of dividing by zero) where two tuples <math>(a,b)</math> and <math>(c,d)</math> (which can be written in the more familiar form <math>\frac{a}{b}</math> and <math>\frac{c}{d}</math>) are equivalent if <math>ad-bc = 0</math>. For example, the two fractions <math>\frac{1}{4}</math> and <math>\frac{2}{8}</math> are equivalent because <math>2*4 - 1*8 = 0</math>. When two pairs of numbers (or fractions) are equivalent we call them members of the same equivalence class. The Field of fractions is the [[set]] of these equivalence classes, it is a simple exercise to show that they constitute a field. Along with the equivalence class, we define the operations of addition (<math>\frac{a}{b} + \frac{c}{d} = \frac{ad+cb}{bd}</math>) and multiplication (<math>\frac{a}{b}*\frac{c}{d} = \frac{ac}{bd}</math>), these operations are intentionally designed to mimic the addition and multiplication of fractions often taught in gradeschool, however keep in mind that the underlying ring does not necessarily have to be the integers (this same formulation constructs a field for ''any'' ring). Since the [[integers]] are ''naturally embedded'' in its field of fractions (we define the trivial mapping that <math>a\in \mathbb{Z} \rightarrow (a,1) \equiv \frac{a}{1} \in \mathbb{Z}\times \mathbb{Z}\backslash\{0\}</math> we only need to show the existence of a multiplicative inverse for each member of the set (all the other rules are satisfied by the ring and integral domain structure of the integers). Since for every fraction <math>\frac{a}{b}</math> we can construct a multiplicative inverse <math>\frac{b}{a}</math>, we satisfy all the conditions for a [[field]] and complete the proof. If the field of fractions is taken over a bona-fide field we will just get back the same field (technically, a new field but which is isomorphic to the original) - so the field of fractions over the rationals is just the rationals again.

Therefore, the rational numbers (or following the definition above, the field of fraction over the integers) can be though of as a "completion" of the integers in the sense that we construct a field "from the ashes" of the ring of integers. It is also important to note that the rational numbers is the smallest field in which the integers can be embedded, in fact, for any arbitrary ring, its field of fractions constitute the smallest field into which the ring can be embedded. Since both the integers and the rationals are infinite in size, we define the notion of smallest to mean that there doesn't exist a subfield <math>F \subset \mathbb{Q}</math> such that <math>\mathbb{Z} \subset F</math>.

The concept of a field of fraction may seem heavy-handed for something as intuitive as rational numbers, however when we are dealing with very abstract rings that look very little like the integers we have been acquainted with since kindergarten its field of fractions may look very bizarre , it is useful that we can rely on our intuition of rational numbers to understand very abstract things.

[[Category:Mathematics]]
[[Category:Calculus]]

Python (programming language)

2011-06-29T22:17:46Z

DenisTR: Added some information about third party packages

Python redirects here. For other uses, see [[Python (disambiguation)]]
[[Image:Python-logo.gif|right|thumb|Python logo|400px]]
'''Python''' is a high-level programming language created by Guido van Rossum in 1991. It is a multi-paradigm language with a fully dynamic type system and automatic garbage collection.

The most popular implementation of Python is the CPython implementation maintained by the Python Software Foundation. Currently developed under an [[open source]] model and licensed under its own Python Software Foundation License, CPython is a byte-code interpreter that comes with a rich library that includes modules for creating graphical user interface, relational database, arbitrary precision arithmetic, complex arithmetic, unit testing, regular expression, XML parsing, C/C++ interfacing and zip compression; combined, these features makes it a powerful glue language between lower-level machine languages and higher level languages and programs. <ref> {{cite web|url=http://python.org/about/ | title= About Python | work=Python Software Foundation }}</ref>. In addition to the built-in libraries, python is extended by a multitude of third party packages, many of which are open source that provide features not available in the python proper. For example, the twin packages scipy<ref>{{cite web|url = http://www.scipy.org/ | title = Scipy | work = Enthought}}</ref> and numpy<ref>{{cite web|url=http://numpy.scipy.org/ |title = Numpy|work=Enthought}}</ref> extend python with a large collection of functions for scientific work and numerical analysis giving python powered applications access to optimized algorithms and high level math functions that rivals that of leading proprietary software packages like [[Mathematica]] and [[Matlab]]. Other third party packages allow programmers to write fully featured [[GUI]]<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.riverbankcomputing.co.uk/software/pyqt/intro| title = PyQt}}</ref> and 3D<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.panda3d.org/| title = Panda3D}}</ref> applications.

Other popular Python implementations include [[Jython]], written in [[Java]], and [[IronPython]], for [[Microsoft]]'s [[.Net framework|.NET framework]].

== Hello World ==

print 'hello world'

==See Also==
*[http://www.python.org/ Python Software Foundation]
*[http://www.codeplex.com/Wiki/View.aspx?ProjectName=IronPython IronPython]

[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Computer Programming]]
[[Category:Computer Science]]
[[Category:Programming Languages]]
[[Category:Scripting Languages]]

==References==
<references/>

Vector space

2011-06-27T01:12:46Z

DenisTR: /* Generalizations */

A '''vector space''' is a [[set]] of objects that can be added together and multiplied by elements of another set, while satisfying certain properties. Elements of the first set are called "vectors" while elements of the second set are called "scalars". The idea of a vector space is one of the most fundamental and important concepts in mathematics, physics, and engineering.

In two dimensions, a vector has a "magnitude" (or length) and a "direction" (or angle).Perhaps the simplest vector to visualize is the ''velocity vector'', showing the speed and direction of motion of a particle. Other extremely common vectors are the [[electric field]] and [[magnetic field]] vectors, though vectors abound in numerous areas of mathematics, physics, mechanical engineering, and aspects of electrical engineering.

The most important operations involving vectors are the ''vector sum'' and the ''vector-scalar product''. As an example of the first, if we are in a train traveling with speed given by one vector, and we throw something inside the train with a velocity, relative to the train, of another vector, the velocity of the object relative to a fixed observer is the sum of those two vectors. As an example of the second, if we double the current through an electromagnet, its magnetic field vector will be multiplied by the number 2. That is, its direction will be unchanged and its magnitude will double.

A vector space is a set of vectors that can be added to each other or multiplied by a "[[scalar]]". (The term "scalar" is used for treatments of unusual vector spaces—see below. For the straightforward case, think of a scalar as just an ordinary [[real number]].)

Not everything is a vector: some examples of things that are not vectors are air temperature and pressure, or the electrostatic voltage. These have no direction. They are scalars. But there is a special type of [[derivative]], the "[[gradient]]" of a scalar, that is a vector. This measures the ''change'' in a scalar from one point in space to another.

Vector spaces have a "dimension". In the physically simple cases, that dimension is usually just 2 or 3. Vectors drawn as arrows on a piece of paper are two-dimensional vectors. Vectors giving velocity, electric field strength, etc., in real 3-dimensional space are three-dimensional vectors. Given a choice of "coordinate system" or "basis" for representing vectors, any vector can be denoted by 2 or 3 (or whatever the dimension is) scalars. So, for example, a particle's velocity vector can be represented by its x-velocity, y-velocity, and z-velocity. These numbers are called the "components" of the vector, and are generally written with subscripts running from 1 to the dimension of the space. So a vector might be represented as

:<math>\vec{v} = (v_1,v_2,v_3)</math>
and
:<math>\vec{w} = (w_1,w_2,w_3)</math>

When represented in this way, the vector sum is very straightforward:

:<math>\vec{v}+\vec{w}=(v_1+v_2+v_3,w_1+w_2+w_3)</math>

and the vector-scalar product is equally straightforward:

:<math> a \cdot \vec{v} = (a v_1,a v_2,a v_3)</math>

Because of this representation, each vector can be thought of as a point in a [[Cartesian coordinate system]]; or, rather, as an arrow from the [[origin]] to the point. For example, <math>\vec{v} = (4,5,6)</math> can be thought of as the arrow from the origin <tt>(0, 0, 0)</tt> to the point <tt>4,5,6</tt>. In this case, (4,5,6) would be called the ''head'' of ''v'', and (0,0,0) would be called the ''tail''.

Vector spaces are the fundamental objects of study of [[linear algebra]] and, due to their usefulness with [[gradient]]s, advanced calculus.

== Examples ==
# The space [[Euclidean space|<math>\mathbb R^n</math>]] of n-tuples of real numbers is a vector space, where to add two vectors we simply add the corresponding components. The case <math>n=2</math> is exactly the case of vectors in the plane discussed above.
# The set <math>\mathbb R[x]</math> of [[polynomial|polynomials]] with real coefficients is a vector space. If we add two polynomials together, we get another polynomial, and similarly, if we multiply a polynomial by a constant, we get another polynomial. Note that although it's also possible to multiply two polynomials and get another one, this is not part of the vector space structure: a vector space with a reasonable notion of multiplication of vectors is called an [[algebra]].
# The set of polynomials of degree less than or equal to <math>n</math> (for any <math>n \geq 0</math>) is a vector space, for the same reason.
# The set of all continuous functions on the real line is a vector space: the sum of two [[continuous|continuous functions]] is again continuous, as is the product of a continuous function with a constant.
# The set of <math>2 \times 2</math> [[matrix|matrices]] <math>M_{2 \times 2}(\mathbb R)</math> is a vector space.
# If <math>V</math> and <math>W</math> are vector spaces, then we can form a new vector space <math>V \oplus W</math> (called the direct sum of V and W) whose entries are ordered pairs <math>(v,w)</math> of elements of V and elements of W.

== Properties ==
Many familiar properties of vectors in the plane carry over to the set of vector spaces. For example, just as the plane is 2-dimensional, it makes sense to talk about the dimension of any vector space (though it may be infinite, as in the case of polynomials!) Vectors in the plane can all be written in the form <math>ae_1+be_2</math>, where <math>e_1 = (1,0), e_2=(0,1)</math>, and a set elements with this same property that all vectors can be written as sums of multiples of vectors in the set is called a basis. Having a convenient basis often makes computations easier. It turns out that every finite dimensional vector space has a basis -- in fact, if we're feeling adventurous and assume the [[Axiom of Choice]], even every infinite dimensional vector space has a basis.

However, a general vector space has no notion of "distance": given a vector, there's not necessarily a way to define the length <math>|v|</math> of that vector. For example, it's not obvious how we should define the length of a polynomial or a matrix. A vector space endowed which a notion of distance is called ''normed''.

== Generalizations ==
The above discussion only considers vector spaces in which the scalars are real numbers, but we could just as well talk about the set of polynomials with complex coefficients, where we multiple by complex scalars. More generally, given any [[field]] <math>F</math>, a vector space over <math>F</math> is an additive [[abelian group]] (where addition is commutative) and with which is associated a field of scalars, as the field of real numbers, such that the product of a scalar and an element of the group or a vector is defined, the product of two scalars times a vector is associative, one times a vector is the vector, and two distributive laws hold. In terms of another definition, a vector space is simply a module for which the ground ring is a field.

Specifically, let V be vector space over a field F. Then for all '''u''','''v''','''w''' ∈ V and a,b ∈ F the following axioms are obeyed:

'''Vector Addition'''
 
1. [[Commutative property|Commutativity]]: '''u''' + '''v''' = '''v''' + '''u'''.
 
2. [[Associative property|Associativity]]: ('''u''' + '''v''') + '''w''' = '''u''' + ('''v''' + '''w''').
 
3. [[Identity_Element|Identity]]: There exists a '''0''' ∈ V such that '''v''' + '''0''' = '''0''' + '''v''' = '''v'''.
 
4. [[Inverse]]: For all '''v''' there exists a (-'''v''') such that '''v''' + (-'''v''') =(-'''v''') + '''v''' = '''0'''.

'''Scalar Multiplication'''
 
5. [[Associative property|Associativity]]: a(b'''v''') = (ab)'''v'''.
 
6. [[Identity_Element|Identity]]: For 1 ∈ F (i.e, the multiplicative identity of F) it follows that 1'''v''' = '''v'''.
 

[[Distributive property|'''Distributivity''']]
 
7. Scalar sums: (a + b)'''v''' = a'''v''' + b'''v'''.
 
8. Vector sums: a('''v''' + '''w''') = a'''v''' + a'''w'''.

==References==

Weisstein, Eric W. "Vector Space." From MathWorld--A Wolfram Web Resource. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VectorSpace.html
[[Category:Mathematics]]
[[Category:Algebra]]
[[Category:Physics]]

Rational number

2011-06-27T00:32:07Z

DenisTR: Just a start on the Algebraic properties of rationals, I hope to write about extensions (very very basic Galois theory) and their role in solving polynomials. This edit can probably be cleaned up.

{{Math-m}}

The '''rational numbers''' are the numbers representable as ratios of integers, that is, fractions. Mathematicians denote the set of rational numbers with an ornate capital letter: <math>\mathbb{Q}</math>. They are the 3rd item in this hierarchy of types of [[number]]s:

*The "[[natural number]]s", 1, 2, 3, ... (There is controversy about whether zero should be included. It doesn't matter.)
*The "[[integer]]s"—positive, negative, and [[zero]]
*The "rational numbers", or [[fraction]]s, like 355/113
*The "[[real number]]s", including irrational numbers
*The "[[complex number]]s, which give solutions to polynomial equations

__TOC__

Rational numbers are actually defined as ''[[equivalence class]]es'' of ratios of integers, so that 2/3 and 4/6 are the same number.

If a rational number were to be represented as a decimal to infinite precision, that decimal would either terminate at some point (e.g. 1.25) or would eventually get into an endless repeating pattern (e.q. 1.250909090909..., which is 1376/1100).

Zero in the denominator of a rational number is not allowed. All rational numbers are [[infinity|finite]].

==Countability and density==
An important theoretical property of the rationals is that they are countable. That is, the entire set of rational numbers can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with the integers. This is surprising at first glance, since the integers are "sparse" while the rationals seem to fill out the real line. To see this correspondence, we need to list all rational numbers in some order. List the rationals (that is, the rationals in which the fraction has been fully reduced) that have the sum of their numerators and denominators equal to one. 0/1 is the only such. Then follow those with the rationals that have the sum of their numerators and denominators equal to two. 1/1 is the only such, since 0/2 is not reduced. Follow those with the rationals that have the sum of their numerators and denominators equal to three. They are 1/2 and 2/1. Continue without end.

A more subtle theoretical property is that the rationals comprise a countable [[dense set|dense subset]] of the reals. This is used in some advanced theorems of topology.

==Algebraic Properties==
The algebraic implications of the rational numbers are both interesting and far reaching. The rational numbers represent a specific example of a [[field (mathematics)|Field of Fractions]] over the [[Integers]]. The [[integers]] constitute a [[ring]], there are two defined operations - addition and multiplication, which follow a certain set of rules (or as Mathematicians would say - have a certain structure). Specifically, the integers are an integral domain, a special type of ring with no zero divisors (There is no integer <math>a,b\neq 0</math> such that <math>a*b = 0</math>) and where the multiplication is commutative. The integers, however, are not a [[field (mathematics)|field]] because not every integer has an integer multiplicative inverse (in fact, only the number 1 and -1 do) .

As mentioned above, we can define an [[equivalence class|equivalence relation]] on (<math>\mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{Z}\backslash\{0\}</math>) (A set of pairs of integers, where the second number in the pair cannot be 0 - thus avoiding the issue of dividing by zero) where two tuples <math>(a,b)</math> and <math>(c,d)</math> (which can be written in the more familiar form <math>\frac{a}{b}</math> and <math>\frac{c}{d}</math>) are equivalent if <math>ad-bc = 0</math>. For example, the two fractions <math>\frac{1}{4}</math> and <math>\frac{2}{8}</math> are equivalent because <math>2*4 - 1*8 = 0</math>. When two pairs of numbers (or fractions) are equivalent we call them members of the same equivalence class. The Field of fractions is the [[set]] of these equivalence classes, it is a simple exercise to show that they constitute a field. Along with the equivalence class, we define the operations of addition (<math>\frac{a}{b} + \frac{c}{d} = \frac{ad+cb}{bd}</math>) and multiplication (<math>\frac{a}{b}*\frac{c}{d} = \frac{ac}{bd}</math>), these operations are intentionally designed to mimic the addition and multiplication of fractions often taught in gradeschool, however keep in mind that the underlying ring does not necessarily have to be the integers (this same formulation constructs a field for ''any'' ring). Since the [[integers]] are ''naturally embedded'' in its field of fractions (we define the trivial mapping that <math>a\in \mathbb{Z} \rightarrow (a,1) \equiv \frac{a}{1} \in \mathbb{Z}\times \mathbb{Z}\backslash\{0\}</math> we only need to show the existence of a multiplicative inverse for each member of the set (all the other rules are satisfied by the ring and integral domain structure of the integers). Since for every fraction <math>\frac{a}{b}</math> we can construct a multiplicative inverse <math>\frac{b}{a}</math>, we satisfy all the conditions for a [[field]] and complete the proof. If the field of fractions is taken over a bona-fide field we will just get back the same field (technically, a new field but which is isomorphic to the original) - so the field of fractions over the rationals is just the rationals again.

Therefore, the rational numbers (or following the definition above, the field of fraction over the integers) can be though of as a "completion" of the integers in the sense that we construct a field "from the ashes" of the ring of integers. It is also important to note that the rational numbers is the smallest field in which the integers can be embedded, in fact, for any arbitrary ring, its field of fractions constitute the smallest field into which the ring can be embedded. Since both the integers and the rationals are infinite in size, we define the notion of smallest to mean that there doesn't exist a subfield <math>F \subset \mathbb{Q}</math> such that <math>\mathbb{Z} \subset F</math>.

The concept of a field of fraction may seem heavy-handed for something as intuitive as rational numbers, however when we are dealing with very abstract rings that look very little like the integers we have been acquainted with since kindergarten its field of fractions may look very bizarre , it is useful that we can rely on our intuition of rational numbers to understand very abstract things.

[[Category:Mathematics]]
[[Category:Calculus]]

Talk:Evolution

2011-04-14T02:25:38Z

DenisTR: /* Poor health practices of some notable evolutionists */ new section

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">

==Student Panel's Decision==
After much debate, the Conservapedia Panel has finished reviewing the Theory of Evolution page. We have determined that the article will remain protected indefinitely, to protect it from inevitable vandalism. We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way. However, we agree that the article lacks an adequate, concise explanation of the Theory of Evolution. Those who wish to assist in improving this article should submit proposed changes to the panel for review. We also realize the article is in need of revisions to areas containing problems with grammar and style and appreciate your help correcting this. The Panel apologizes for the long delay in this decision. Thank you for your patience. Please submit any further issues to the panel at [[User talk:CPanel]], and we will do our best to resolve them.

Sincerely, 
The Conservapedia Student Panel --[[User:CPanel]]

The Panel regarding a concise definition of the theory of evolution:

:The article has been improved significantly since we began working on this issue. Some of the Panel may not be aware of these changes. They have been contacted, and after they give their opinions, we will post the results here. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 18:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
</blockquote>
{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_2|Set 2 of Archives]]
|}
{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_1|Set 1 of Archives]]
|}

__TOC__

== Theory? ==

Evolution is most certainly a fact. --[[User:TheSensei|TheSensei]] 21:51, 22 February 2011 (EST)
:This is what's called an argument by assertion. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 21:53, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:A "fact" ... just like the "fact" of [[global warming]]? Sorry, declaring something a fact does not make it so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:04, 22 February 2011 (EST)

== "Through natural processes alone" vs. "Darwinism" ==

In the article's third paragraph, I noticed an incorrect assertion based on the results of a poll. The article states that "60% of American medical doctors reject Darwinism, stating that they do not believe man evolved through natural processes alone." Just because someone believes that man did not evolve 100% naturally (evolution), doesn't mean that they believe evolution was 100% supernatural. It is possible that they could believe in both Darwinism and intelligent design. [[User:JimAB|JimAB]] 21:40, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

:Darwinism is taught and believed without any "supernatural" intervention. Also, Darwinism directly conflicts with basic [[Christian]] principles, such as [[Jesus]] redeeming the original sin of [[Adam]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 5 April 2011 (EDT)
:As Mr. Schlafly said, most believers in Darwinism don't believe in intelligent design; most believers in Darwinism are atheists. Also, ''doesn't mean they believe evolution was 100% supernatural'' implies that they all believe in evolution in the first place. Do you deny that there are medical doctors that don't believe in evolution at all? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 09:39, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

== Poor health practices of some notable evolutionists ==

I think its unfortunate that despite the generally good quality of the rest of the article, the concluding section reads like it was written by a grade school student. The entire world (with the exclusion of the middle east) consumes alcohol in some form or another, simply drinking beer in a pub is not a sign of poor health. In addition, up to 50% of the U.S. can be considered overweight or obese, since the apparent prevalence of atheism (not self-described, but defined as without belief in a god or life spirit) in the U.S. is on the order of 10%, there are far more obese and overweight theists than atheists. This section as it stands right now reads like an indictment of PZMyers and should be moved to the PZMyers page. In any case, attacking the validity of the theory based on the health of the proponent is a clear ad hominem and should at the very least be revised, since it has no place in an otherwise serious and even-handed article on the theory of evolution. [[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 22:25, 13 April 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2010-08-19T20:50:07Z

DenisTR: /* Searchlight Paradox */

'''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.'''

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

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

----

== Point 4 ==

Andy, can you clarify #4 for me? I'm not sure I understand it. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:50, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:Sure, I welcome discussion of these important points. As I've said, I have an open mind about this and if something is true, then I accept it. But if something is false, I'll criticize it.

:The theory of relativity has taught for decades that as the velocity of a mass increases, then its (scalar) relativistic mass increases per the Lorentzian transformation. Now apply a force ORTHOGONAL to the velocity. Does that force encounter the increased mass, as relativity says, or encounter the rest mass, as logic would dictate?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:02, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Ah, I see what you mean. May I suggest a re-wording? "The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass." I think that might be a little clearer than it is currently stated. Your thoughts? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:06, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::Please do. Your edits are always welcome, and you've suggested an improvement here. Thank you for making this change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:20, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Why would logic dictate that? Mass is a scalar, and a force from any direction should encounter the same increased mass, not different masses from different directions.

::I suppose that under Newtonian mechanics, a moving object has a velocity of 0 within the plane perpendicular to its line of motion, and any forces operating in that plane will act on the object as if it is at rest. But that's not what ''logic'' dictates, that's what the ''previous theory'' dictates.

::Essentially your counterexample to relativity is that it makes a prediction that contradicts Newton's laws. This is neithe r a contradiction nor a logical problem, and it is should be edited out.[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

:::No, it's a logical problem. If you're suggesting that one force can affect the inertial in an entirely independent, orthogonal direction, that's illogical. One thing cannot affect something else that is entirely independent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:40, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::: Why is that illogical? What logical principle does it violate?

:::: See, in relativity, orthogonal doesn't ''mean'' independent. In relativity, velocity vectors ''do not add.'' In relativity, the effect of a new force is not independent of the object's existing momentum. And there is nothing illogical about that; it's just a new theory that contradicts the intuition from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

::::: Ng, something cannot be independent (orthogonal) and yet dependent at the same time. Unfortunately, you're arguing with your own theory at this point. Even most relativity promoters have abandoned the position you take here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:37, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::::::It seems that his point is that something can be orthogonal and dependent. I agree: The cross-product of two vectors is orthogonal to both and yet obviously dependent on both. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 21:41, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::::::: OK, good point, an orthogonal vector can be a function of other orthogonal vectors. But that's a bit different from what we're discussing. Here it's an orthogonal force that is not dependent on anything else, and yet Ng says it encounters relativistic mass due to a different orthogonal force.

::::::: I think relativists have abandoned Ng's position, so he's really arguing with his own side at this point. As a result, I urge him to reconsider his views with an open mind once he confirms that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: First of all, relativity has not "abandoned" the prediction we're talking about. The velocity addition formulas for both parallel and perpendicular velocities have not changed, and they still predict that an orthogonal force will have a harder time accelerating a fast-moving object. Physicists may have changed their informal interpretation of this formula, but not the formula itself, nor its predictions.

:::::: Note also that relativity's prediction can't be all that illogical, because this is what we ''actually observe happening to particles at high speeds.'' If you think that fast-moving particles commit some terrible offense against basic logic, take it up with God.

:::::: There is a very simple way to settle this matter: write an encyclopedia article where the material is properly sourced. If this is indeed some counterexample or logical flaw in relativity, then one can easily find a book or paper exposing that flaw, and cite it.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Sun Dec 13 17:55:04 EST 2009

:::::OK, I think I see part of the problem you people are having. The word "independent" has two different meanings. Being ''linearly'' independent is a concept from pure mathematics. Being ''causally'' independent is an unrelated metaphysical concept. Whether a force pushing on something causes it to move, and by how much, is completely, umm, independent of whether the vectors involved are linearly independent (orthogonal). Please try to be very careful about the meanings of the terms. [[User:SaraT|SaraT]] 17:00, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: I don't think that's the source of our confusion. I think the main problem is that, according to Newtonian mechanics and thus according to our mechanical intuition, orthogonal things tend to operate independently. Not only that, but a force exerted on an object is usually independent of the object's momentum.

:::::: In relativity, none of these things are true, due to the fact that velocities no longer add like vectors (and thus acceleration no longer incurs a cumulative change in velocity in the usual way.) This is seen as some sort of logical flaw or paradox simply because it contradicts the deeply ingrained intuition that came from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Sun Dec 13 18:10:46 EST 2009

::::::: Theories that don't produce anything useful are often a waste of time, or simply false. I realize that [[liberals]] tend to downplay accountability -- a [[Best New Conservative Words|conservative insight]], but theories should be accountable by what value they yield, particularly when taxpayer dollars are spent (wasted) on the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:55, 7 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::: I call gps a pretty darned useful invention but it doesn't work if you don't take into account relativistic effects. I think that not knowing where relativity is used speaks volumes as to how close minded those trying to disprove relativity, which is different from relativism. (a point completely overlooked by the page) [[User:Gaurdro|Gaurdro]] 12:31, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

[[User:MLS|MLS]] 16:07, 15 August 2010 (EDT) I would argue that the nuclear bomb and atomic energy in general are pretty useful inventions. These came about once it was understood that energy and matter were manifestations of the same thing and could be interchanged. E=mc2 is not just a fancy mathematical equation but a new & different way of understanding the physical universe. It took scientists about 3 years (1942 - 1945) between concept and execution (poor word choice) to develop a weapon based on this understanding that ended WW II. MLS 15 August 2010.

== Counterexample 4 (limiting behavior) ==

For the fourth "counterexample," the author points out that the momentum <math>p=mv\gamma</math> does not approach the momentum of light as <math>m\rightarrow 0</math> and <math>v\rightarrow c</math>

Aside from the mathematical sloppiness of taking two independent variables to a limit at the same time, at unspecified rates, these sorts of "discontinuities" can be found in just about any scientific theory. In Newtonian mechanics, for example, take the orbit of a planet as the planet's mass goes to 0. For any nonzero mass the orbit is an ellipse; at m=0 it is suddenly a straight line. Is this a "counterexample" to Newton's laws?

Or in electronics, I=V/R. The limiting case is no voltage, no resistance, no current; but if someone foolishly took V/R as both V and R go to zero, he would get a nonsensical answer. Let them both go at the same rate and you get I=1. Is this a "counterexample" to basic electronics?

Or more to the point, momentum in Newtonian mechanics is <math>p=mv</math>, and this also fails to give the momentum of a photon at m=0, v=c. Again, is that a "counterexample" to <math>p=mv</math>? Will we see this entry in a corresponding page of "Counterexamples to Newton's laws?"

But none of these are counterexamples or "discontinuities": they are just a misinterpretation of the formulas. You don't get the momentum of a photon by taking the momentum formula for a mass and setting m=0 and v=c. That's just not what the formula means, or what they are for. This item should also be removed.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Tue Dec 15 10:16:21 EST 2009

I agree that this point is invalid. I have personally checked that if you take a massive particle, and make its rest mass tend to zero and its speed tend to c ''while keeping its energy constant'', its four-momentum approaches that of a photon. No discontinuity at all. Since this point has been raised 8 months ago and no opposition has been heard, I will delete point 4 from the list. If anyone is interested to see the details of my calculations, let me know and I'll put them in my userspace. [[User:Toph|Toph]] 09:38, 14 August 2010 (EDT)

:The "keeping its energy constant" is a new condition that has no clear relevance to the discontinuity. Please explain further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:54, 14 August 2010 (EDT)

== Counterexample 9 (Jesus action-at-a-distance) ==

The quoted verse doesn't strongly suggest "action-at-a-distance" in the relativistic sense. Light could travel the distances mentioned in the passage in a fraction of a second, which is well within the precision given in the verse (an hour). The verse and relativity are not in contradiction here. This should be removed.

:I have an open mind about it. In the the healing of the centurion's servant, if the Greek is translated as same "moment" then relativity is impossible, but if translated as the same "hour" then there is no conflict with relativity.

:But the healing of the centurion's servant is probably not the only place where there is [[action at a distance]] in the [[Bible]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:52, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::Any distance on the earth is less than 20,000km. A force acting with the speed of light takes less than 1/15,000 ≈ 0.0000667 seconds for this distance.

::I don't think how eyewitnesses could spot such a short time...

::So, there may probably be no other places where [[action at a distance]] is described in the [[Bible]].

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:17, 5 January 2010 (EST)

:::You make an interesting point, Frank. But according to this site, it takes 1/7.4 seconds for light to circle the globe, which is much longer than your figure.[http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_times_does_light_go_around_the_Earth_in_one_second] More generally and more importantly, there is the issue of how this action in the Bible ''isn't'' light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::::Indeed, an error in my calculation: 20,000,000m / 300,000,000 m/sec = 1/15 seconds.
::::Fast enough, still.
::::Whether the action in the Bible ''isn't'' light doesn't matter: it is indistinguishable from an action happening at the speed of light for the witnesses of the time, so it doesn't say anything about the validity of the theory of relativity...
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 19:46, 5 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Frank you make an interesting point, and I have an open mind about it. But I'm not entirely convinced. When the woman cured herself of bleeding and Jesus felt power leaving him, that sounds more like heat than light. And for heat to travel virtually instantaneously (or at the speed of light) WOULD violate the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::::::Yes, it would. And it would also violate classical physics, the laws of thermodynamics etc.

::::::But of course a miracle is going to violate the laws of physics. I don't see how this can be cited to discredit one physical theory over another.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

I have to respectfully disagree with you on that point, Andy - I'm not sure this action could comment on relativity any more than the sun stopping for Joshua could comment on the Copernican model of the solar system. If God wanted heat/light to travel at some finite speed except in certain instances, how is that different from the sun and moon moving in the sky, except in certain instances? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:32, 5 January 2010 (EST)

: I have an open mind about this. You make good points, Jacob. But your analogy is not perfect because:

*the Joshua account might be understood as the ''perception'' of the army that they sun did not set until they completed their job, but the healing in the [[New Testament]] cannot be explained as mere perception
*if the Joshua account is taken absolutely literally, Newtonian mechanics does not say it is impossible, while relativity does say [[action-at-a-distance]] is impossible

I look forward to our translation work on the Joshua passage (and New Testament passages) to see if that brings forth insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)
:Your second point is a good one, and I suppose my example wasn't very good. But on a different note, what makes you say that the Joshua account might be understood as only a perception of the army? I think I'm going to go translate that chapeter, I'll be interested to see what Hebrew words are used for that bit. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:49, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::Shall we look at it next? Joshua 10:11-14, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:18, 5 January 2010 (EST)

IMO, the discussion is a little bit bizarre: Following [[David Hume]]'s definition of a [[miracle]] as a "a violation of the laws of nature", for evaluating the ''laws of natures'', miracles can't be taken into account.

As I said earlier: we shouldn't try to restrict God with the laws of our logic - or even physics.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Frank, perhaps what you mean is that you don't want the logic of the Bible to be used to evaluate claims by scientists. If so, I completely disagree. And so would [[Isaac Newton]] and most great scientists.

:As our [[Conservative Bible Translation]] project is revealing, Jesus said his works were not miracles, but signs. So any definition of miracle by Hume (who, by the way, leaned toward atheistic rather than Christianity) is not terribly helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:00, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::So, what's the definition of a ''sign'', then? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:06, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::The same as its name suggests: a disclosure of reality, rather than a violation of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:35, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::*I took Hume's definition as I found it on conservapedia's page on [[miracle]]s.
::::*The page on [[sign]]s doesn't describe Jesu works - perhaps you can fix this
::::*If you don't like Hume, what's about [[Thomas Aquinas]]:

:::::''Now, there are various degrees and orders of these miracles. Indeed, the highest rank among miracles is held by those events in which something is done by God which nature never could do. For example, that two bodies should be coincident; that the sun reverse its course, or stand still; that the sea open up and offer a way through which people may pass. And even among these an order may be observed. For the greater the things that God does are, and the more they are removed from the capacity of nature, the greater the miracle is. Thus, it is more miraculous for the sun to reverse its course than for the sea to be divided.

:::::''Then, the second degree among miracles is held by those events in which God does something which nature can do, but not in this order. It is a work of nature for an animal to live, to see, and to walk; but for it to live after death, to see after becoming blind, to walk after paralysis of the limbs, this nature cannot do—but God at times does such works miraculously. Even among this degree of miracles a gradation is evident, according as what is done is more removed from the capacity of nature.

:::::''Now, the third degree of miracles occurs when God does what is usually done by the working of nature, but without the operation of the principles of nature. For example, a person may be cured by divine power from a fever which could be cured naturally, and it may rain independently of the working of the principles of nature.

::::*Acts 2:43 ''Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles'' (KJB) So, we have ''miraculous signs'' and ''wonders''

::::*John 2:11 ''This was the first of the miracles Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and by doing showed his glory, and so his disciples believed in him. '' (CBP) ''Changing water into wine'' is something nature never could do: it's an outright miracle, miraculous sign, whatever...

::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:00, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::That's great recitation, Frank, but how about simply applying logic yourself? You're a bright guy, why simply hunt and repeat quotes from others? On this site we encourage ''thinking'' in a logical way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:21, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::I'm trying to use the fact that I'm standing on the shoulder of giants... [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:23, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::How about using "the fact" of simple logic and the power of your ''own'' mind?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::::To make it as clear as possible in my own words:
::::::::*I won't restrict God by laws which men made or observed. Can I understand God's ways? Can I expect God to act the way I think to be logical? That would be [[hubris]].
::::::::*Testing scientific hypotheses using God's miracles or signs seems to be odd!
::::::::But which part of Thomas Aquinas's definition of miraculous events didn't you like? Granted, he had a slightly other view of the ''capacity of nature'' than we have today, but his line of reasoning was as valid in the 15th century as it is today! I hoped that his definition would be more ''helpful'' than that of David Hume.

::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:41, 6 January 2010 (EST)

A miraculous healing seems to violate the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] - whether it happens on a distance or not. Does this mean that [[John 4:46-54]] is a counterexample to the laws of thermodynamics, too?
[[User:PhilG|PhilG]] 09:58, 2 February 2010 (EST)

: How so? Do you think eating an apple to feel better, or taking an aspirin to alleviate a headache, also violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:02, 2 February 2010 (EST)

:: No. Eating an Apple helps you by giving your body some of the chemical components that constitute the apple. Components which also happen to help you fight off viruses and the like. The same is true for the aspirin. Both are well defined chemical processes that involve no increase or decrease in the amount of matter or energy in the system. Healing (such as Jesus mending the ear of the soldier), would involve the rapid solidification of matter that was not there before (ie. the new ear). This is a clear violation of the second law of thermodynamics. The point is,if you're going to use miracles or signs to disprove a physical theory, you have to apply the argument to universally. But you don't because attacking the Second Law of Thermodynamics would knock the crutch of misinterpreted Newtonian Physics you have been leaning on out from underneath you.
::[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 3:32 9 August 2010 (EST)

Following was taken from Schlafly user page and put here, where it should have been (my apologies)

(This is my first edit ever on a wiki/conseri board, so you'll have to excuse me if I did it incorrectly)

I have a concern with your post of "Counterexamples of Relativity" Your argument labeled 9:

The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54.

It is not a counter example of relativity. The concept that the theory is broken down because Jesus is able to break it does not apply. Jesus worked miracles. So does God. Because of this, they are able to break laws and/or theories of physics. I haven't taken the time to go over the rest of the points in your counterexamples, but that one definitely doesn't work. If you are going to argue against me, then you are arguing against the Bible. Jesus broke several laws of physics. The biggest example is when he walked on water. Physics would state that by buoyancy laws he would not be able to do this. Does this call into question the physics buoyancy? It definitely does not.--mvgilpatrick 10 August 2010 (CDT)

:Relativity says that action-at-a-distance is impossible. That's not true of other examples. No physical law, for example, proves that rising from the dead is impossible.--Andy Schlafly 13:40, 12 August 2010 (EDT)

::Wouldn't the physical law of gravity and buoyancy make walking on water "impossible"? The only way Jesus could have done it would to have either had some sort of special technology that hadn't been invented yet, or, he is God and can break the laws of gravity and therefore physics (you know, do the "impossible"). Why can he break this law, but not break the theory of relativity? Please address this specific example.

::I can add another example. What about the law of mass conservation? Mass can not be created or destroyed. This is a law, and it is taught as a matter of fact that it is impossible to do otherwise. In Matthew 14:13-21, Jesus was able to feed 5,000 people with 5 loaves and 2 fish. He created mass (lots of food) out of very little (small amount of food). He broke another law of physics. He did the impossible. Again I say, is it not possible for him to break the theory of relativity, whilst still leaving it intact?

::Also please note that I am arguing for Jesus being God, not against, so please do not mistake that. --mvgilpatrick 17:50, 12 August 2010 (CDT)

::: No, I don't think all these examples are the same. Physics does ''not'' categorically state that it is impossible for a creature to walk on water. Physics does ''not'' say that replication is impossible. There is no reason to think the multiplication of the loaves generated mass from nothing, rather than using existing mass to replicate. But Relativity does insist that action-at-a-distance is impossible.

::: Nothing described in the Bible violates physics. Newton used the Bible to guide him to the truth for that reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:36, 12 August 2010 (EDT)

::::Wait a second here. Maybe I am misunderstanding something, but doesn't the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy require that any matter or energy come from somewhere? Also, physics does not categorically state that beings can't walk on water, it does categorically state that under Earth's gravity and given the observed buoyancy / surface tension of water, a being walking on water must either be light enough or have a large enough surface area not to float. Sure, Jesus could have taken energy from somewhere to make the extra loaves and fishes. He also could have changed the local buoyancy or surface tension of water around him in order to walk on it. But, if that was the case, isn't it just as likely that the healing was done with a speed of light delay?--[[User:Freiberg|Freiberg]] 14:28, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

::::: You are "misunderstanding something" ... because you're not looking at what the [[Bible]] says. Which, of course, is the effect that the falsehoods of Relativity have on lots of people who thereafter read anything and everything except the Bible itself. The Bible says the healing was instantaneous. Indeed, that's a key point of the miracle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:39, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::: But it ''doesn't'' say that it was instantaneous. According to your own translation, "So he asked them the exact hour when he began to feel better, and they told him, 'His fever broke yesterday, at about one pm.'". According to the Douay-Rheims, "He asked therefore of them the hour wherein he grew better. And they said to him: 'Yesterday, at the seventh hour, the fever left him.'" Neither indicates an instant healing, as a half hour is ''way'' too long to tell the difference between an instant healing and a healing with a speed-of-light delay.--[[User:Freiberg|Freiberg]] 15:03, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Subsequently the phrase is "exact hour" (which should probably be translated as "exact time" or "exact moment" per the comment section). So thanks for your point because it illustrates the weakness in translation. The instantaneous healing is central to the purpose of the event.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:25, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: The phrase "exact hour" was in the question, but the word "about" was in the answer, negating the "exact hour" phrase. Besides, wasn't the central purpose of the event to demonstrate how faith can save you? Being instantaneous hardly seems to be required for that, especially when the difference was unmeasurable with the technology of the day, and irrelevant (Jesus said that the girl would be healed, and she was). And yes, I know I'm approaching 90/10 with this edit.--[[User:Freiberg|Freiberg]] 15:35, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::::: Freiberg, it is a is a translation error that has led to your problem, as Mr. Schlafly pointed out. Furthermore, the story does not only demonstrate that faith can heal you, but demonstrates that faith can heal you instantaneously. Faith doesn't take 10 years, 5 years, or 1/1000000th of a second to heal someone; the cure can be instantaneous, as demonstrated in this story. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 18:19, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::::: Freiberg, if you read the [[Bible]] passage in earnest, then why do you describe the healed person as a "girl" rather than a "boy"? See [[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_4]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:55, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::::::''52When he inquired as to the time when his son got better, they said to him, "The fever left him yesterday at the seventh hour."

::::::::::''53Then the father realized that this was the exact time at which Jesus had said to him, "Your son will live." So he and all his household believed.

::::::::::Which ''seventh hour'' are we talking about? The one in Capernaum - or the one in Cana? There is a difference of roughly 1 minute... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:04, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::::Wait... The exact same time that Jesus said "Your son will live"? A spoken sentence isn't a point in time, it's a period of time. Maybe he healed him during "your" and the family saw the kid recover during "son"? The Bible doesn't refer to an exact point in time during the sentence so maybe the miracle itself was spread gradually throughout the sentence? I mean, if you're going to use this as a direct example of action at a distance then it really shouldn't be a matter of interpretation. [[User:Stoob|Stoob]]

== lack of a single useful device ==

At conservapedia's article on the [[Global Positioning System]], one can read:

''These receivers rely on precisely timing signals sent from GPS satellites, with corrections for atmospheric attenuation and relativistic effects.''

GPS seems to be a useful device!

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:53, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Great catch of a misleading statement, Frank! I've corrected it.

:Our [[theory of relativity]] entry explains how it did not aid the development of [[GPS]]. The repeated attempt by relativists to falsely claim credit for [[GPS]] ''reinforces'' the lack of any legitimate contributions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::Well, you are consistent! Just another question: What's about [[particle accelerator]]s? Generally, the theory of relativity is used to explain why it takes more energy to accelerate an electron from 200,000,000 m/sec to 200,002,000 m/sec than from 2,000 m/sec to 4,000 m/sec.

::Have you thought about an explanation for this phenomenon?

::Accelerators have applications beyond basic research!

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:02, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::Frank, I have an open mind about this, but I'm not aware of a single benefit from what you describe, nor do you identify one. Do you have an open mind about this?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::*Synchrotron radiation is [http://www.physik.uni-kiel.de/kfs/Anwendung/medicine.php used in medicine]
::::*So, may I ask again: what your explanation for the phenomenon? I suppose you are aware of the phenomenon I described above?
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 15:47, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Frank, inventors and doctors and engineers don't typically even bother learning relativity. Should I repeat that? Complain to engineering departments and medical schools if you think that should change. Nothing useful has even been designed or built using relativity. If you want to look and look and look for a counterexample then you'll be wasting your time. I'm not going to waste mine. This is my final reply on this topic for now. Do something logical, such as editing the Bible, and after benefiting from that experience we can revisit this issue in a month or so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:52, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::Why does it matter whether the users of the invention learn relativity? Most users of microwaves never learn Maxwell's equations either. That doesn't mean that the laws are irrelevant to the gadget's operation.

::::::Likewise, the engineers who correct the clocks of GPS satellites may not know or care that relativistic effects are behind the clock skew. But that dodges the point that relativistic effects are real, observable, and must be corrected for in several useful inventions.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

:::::::Here's a good source: [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf | US Navy]. As for engineers not bothering to learn relativity, I think that's a mite off the mark. I'm an engineer and I had to take a class dealing with the basics of SR, and I'm just an electrical engineer. Aerospace engineers certainly deal with relativity a great deal, as do nuclear engineers. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 00:26, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::::Bah... My engineering professor worked at a synchrotron at Brookhaven National Laboratory. He was in charge of a beam line for the Naval Research Laboratory. They are actually very interesting devices in that they really help with all fields of science and even fields outside of it. My one friend conducted some research with a synchrotron when doing research with fuel cells. My engineering professor studied magnetic materials with a synchrotron. Every once in a while you also find stories like this http://news.discovery.com/human/brain-human-ancestor-skull.html which actually wouldn't have been possible without the synchrotron. I'm only just scratching the surface of how useful they are. Would you like some more information? [[User:AdamYak|AdamYak]] 14:35, 10 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::::Yes, I would like more support for your claim. Relativity is not even part of most engineering curricula.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:17, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

Are not the atomic bomb and nuclear power examples of inventions based on the equivalence of matter and energy? MLS 9 Aug 10

== GPS revisited ==

The same Tom von Flandern who is quoted in the article on the [[theory of relativity]] saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein", wrote in an article in 1998:

''So we can state that the clock rate effect predicted by GR is confirmed to within no worse than ±200 / 45,900 or about 0.7%, and that predicted by SR is confirmed to within ±200 / 7,200 or about 3%. This is a very conservative estimate. In an actual study, most of that maximum 200 ns/day variance would almost certainly be accounted for by differences between planned and achieved orbits, and the predictions of relativity would be confirmed with much better precision.''

As for how the satellites take into account the relativistic effects, here is his explanation of the so-called ''factory offset'' of the atomic clocks for the satellites:

''GPS atomic clocks in orbit would run at rates quite different from ground clocks if allowed to do so, and this would complicate usage of the system. So the counter of hyperfine cesium transitions (or the corresponding phenomenon in the case of rubidium atomic clocks) is reset on the ground before launch so that, once in orbit, the clocks will tick off whole seconds at the same average rate as ground clocks. GPS clocks are therefore seen to run slow compared to ground clocks before launch, but run at the same rate as ground clocks after launch when at the correct orbital altitude.''

Seems to me that relativistic effects have to be taken into account.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:13, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Frank, your intuition ("seems to me") is wrong here, and the entry explains it clearly. GPS is a work of engineering and any timing discrepancies between the satellite and ground are obviously better handled directly by synchronization rather than asking a physicist what he thinks of relativity. Engineers don't even bother taking general relativity courses, let alone try to build a satellite system using them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::The Time Service Department – a department of the U. S. Navy - states: “The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require – transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”

::Sorry, Frank. {{unsigned|PhyllisS}}

:::As far as I can see there is no reason to feel sorry for FrankC: Your article only covers the idea of using the [[Lorentz transformation instead]] of the [[Galileo transformation]] when calculating the position of an object: one could say that it is about the relativistic effects caused by the movement of the GPS receiver, not of the GPS satellites. That's why it's talking about ''fast moving air-planes and satellites''.
:::FrankC (and others) have shown that there are relativistic effects on the satellites which are taken account of:
::::[http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/gpssps1.pdf Global Positioning System Standard Positioning Service Signal Specification], 2nd edition, June 1995:

::::p. 13: ''To compensate for relativistic effects, the output frequency of the satellite's frequency standard -- as it would appear to an observer located at the satellite -- is 10.23 MHz offset by a Df/f = -4.4647 x 10-18 or a Df = -4.567 x 10-3 Hz.''

::::p. 39: ''The coefficients transmitted in subframe 1 describe the offset apparent to the control segment two-frequency receivers for the interval of time in which the parameters are transmitted. This estimated correction accounts for the deterministic satellite clock error characteristics of bias, drift and aging, as well as for the satellite implementation characteristics of group delay bias and mean differential group delay. Since these coefficients do not include corrections for relativistic effects, the user's equipment must determine the requisite relativistic correction. Accordingly, the offset given below includes a term to perform this function.''
::: (From [[Talk:Global Positioning System]])
::: [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 12:44, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: I would like to second the points made by [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] in that there is far too much evidence and calculations that indicate just how vital GR is to accurate calculations. The effects of gravitational and time dilation predicted by general relativity are not negligible over the course of one day. The article linked to above by [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] is a fantastic review of some of the mathematics behind the (verifiable) predictions made by the theory of general relativity. - 14th August 2010 [[User:NotesTH|NotesTH]]

== Several Clarification/Corrections ==

I am new to Conservapedia, so I don't fully understand exactly how this site is structured; in particular who has the ability to edit protected pages. This page is apparently protected, but in need of dire work even on the formatting/punctuation/style side of things. I hope someone with the required access to protected pages can incorporate some of these changes. In any event, here are some things that need to be clarified or corrected:

1. It is unclear what #6 is referring to by "overall space". Is this a reference to the flatness problem in cosmology? If so, that should be made explicit, and the most commonly accepted solution (inflation) should be mentioned for completeness. If not, the curvature of space locally is clearly demonstrated by the observed phenomenon of gravitational lensing.

2. #7 is just a feature of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum field theory. In this sense, general relativity is of course wrong (just as Newtonian mechanics is, for example), because it doesn't apply accurately below distance scales where quantum effects emerge.

3. #8 is not a problem because quantum nonlocality doesn't allow for information transfer. Hence special relativity is not violated.

4. #10 is not a counterexample because gravitons are not predicted by general relativity. They are expected to exist and be predicted by a successful ''quantum'' theory of gravity, but general relativity is not such a theory.

5. #11 is not a counterexample to the theory at all. It may be an argument for why the theory should not be studied, but that doesn't mean it is ''false'', and thus is not a counterexample.

6. #13 is presumably a reference to the horizon problem of cosmology. This should be stated, and, as for the flatness problem, the theory of cosmological inflation should be mentioned. (I realize inflation has not been empirically verified, but since the majority of cosmologists believe it is the correct explanation, it deserves a mention in an encyclopedia article.)

7. #14 is again the problem of the incompatibility of general relativity and quantum field theory (namely that QFT is not background-invariant). This is not a problem with general relativity, other than in the sense that it is only an approximation (like, say, Maxwellian electrodynamics are just an approximation to quantum electrodynamics).

8. #15, aside from the obvious grammatical error (''violated'' instead of the correct ''violate''), is again not a counterexample to general relativity. General relativity predicts wormholes ''only'' on the assumption that so-called "exotic matter" exists. This is matter that has net negative mass/energy, and so is predicted not to exist for precisely the reasons listed here (time travel and the like). But this is not a counterexample to general relativity itself, merely the observation that a mathematically possible solution does not have a physical manifestation.

9. #16 is again a quantum gravity issue. It is wrong to call black holes "highly ordered (and thus low entropy)", though. The fact is that science does not yet know how to count black hole microstates, so we don't know whether they are highly ordered or extremely disordered. But the best explanation seems to be that general relativity and the Second Law together suggest that black holes should have extremely ''high'' entropy, not low entropy. But again, this is not a counterexample to general relativity per se, since it makes no predictions about what black hole entropy should be.
::I believe a blackhole's entropy is determined by the surface area of its event horizon. In this sense, it doesn't have low entropy at all.

10. #18 appears to be a restatement of #11, and is thus both redundant, and not a counterexample for the reasons listed discussion #11.

I apologize for the length of this list of edits, but something really must be done to improve the quality of this article. I hope that someone with the appropriate access sees fit to make the necessary changes soon.
[[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:12, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:REPLY BELOW:

::1. It is unclear what #6 is referring to by "overall space". Is this a reference to the flatness problem in cosmology? If so, that should be made explicit, and the most commonly accepted solution (inflation) should be mentioned for completeness. If not, the curvature of space locally is clearly demonstrated by the observed phenomenon of gravitational lensing.

::: I'll clarify the obvious. It's still a counterexample. Science is not done by consensus, and inflation does not explain the overall flatness of space if relativity were true.

::::You needn't be so condescending. I wasn't saying that it isn't a problem with general relativity, I was just saying that since this is an encyclopedia, relevant information should be included. Since a proposed solution exists, it should be mentioned, and perhaps debunked if it is flawed. So you could mention inflation, and then say why it fails to solve the flatness problem. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::The theory of inflation does nothing "to solve the flatness problem" with respect its role as a counterexample to relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::Could you clarify this point? Perhaps you could state exactly what you believe the flatness problem is and how it is a counterexample to GR, just to be sure we aren't talking past each other, as I fear we may have been so far. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:55, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::2. 7: is just a feature of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum field theory. In this sense, general relativity is of course wrong (just as Newtonian mechanics is, for example), because it doesn't apply accurately below distance scales where quantum effects emerge.

:::So at what distances do you declare general relativity to be false? Is there a discontinuity at that distance? Such an approach is absurd.

::::I mean, technically it is false at ''all'' length scales, just like any classical (non-quantum) theory (Newtonian mechanics, Maxwellian electromagnetism, classical statistical mechanics, etc.). But there exists a range of length scales at which it is extremely accurate, and those are the only ones to which it makes claims having any epistemological value. There is no discontinuity, it just gets progressively worse as quantum effects become more and more apparent, which occurs at smaller and smaller length scales. Quantum effects definitely need to be taken into account around the level of a nanometer or so in most systems of interest, so I would say this is about the regime where GR needs to stop being used. But of course, it depends on the system in question. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Not "technically it is false," but "it is false." So teach it that way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::See KrisJ's discussion below. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::3. 8 is not a problem because quantum nonlocality doesn't allow for information transfer. Hence special relativity is not violated.

:::Your statement is a non sequitur, and may not be true. Special relativity does deny non-locality.

::::It's not a non sequitur; the problem as I thought it was stated on the page is that special relativity does not allow information transfer faster than the speed of light. Since quantum entanglement cannot actually transfer information, this does not violate that provision of special relativity. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Special relativity does not define "information" nor was it developed in that context.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::It is true that SR does not define information, but it does define causality (only events within each other's lightcones can be causally connected). Physical transfer of information (as defined by Shannon, and encoded in physical systems in Minkowski spacetime) between points in spacetime can only occur if those points are causally connected. (This SR fact is what the horizon problem, which is cited as another GR counterexample, relies on.) [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

:::Will respond to your other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

::::I appreciate your attention to my concerns, and I hope I have adequately outlined them. Also, I hope I would not be asking too much to request formatting consistency (like adding periods at the ends of nos. 7, 8, and 9). It would make it look more professional, like other articles I've seen on Conservapedia. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Yill, your grand total of contributions to this site has been 3 edits to this page, all easily refutable. Frankly, I don't think greater efforts at "formatting consistency" are justified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:01, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::Your not going to be able to attract many users if you disparage newcomers with respect to how few edits they've made. I would like to be a positive contributor to this site, but I have to start somewhere. I would appreciate encouragement and constructive criticism, not condescension and personal attacks. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Yill, good grammar requires "you're", not "your", in your statement above. All your edits have been 100% talk, in violation of our [[90/10 rule]], and honestly I see no insights in your talk. I suggest you try contributing substantively to [[Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)]]; it is on a much higher educational level and you'll benefit enormously from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: You're right, I had a typo there; I apologize for the error. And I am well aware of the 90/10 rule, but seeing as the page I'm working on is protected, I'm not actually able to make any edits. If it were unblocked or I were given the ability to edit it, I would be more than happy to stop posting on this talk page and instead edit the article itself. And frankly I don't particularly see how it's relevant whether you personally happen to see any insights in my talk; my understanding is that Conservapedia is shaped and edited by its users, with appropriate oversight from administrators to ensure accuracy and prevent the chaos of Wikipedia. If need be, I'll appeal to those administrators to get the article fixed, since none seem to have come forward to help. I would love it if you would be willing to work with me to improve this article, but as it stands you seem to have little interest in doing so, having made no further contributions to the substance of the discussion. If you change your mind, I would be happy to work with you on this endeavor.

::::::::As for your suggested article for me to work on, I don't really understand what you mean by it being on a "much higher educational level." However, as I have no expertise in Biblical Greek, I don't think I'd be able to make any meaningful contributions to the translation. I'll let the experts in that subject deal with that article. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:37, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::Yill, I recommended the Bible because, as Isaac Newton pointed out, working on translating the Bible increases the quality of one's work in other areas, including science. Sure, I could drop everything else I'm doing and spend all day correcting you about this entry, but if you just picked up a Bible and improved your own work, then I could learn from you instead. I'll correct your misunderstandings below but doubt I will spend much more time responding to you if you're not willing to put in open-minded effort on your own.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

Yill, you raise excellent points, most of which have not been raised before. We should sharpen those points, here on this page, and then address them on the actual article page. This will take a fair amount of discussion. I could start by bringing up the discussion of point 7, inaccuracy of relativity at the quantum mechanical scale. One question that was raised was "Is there a discontinuity at that [microscopic boundary] distance? Such an approach is absurd.". No. The way quantum mechanics and classical theories interact at the (microscopic) scales where this happens is well known. It is, of course, generally known as the Bohr correspondence principle, described in any textbook on quantum mechanics, and known in more detail as Ehrenfest's theorem, described in more advanced textbooks. (Very briefly, the quantum mechanical realm eases into the classical realm according to the Ehrenfest theorem.) We should make some citations to those, and put in a careful explanation that, under QM, '''all''' classical theories are incorrect, and QM is the correct theory for everything, from atoms to planets. Classical theories are just extremely good approximations outside of the quantum-mechanical realm. And, of course, we do not know how that quantum-mechanical realm operated immediately after the big bang (that's what inflation theory is about), but that doesn't affect what we ''do'' know about general relativity in the macroscopic realm.

The item about point 10 is excellent. Gravitons arose ''after GR'', from attempts to unify the theories. They have nothing to do with the macroscopic aspects of GR, which is what GR is actually all about.

[[User:KrisJ|KrisJ]] 10:04, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

: Teach that relativity is incorrect, if you concede the point. There are relativists who claim their theory is the most precisely verified theory of all.

::Those relativists claim that with respect to the macroscopic realm, as KrisJ referred to above. We are discussing how it breaks down at the microscopic level, when QM starts to play a role. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

: Gravitons are based on GR, and they are non-existent. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:37, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::No, for gravitons to be a counterexample to GR, they must be predicted by it. But they are not, just as photons are not predicted by Maxwellian electrodynamics. They are the "quantum" of the gravitational field, as photons are for the electromagnetic field, and are quantum ''by definition''. GR is ''not'' a quantum theory; it manifestly does not predict them. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

:KrisJ, I appreciate your assistance with this project. I absolutely agree with your suggestions about 7 and 10, and hopefully we can find an editor with the ability to edit protected pages to help us implement them. If you know of any that could help us, you should ask if they would be willing. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

I guess I was wrong about not being able to edit this article. I'm going to delete #10, as per above, and make some formatting changes. I may also make some other clarifying edits. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:45, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

I also deleted the references to relativity being useful, since those have nothing to do with its epistemological validity. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:52, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

== Curvature of Space ==

Re [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&curid=97238&diff=766130&oldid=742826 this] edit: I don't disagree, but the example is a bad one. Based on local observations, one would assume that the Earth itself is flat, but it clearly isn't. My own point of view is that since the Universe can never be proved to be one thing or another, it is part of God's own ineffable being - it is almost folly to inquire further. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:24, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

: No, one would not assume the Earth is flat based on local observations, as a ship can be observed to "rise" over the horizon. I don't agree with the "nature is God" view either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:34, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
::Funny coincidence(?) that a defender of relativity invokes pantheism, since it was Einstein's (and Spinoza's) "god." [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:50, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

:I actually think the edit has merit, as long as the word "initial" is inserted before curvature, since the problem is that any initial curvature should be vastly amplified over time as the universe undergoes its usual expansion. And it is in fact the global curvature that is the issue here; ''any'' manifold we use to model the universe is by definition locally flat (since this is a fundamental property of manifolds). The ship and horizon observation is not a local observation, since it is fundamentally predicated on the global curvature of the Earth. "Local" means that it can be done at arbitrarily small distance scales, which that observation cannot. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:06, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

General relativity predicts that space-''time'' should be curved and not just spatial sections of the 4D spacetime manifold. And space-time is indeed observed to be curved (because the universe is expanding and is hence described by a curved FRW metric). This is true even if space alone is flat, as it is observed to be. That space is observed to be flat doesn't contradict relativity - it is a question of initial conditions of the universe and has a neat solution in inflationary cosmology. So Point no. 6 is absolutely unnecessary. Of course, most of the other points are too. But I just want to see how Andy will respond to this and edit the article so that it indeed can be said to belong to a "trustworthy encyclopedia".

[[User:Saywhat|Saywhat]] 08:19, 13 August 2010 (EDT)

: Your "of course" convinces no one. Why would you start with point 6 if you "of course" had answers for points 1-5?

: Relativity does imply that space as well as space-time are curved. The observation of a flat universe does contradict what would be expected if Relativity were true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 13 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: A trivial solution to Einsteins field equations for a vacuum can result in Minkowski spacetime. This is a 4D metric describing a pseudo-Riemannian manifold with no spatial curvature (i.e. flat). A requirement of GR is that in locally inertial frames (i.e. small enough regions of spacetime) we recover Minkowski spacetime. It's just that in GR the requirement of a locally Minkwoski spacetime does not always extend to a global case with curvature effects breaking down the notion of inertial frames for all observers. This means that a flat spacetime is a valid prediction arising from General Relativity. The presence of matter will, generically, curve spacetime but certain models such as the FLRW models used in cosmology permit solutions that predict a spatially flat Universe under a given condition. It should also be noted that the FLRW models are not static and do change with time.

::::The observation of a flat Universe (spatial curvature parameter, K = 0 in the FLRW metric) is not in violation of GR and is a valid solution to Einsteins field equations (see e.g. Friedmanns Equations) and a generic prediction of models for inflationary cosmology whereby a rapid expansion in the early Universe drives the Universe towards a spatially flat solution, certainly within the observable Universe. Predictions from GR are still obeyed contrary to the comment "flat universe does contradict what would be expected if Relativity were true".

:::: I do not feel that the point in discussion is in any way a counterpoint to relativity. If other objections arise then perhaps this point would need to be further clarified so that any issues may be appropriately discussed? 15th August 2010

== Reversion explained ==

Reversion was necessary for two reasons: first, to restore material that was improperly censored, and second, to revert an imprecise label put on one of the counterexamples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:53, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:I don't want to get into an edit war here, so I won't undo your reversion for now. But I fail to understand your reasoning, so perhaps you could clarify a bit instead of making the one sentence assertions that have made up your discourse so far. There is no censorship here, merely deletion of objectively incorrect statements. Perhaps you could actually bother to respond to my points above, rather than just reverting my edits without justification. In the meantime, I will replace the periods I added at the end of several of the counterexamples for formatting consistency; hopefully you don't consider ''that'' to be "censorship" as well. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 20:48, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

::You deleted valid information. Gravitons are predicted by an attempt to reconcile GR with quantum mechanics. Without GR gravitons would not be expected; with GR people do expect to find them. The wholesale deletion of reference to this is unwarranted, and simply conceals a real flaw in GR.

:::First of all, I want to thank you for actually explaining your claims. Now we can actually have the real discussion KrisJ suggested above. You are perfectly correct in stating the gravitons are predicted by an attempt to reconcile GR with QM; that is precisely the point I was trying to make. But by your logic we could rightly conclude that the flaw is with QM rather than GR--without QM gravitons would not be expected either. On what basis do you claim that the non-observance of gravitons is a counterexample to GR rather than a counterexample to QM? (Also, I should note that just because gravitons have not yet been observed, that doesn't mean they won't be. For example, the non-observation of the Z boson did not constitute a counterexample to the electroweak theory between 1979 and 1983.) [[User:Yill|Yill]] 22:55, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

::::Gravitons were historically proposed in trying to reconcile GR with QM. Other theories of gravity may not require gravitons at all. Does string theory? Gravitons are thereby attributable to GR, not to the more developed and better verified QM. ''Simply look at the name "gravitons" itself''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:23, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::Actually, any quantum theory of gravity, whether it reduces to GR at large scales or not, requires gravitons ''by definition''. Do you even understand what a graviton ''is''? ''The quantum of a gravitational field.'' Just as any quantum theory of electromagnetism ''must'' include the photon in its particle spectrum, any quantum theory of gravity ''must'' include the graviton in its particle spectrum. And yes, string theory requires them; the entire reason string theory started being developed as a theory of everything is that gravitons (i.e. massless spin-2 bosons) naturally appear as part of its particle spectrum! [[User:Yill|Yill]] 14:57, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Yill, do you know what [[action-at-a-distance]] is? It doesn't require the fictional gravitons. Newtonian mechanics doesn't require such imaginary particles.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:00, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::::Do you know what ''quantum'' means? Please acknowledge that you do, and that you know Newtonian mechanics is not a quantum theory, and therefore that ''your response does not address my concern.'' [[User:Yill|Yill]] 00:19, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

::The "flatness problem" refers primarily to curvature expected from inflation, not GR itself. It is misleading to call the counterexample the "flatness problem," and then pretend it has a solution. The counterexample described is not resolved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:12, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:::The flatness problem refers to the fact that, in an ''inflation-free'' universe, the FRW metric with matter and radiation equation-of-state parameters predicts that any initial nonzero curvature will increase vastly in magnitude, leaving a highly curved universe at present. Inflation is proposed as a ''solution'' to the flatness problem; it is not the cause of it. The process of inflation drastically flattens any initial curvature in the universe so dramatically that even after the curvature increase undergone under normal evolution, the universe still appears nearly perfectly flat. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 22:55, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
:::Wait, I just realized that I think we may be talking past one another here. I interpreted the counterexample listed on the page to be the flatness problem, but based on your response I guess that it is not. (Obviously the flatness problem is not a counterexample to GR itself, just to the use of the FRW metric for modeling the universe.) This counterexample seems to be more fundamental, namely the claim that space is nowhere curved, as GR says it must be by matter and energy. Is that correct? [[User:Yill|Yill]] 23:25, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

::::A ''type'' of inflation is proposed to try to explain the unexpected flatness. But there's no way around the basic problem: GR says that space is curved by matter, and an overall flatness is impossible under such a model. Yet an overall flatness is what is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:23, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::I still don't understand what you're saying. The ''overall'' visible universe ''is'' flat, at scales large enough that it can accurately be modeled as homogeneous and isotropic. (These scales are beyond the sizes of galactic clusters.) But on much smaller scales, where these assumptions obviously break down, matter does indeed curve spacetime; the phenomenon of gravitational lensing is precisely such an example. If you are at all confused by these different notions, I would recommend taking a look at a modern textbook on the subject; Barbara Ryden's ''Introduction to Cosmology'' is a good place to start. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 14:57, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

::::::Dark matter supposedly permeates the universe, and there's no way it would be flat if GR were true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:48, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::::Okay, now ''that'' is a total non sequitur. Again, instead of making blanket assertions, perhaps you should learn why, given that they believe dark matter permeates the universe ''and'' that it is flat on large scales, cosmologists still think GR works. Let me enlighten you. If the universe were evenly filled with a uniformly dense substance, the curvature would be flat. Yet there were would be matter in it! And that's it. On large enough scales, that's how the universe appears. Hence there is no contradiction. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 00:19, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: An additional clarification to the previous discussions: According to Einsteins equations (neglecting the cosmological constant for now):

<math> G_{ab} = R_{ab} - \frac{1}{2} g_{ab} R = 8 \pi G T_{ab} </math>

in which: <math> R_{ab} </math> is representative of the curvature of spacetime (Ricci tensor) and <math> T_{ab} </math> is representative of the matter/energy content of the given model (Stress-Energy tensor). So Einsteins equations state that the presence of matter gives rise to curvature effects in spacetime. In FLRW cosmology the existence of a spatially flat solution is possible if the total density ~ critical density required for a flat Universe. The fact that the Universe is non-static and we currently include a dark energy component does not mean that a Universe that is currently observed to be spatially flat is in conflict with predictions of General Relativity. The flatness problem is more of an initial value problem/fine tuning problem than that of a breakdown in GR.

== Proposed page move ==

Can someone rename the article so the R is lowercase in the title? Thanks, [[User:GregoryZ|GregoryZ]] 22:21, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

:Why? The term refers to a specific theory, and the many counterexamples to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:31, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

::My simple rationale is "relativity" is not a proper noun. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity Wikipedia uses the lowecase] and so does [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relativity Wester's], so why not here? --[[User:GregoryZ|GregoryZ]] 22:36, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

:::It's not a traditional proper noun, you're right, but it does satisfy all the conditions underlying why proper nouns are capitalized. It is a unique term-of-art, having a specific meaning other than the general meaning of the word. As used in physics, "Relativity" is different from the generic "relativity".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

::::However, it is my belief, "relativity" in this case should not be treated differently. Look at the Wikipedia article, it uses "relativity" in that sense. Also, the [[theory of relativity|CP article on the subject]] uses the lowercase as well, so I still see no point in capitalizing it here. --[[User:GregoryZ|GregoryZ]] 23:07, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

::::: The word "relativity" dates from the early 1800s. That's not what is being discussed here. If preceded with "theory of" then there is no need to capitalize; if stand-alone, however, it does add clarification to capitalize as is done for other specific concepts that differ from the generic names.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

== Curl of the gravitational field ==

Sorry to get over-technical, but the fundamental law of "fictitious forces" (including gravity) is that the force field (divided by the mass of the test object) is

<math>G^i = - \Gamma^i_{00}</math>

Its curl is

<math>(\nabla \times G)^i = \mathcal{E}^{ijk} g_{km} G^m_{;j}</math>
where the semicolon indicates the covariant gradient.

When you work this out, it involves derivatives of the <math>\Gamma\,</math> quantities. In general relativity, the results are zero by symmetries of Riemann's tensor.

[[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 21:33, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

: Perhaps so, but the "twin paradox" in Relativity states that the age of each twin is dependent on his path of travel. For a conservative field, all physical parameters are path independent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Simeon, your mathematical work is rigorous and correct. However, the twin paradox example is interesting to study here. I am aware that the twin paradox is solved by the non-inertial turn-around of the ship when it is going back home. However, in this solution, it is still noted that there is an age difference between the twins. [http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm Wikipedia affirms this] and so do [http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm other sites]. Such an age difference in twins shows that there is some sort of path dependence. I understand that traveling at near-c speeds in space is not the same thing as moving from point A to B in a gravitational field, but the concept does seem to be a bit similar. Could you maybe explain this for us a bit? Thanks. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 00:52, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

OK, I think I understand. I assumed that the "conservative field" / "curl is zero" stuff referred to the gravitational force field. If it refers to the passage of time, that's different. It isn't true that "all physical parameters are path independent". An extremely important one that isn't path independent is the arc length of the path or arc. You can draw a short straight line from A to B, or a long loopy line that starts at A, wanders around, and eventually gets to B. Why is this relevant to the twin paradox? Because, in relativity, an observer's own elapsed time ("local time") is really just the arc length of his "world line" in Minkowski space. Minkowski was an extremely smart guy, by the way. The twin that stays home takes a direct route from point A (their birth) to point B (the moment they compare ages and see that one has gray hair and wrinkled skin.) The other twin takes a very roundabout route, getting in a rocket and going to Alpha Centauri and back. Their path lengths are their local times, which are different. (Why is the length of the roundabout path actually shorter, so that that twin ages less? Because, in Minkowski space, using the "timelike convention" that all the best people use :-), motion in space subtracts from the elapsed time. That's just the way it works.)

Now I assume that there is no dispute about the facts of relativistic time dilation. In addition to being predicted exactly by the Lorentz transform, it has been observed in practice in cosmic ray muon decays, as well as countless observations in particle accelerators. The "twin paradox" is just an extreme consequence of this. It has of course never been observed in that form, just as we don't know whether Schrodinger's cat is alive.

The "twin paradox" is a consequence of special relativity, not general, and hence does not relate to gravity. I hate to be the umpteenth person to tell you that general relativity is too hard to explain, but it's kind of true. I barely understand the most rudimentary basics. (When Eddington made his comment about only 3 people in the world who understand gen. rel., I wasn't the third! :-) But I can say that you don't need to worry about general relativity to understand the "twin paradox". You can finesse the Minkowski-space curvature of the path during the turnaround at Alpha Centauri, and just say that the twin went there and came back. So was something physically different, that the twins could observe? You bet. The "younger" twin will remember having experienced 6 months of horrendous acceleration in the ionic-drive rocket, followed by a year of horrendous turnaround, and another 6 months of horrendous deceleration at the end. She will have soft, smooth skin, but at a great cost. :-)

Sorry to be so long-winded. In quick summary, the thing that's different about the paths is their length, and that is exactly the local elapsed time. [[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 00:07, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

: Simeon, time dilation occurs under the Theory of General Relativity also, so your analysis above is not persuasive in resolving this example of a non-conservative effect. Moreover, your repeated claims about how supposedly only geniuses can understand this are getting tiresome. That approach is a recipe for mistaken reliance on unjustified authority.

: If you don't feel this is understandable, then simply say so and stop there; please do not imply that people should just accept what someone of undisclosed political views claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:58, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

I give up.
*The only scientists I mentioned were Minkowski and Eddington, and the latter just as a joke. I never said anything about their, or anyone else's, politics.
*Time dilation does indeed occur under both general and special relativity. The point I was trying to make is that general relativity is simply not needed to understand the twin paradox. It only takes special relativity, which is much better understood. I'm sorry to hear that, by not analyzing the twin paradox in terms of general relativity, my persuasiveness suffered.
*I apologize if I "talked down" to you and Phyllis with my comments about GR being too complicated. I assume that both of you have heard, many times, that GR is exceedingly complicated. I was simply trying to soften the blow by pointing out that you ''don't need'' GR. And cracking that joke about how Eddington could not have been referring to me.
*In fact, I know a fair amount about GR. I ''could'' analyze the twin paradox in terms of the gravitation of Earth and Alpha Centauri. But there is simply no need to.
*This "non-conservative effect" business simply makes no sense. If the integration of a vector field along different paths gets different final results, then that field is non-conservative. You seem to be saying that the ''passage of time'' is some kind of vector field, and that the final results of "integrations" (the two different values of local time at the end of the experiment) are supposed to be the same, and that the difference shows that this "vector field" is not conservative, and that that is a counterexample to relativity. The passage of time is not a vector field. The different values of time, as seen by different observers, is not a ''counterexample'' to relativity, it is ''one of the principal effects'' of relativity. It's really what the word "relativity" means when discussing the scientific Theory of Relativity.
*If you really think that the non-globality and non-absoluteness of time is a counterexample to relativity, then so be it.

[[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 23:13, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

: Simeon, if you "give up," then that is your own choice. You have not disproved the counterexample. Instead, you first described the twin paradox as being only about special relativity, and when I pointed out that it exists under general relativity too, you then agree yet do not fully address the substantive issue presented by the paradox. For example, the amount of acceleration undertaken by the twin in his journey will affect his age independent of his time spent away. His subsequent age is ''not'' path independent even in time-space coordinates.

: It's easy to search for "general relativity" and "conservative field" on the internet and see how little has been written about this. That is telling in itself. I'm happy to continue to discuss this here with you or anyone else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

:: Could you clarify what the ages (and path dependence thereof) in the twin paradox have to do with conservative fields? --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 14:04, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

::: Age is scalar physical attribute. It should not be path dependent in a [[conservative field]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:31, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: Yes, but which [[conservative field]] in particular are you talking about here (that implies age is not path dependent)? --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 14:37, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

::::: Gravity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:53, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Well, in Newtonian mechanics, the gravitational field is indeed conservative -- it's the negative gradient of the gravitational potential! But what this means is that gravitational potential energy is path-independent: it doesn't say anything about path-independence any other quantities, and in particular it's not the reason for the path-independence of age. --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 15:00, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::: You take a narrow view of the significance of a "conservative field." Independent physical attributes should remain path-independent as well for the field to be conservative. In Newtonian mechanics and most other physical force fields, they do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:41, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: By a conservative field, I mean a vector field on space for which there exists a scalar function V with the gradient of V given by that vector field. This doesn't imply the path-independence of any physical quantities other than V itself. If you this view as too narrow, can you tell me what you take to be the definition of a conservative field? --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 15:57, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::::: Your definition is too narrow when discussing the theory of relativity, which describes the framework in which the force operates. To be meaningful, the definition must be broader. It must ensure the path independence of the scalar, as well as other scalars independent of that scalar.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:12, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::: Can you tell me what the correct definition is, then? I have pretty good background in this stuff, no need to dumb it down, just be precise. Certainly no field at all is going to conserve every scalar function, so I'd like to know which ones you want. --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 18:20, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::::::: Kyle, I have an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open mind]] about this, and don't see a precise definition anywhere that would be meaningful with respect to the theory of relativity. It's striking how relativists avoid this issue, and even stop discussing it when it is brought up.

::::::::::: I can propose a definition that you may be able to improve. How about: a conservative theory of motion is one whereby scalar values of a particle are independent of its path of motion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:36, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

That's an interesting proposal, and I too have an open mind about this. Can you give an example of such a ''conservative theory of motion''? One such would greatly help in devising the correct definition. --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 19:29, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:Newtonian mechanics would be an obvious example. By the way, how do you explain the general lack of discussion and papers about whether the theory of relativity is conservative, including the abrupt departure of User:Simeon from this discussion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:58, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:: Some scalar values in Newtonian mechanics are conserved because there exist associated conservative fields (or more generally [[Noether's Theorem|symmetries of the Lagrangian]]). What is an example of a scalar value in the Newtonian mechanics that is not of this type, which makes this a conservative theory of motion while relativity is not?
::I don't know why relativity's defenders won't confront this. Maybe that could be the topic of the debate page -- I'm interested using this discussion to sharpen counterexample 21. --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 23:55, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

::: This is a really interesting discussion. I think I made a gross mistake in my first post. The theory of relativity urges us to think of the three space coordinates (x, y, and z) and the time coordinate (t) as four coordinates of space-time - that is, that space and time are pretty much the same. I extrapolated from this that since there can be a (conservative) gravitational field in space coordinates, there can also be some sort of conservative field depending on the time coordinate. I then extrapolated this notion to special relativity, and the twin paradox; I postulated that maybe time dilation effects were the work of a non-conservative field that was dependent on the t-coordinate. Now I see that this was all somewhat foolish. However, I wanted to ask you all: can you have a conservative or non-conservative field with respect to time? If not, I think time should '''not''' be considered as almost the same thing as x, y, z space. I feel that the ability for a dimension to have a field (conservative or not) is integral to its being considered a space-like dimension.

::: Aschlafly, the fact that the twin paradox exists in general relativity is '''irrelevant'''. Yes, sure, the twin paradox occurs within space where general relativity is working, but there are no effects acting on the twins that influences the twin paradox in any way. Likewise, User:Simeon 's departure is also '''irrelevant'''.

::: What about black holes, though? Surely their gravitational fields aren't conservative, since once an object passes the event horizon, you can't retrieve it. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 01:24, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

Phyllis:

You seem to be very curious about this topic. I'm going to try to give an intuitive, but nevertheless scientifically correct, explanation of what is going on with relativity, the "twin paradox", and vector fields, potential functions, and path integrals. This explanation will probably seem long and tedious, for which I apologize in advance. I also apologize if it seems that I am being too "folksy", or talking down to you. Please bear with me, and please pay close attention.

We have a parking lot, and two twins, who are fitness enthusiasts and always wear pedometers wherever they go. There are two spots, "X" and "Y", painted on the parking lot. Both people stand on spot "X", set their pedometers to zero, and start walking. Twin A simply walks directly to spot Y. Twin B, being more into fitness, walks all over the place, eventually arriving at B.

Now there are quite a number of things we can say. First, the temperatures vary all over the place. They are a ''scalar field''. That means that they are associated with ''location on the parking lot'', not with any particular observer. They are objective measurements that everyone agrees on, because they are aspects of space itself. Our fitness enthusiasts are also amateur meteorologists, and carry thermometers around with them.

::Twin A: "When I was at the green Toyota, I noticed that the temperature was 67 degrees Fahrenheit."
::Twin B: "By coincidence, I also wandered past the green Toyota, and got the same reading."

By the way, since temperature is a scalar field, it has a gradient, which is a vector field. That field is conservative, according to the theorem of mathematical physics that says that curl grad Φ = 0 always. This gradient is a ''vector field''. Like the scalar of temperature, it is a property of the ''space (parking lot) itself''. If the twins had been measuring this gradient (perhaps they carry around fancy "differential thermometers"), they would have gotten the same vector at the green Toyota.

There is also a theorem of mathematical physics, sort of the opposite of the theorem above, that says that, if a vector field V has a curl of zero:
*You can make a scalar field <math>\Phi\,</math> (a property of the space itself, not tied to any particular observer) that it is the gradient of. That scalar field is called the "potential" for the (conservative) vector field. (By the way, this is very closely related to "exact differential equations" that you wrote about! Do you see the connection?)
*If you integrate that vector field along any path between two points A and B (that is, you calculate
:::<math>\int_A^B \vec{V} \cdot dl</math>
for that path, where "dl" is the "line element" along the path), you will get <math>\Phi(B)-\Phi(A)\,</math>.
*Since <math>\Phi(B)-\Phi(A)\,</math> is a property of the scalar field itself (and the points A and B), it follows that that path integral is the same for all paths. And if the path ends on the same point it started on, the integral is zero.

::Twin A: "I was measuring the gradient of the temperature as I walked, and calculating its path integral as I went. I got an answer of 4 degrees."
::Twin B: "I was doing the same. My integral was much harder to calculate, because I was going all over the place. But I also got 4 degrees. Hey, wait a minute! The temperature at the start point was 68 degrees, and at the end point it was 72 degrees. That explains it."

Now someone at the edge of the parking lot was running a Van deGraff generator, so there were electric fields all over the place. The twins are also physics students, and carry electroscopes wherever they go. They measured the electric field, and calculated its path integrals. The electric field is conservative (in the absence of varying magnetic fields), so they got the same integral. That integral was 600 volts (it's only static electricity, so it isn't dangerous). Since the electric field is conservative, there is, by the previous theorem, a potential function. That function was 600 volts higher at point B than at point A.

Now here's the kicker:

::Twin A: "I walked directly from A to B. My pedometer says 150 feet."
::Twin B: "I took a long route all over the place. I walked half a mile."

The pedometer readings ''are not a scalar field''. They are not a property of the space itself. They are properties of the observers. Even though they, in some sense, measure an aspect of the parking lot (how many molecules of asphalt one passes), they are artifacts of the twins' actions.

The twins could have been integrating their motion vectors; that's sort of what pedometers do. But those vectors are not a vector field on the space itself. It makes no sense to ask whether that "vector field" is conservative, because it isn't a vector field. A vector (or scalar, or tensor) field has to be a property ''of the space itself''. These "pedometer vectors" are just things that the twins make up as they walk.

Now for the "twin paradox". The parking lot is replaced by "Minkowski space", also called "4-dimensional space-time". "Points" in this space are now "events", complete with a time. Events A and B are now the act of the twins saying goodbye as one of them got into the rocket, and the act of them re-uniting after B returns. Twin A took a direct route (called her "world line") from A to B. She used a coordinate system in which the spatial coordinates of A and B were the same (Cape Canaveral, latitude yada yada, etc.) and the time coordinate differed by 30 years (2010 to 2040.) B went to Alpha Centauri and back. When she returned, they were both using the same coordinate system (location is Cape Canaveral, latitude yada yada, time is 2040.) But she looks at her watch, and only 5 years have elapsed! What the watch shows is ''not a scalar field on spacetime''. It was ''not the path integral of a vector field on spacetime''. What she integrated was the ticking of her watch, nothing more.

The path that A took is called a geodesic. It is the Minkowski-space equivalent of a "straight line". But, because of the peculiarities of relativity, it shows the ''longest'' elapsed time (30 years) of all paths, rather than the shortest. By going to Alpha Centauri, twin B took a shorter path, in terms of the way path length is measured in Minkowski space.

Very interesting fact: The path length in Minkowski space, that is, the sum of the tiny distances as measured by the Lorentz/Minkowski metric, ''is the same as the local time''. That is (assuming you are using the "spacelike convention"), everyone's wristwatch measures path length along their own world line. The twins simply followed paths of different lengths. That's all there is to the "twin paradox". (That is, that's all there is to it, if you analyze it correctly, as I have described above. Most introductory treatments of relativity don't do it this way. They just throw the Lorentz transform at you.)

Now there are a few points about the "twin paradox" that people find confusing.

First, aren't the laws of physics supposed to be the same for everyone? What made twin B's watch run slower? Well, she ''knew'' she was traveling at high speed. She brought an accelerometer with her in the rocket. Just as twin B in the parking lot knew she was walking all over the place, turning around and such, twin B in space knew that her world-line was turning, and therefore wasn't a straight line (geodesic). How did she know? It takes force to make you deviate from a geodesic (this is really pretty much the same as Newton's laws of motion), and she felt the force.

Second, how can we analyze the curvature of B's world line? Here's where general relativity has to come in. As soon as world lines start to curve, you have to measure their curvature, that is "geodesic curvature". You get into complicated issues of curved coordinate systems (you're in one now; it's what you perceive as "gravity"!), and curved spacetime, and so on. And you get into the <math>\Gamma\,</math> symbols, which measure the deviation from a geodesic, and hence the "fictitious forces" that you feel. This is why general relativity is related to the "twin paradox", in that the space ship followed a curved trajectory and experienced acceleration. But, to analyze the plain facts of the "twin paradox", all you really need to know is that twin B followed a crooked line. Place your ruler on a diagonal on the graph of Minkowski space, draw the line out to Alpha Centauri. Turn the ruler, draw the returning line. Ignore the impossibly sharp corners. Use special relativity to analyze the Lorentz transform for each section of B's world line.

Oh, and to try to answer some of your specific questions, the gravitational field, under either Newtonian or relativistic mechanics, is a conservative field. Its curl is zero. If it weren't, conservation of energy would be violated, and we could make a perpetual motion machine by having a planet run around in circles picking up energy. The "curl=0" aspect of gravity under general relativity is more complicated, because true vector fields have to be on Minkowski space, but it still conserves energy. When Mercury orbits the Sun, its perihelion precesses because of relativistic effects, but its energy is conserved.

I'll try to think some more about your black hole question and get back to you.

[[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 00:00, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

:Simeon, thanks so much for your long explanation! All of that made sense to me, and cleared up the issue of field as property of space vs. path specific to person vs. curved spacetime. Also, yes, I noticed the similarity between exact differential equations and deriving potential functions from vector fields - the former I studied in Differential Equations and the latter I studied in Multivariable Calculus.

:So, if I understand you properly, gravity both (a) curves spacetime and (b) creates a conservative field. (I derived (a) from your point: "You get into complicated issues of curved coordinate systems (you're in one now; it's what you perceive as "gravity"!)", and (b) from your point: "the gravitational field, under either Newtonian or relativistic mechanics, is a conservative field. Its curl is zero.") However, you're saying that if you are in an accelerating reference frame (such as a quickly-spinning merry-go-round) only (a) occurs; there is no field. Is this correct? If so, why is there this discrepancy between the two? [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 22:54, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

Yes, gravity curves spacetime. It looks as though you're ready to go to the next level. It has to do with curved ''coordinate systems'' vs. curved ''spacetime''. This is why GR is so complicated. But here goes.

First, we have to recognize that, at some level, we could say that energy is *not* conserved. Spacecraft use "slingshot maneuvers" around one planet to gain extra energy on their way to another planet. I assume you've heard of this. Cassini used three such maneuvers, twice around Venus and once around Earth. So what was going on? If you look at a coordinate system centered on Venus, you would see Cassini come in and go out again, with complete conservation of energy. But, in a coordinate system fixed around the solar system, Venus was moving, so Cassini came in at low speed and went out at high speed. We "stole" some energy out of Venus's orbit. So, to be ''really'' correct, we have to say that gravity is a conservative field in the absence of '''moving''' gravitating bodies.

But, in the larger sense, energy is conserved. Always. Newtonian or relativistic. (But in relativity, the mass figures into the equation. Let's not worry about that just now.)

Now we get to the really cool stuff. Your comment above suggests that you are ready for it.

You will feel a "fictitious force" whenever you are in a "curved spacetime coordinate system". A curved coordinate system would include things like polar coordinates on the plane, or spherical coordinates in 3 dimensions. But this is 4-dimensional spacetime. So I'd like you to take my word for this. On a rotating merry-go-round, your 4-dimensional spacetime coordinate system is curved. (This doesn't require relativity, special or general, to formulate this.) The 3-dimensional slice of it is flat, but, when you bring in time, and the spatial coordinates are accelerating, the overall coordinate system is curved. This creates fictitious forces. In the case of the merry-go-round, the forces are the centrifugal force and the Coriolis force. There are also the fictitious "acceleration G forces" in a rocket. But '''the spacetime itself isn't curved'''. It's like polar coordinates on the plane. Yes, the coordinate system is curved, but the plane isn't. There are Cartesian coordinates on the plane also. Similarly, an observer on the ground is in a flat coordinate system, and doesn't see any fictitious forces. He just sees the mechanism of the ride pushing you inward as you go around. Your recoil against that acceleration is what you perceive as the centrifugal force.

So the moral of the story would seem to be: you can choose a flat coordinate system that exposes the fictitious force for what it is. It's a perception from the curved spacetime coordinate system that the observer is operating in.

But how about gravity? In the case of gravity, '''spacetime itself is curved'''. If spacetime (properly called a "manifold") is curved, every coordinate system is curved, and the fictitious force which is gravity is inescapable.

So your statement "gravity curves spacetime", is exactly correct, but you have to distinguish "curving spacetime" and "curving some particular coordinate system". The actual curvature involves things called "Riemann's tensor" and "Ricci's tensor".

The number of people that understand this is way more than the 3 that Arthur Eddington claimed (it was more than 3 but probably less than 10 at the time), but it's still a pretty complicated subject.

[[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 00:03, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

:Simeon: Ah, that does make a lot of sense now. Thanks so much for explaining this to me. Hmm, that really is an elegant concept -- wow. Cool! [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 13:50, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

== Misleading Reference ==

The counterexample #18 has as an reference:

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

That's wrong: From the very beginning of the program, some relativistic effects were taken into account. As Conservapedia states at its article on [[GPS]] the Naval Research Lab in Washington published its report on the ''Initial Results of the NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 Satellite'' in 1978 and listed the following GPS objectives that have been achieved to date:
#launch insertion into GPS constellation position
#demonstrated orbit stability and controllability
#first cesium frequency standard in space
#'''verification of relativity theory'''
But not only did the initial experiments bolster the theory, some relativistic effects have to addressed in general use - in the official specification for the GPS project , i.e., the [http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/gpssps1.pdf Global Positioning System Standard Positioning Service Signal Specification], 2nd edition, June 1995, you find the following:

p. 13: ''To compensate for relativistic effects, the output frequency of the satellite's frequency standard -- as it would appear to an observer located at the satellite -- is 10.23 MHz offset by a Df/f = -4.4647 x 10-18 or a Df = -4.567 x 10-3 Hz.''

p. 39: ''The coefficients transmitted in subframe 1 describe the offset apparent to the control segment two-frequency receivers for the interval of time in which the parameters are transmitted. This estimated correction accounts for the deterministic satellite clock error characteristics of bias, drift and aging, as well as for the satellite implementation characteristics of group delay bias and mean differential group delay. Since these coefficients do not include corrections for relativistic effects, the user's equipment must determine the requisite relativistic correction. Accordingly, the offset given below includes a term to perform this function.''

It's true that not '''all''' effects are covered yet: as [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Relativity#GPS_revisited|I stated above]], the quoted article of the ''The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy'' addresses effects caused by the fast movement of some of the GPS-receivers - something which will doubtless be included as the number of fast receivers grows.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:03, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

== Ehrenfest's Paradox ==

This has been resolved and should be considered an apparent paradox. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox here]. [[User:Meatstick|Meatstick]] 11:07, 10 August 2010 (EDT)

== Momentum issues ==

It should be explained why numbers 4 and 20 are counterexamples. It isn't adequately explained why these would even present issues with the theory. Actually they look like explanations of part of the theory. [[User:Meatstick|Meatstick]] 11:12, 10 August 2010 (EDT)

: Number 4: for mass that is infinitesimally small, its momentum goes to infinity under Relativity as its speed approaches the speed of light. But this is absurd because if the mass is precisely zero rather than infinitesimally close to zero, its momentum is finite at the speed of light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:05, 10 August 2010 (EDT)

:: Are you sure that this is true? What are you fixing? One formula for relativistic momentum is <math>dp=\gamma v\left( dm \right)</math>. This remains a differential quantity in <math>m</math> as velocity becomes infinite: <math>\frac{dp}{dm}=\gamma v</math>. Fixing energy gives the correct momentum result in the limit as velocity becomes infinite. Maybe the misunderstanding results from taking two limits at once -- the prefactor that depends on velocity becomes infinite while the rest-mass dependence remains linear. [[User:TylerGD|TylerGD]] 13:28, 10 August 2010 (EDT)

::: Energy does not remain fixed as velocity increases to the speed of light. You seem to be avoiding the central point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:11, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

== Wormholes ==

There seems to be some confusion on the difference between predicting and allowing. General relativity allows wormholes under some conditions. But a lack of observed wormholes or even a lack of wormholes would not be inconsistent with the theory. [[User:TylerGD|TylerGD]] 16:27, 10 August 2010 (EDT)

== Inability of theory to lead to other insights? ==

Although this can hardly be considered true, would it be a counterexample to relativity if it were? Couldn't this be a failure of scientists or a testament to the finality of a theory? [[User:TylerGD|TylerGD]] 16:28, 10 August 2010 (EDT)

: No, because the theory has been around for more than a century.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:18, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

:: Why could this not be a failure of scientists? Anyway, what about the Dirac description of the electron? You can only claim that the theory failed to lead to other insights if you ignore the other insights. [[User:TylerGD|TylerGD]] 10:24, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

::: Relativity has been better funded than most theories, so it is a defect in the theory that it has yielded so little for the effort expended.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:12, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: The theory of GR has led to many insights regarding astrophysical phenomena. In particular GR plays an important role in discussing: Neutron Stars, Black Holes, Large-Scale structure, Cosmological Perturbation Theory, Stellar Evolution, Gravitation Waves, Gravitational Lensing, etc. Many concepts in modern astrophysics have been motivated using insight from GR. Additionally many developments in Quantum Field Theory (as used in Condensed Matter and Particle Physics - e.g. predictions of verifiable decay rates, cross-sections and so on), Relativistic Quantum Mechanics and Particle Physics take special relativity as an absolutely fundamental starting point. Many modern day particle accelerators require special relativistic corrections in order to work properly. - 15th August 2010 [[User:NotesTH|NotesTH]]

::::: NotesTH, you list some unproven dead ends like never-observed "Gravitation Waves," but fail to identify any verified insight. Indeed, the length of your list highlights its lack of a quality insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:38, 15 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Gravitational waves have not been directly observed, no, but there is significant indirect evidence. Most commonly cited is the [http://www.conservapedia.com/PSR_B1913_16 | Hulse-Taylor binary]. In the linked article it is claimed that a "0.2%" demonstrates the failing of relativity. On the contrary, the fact that a theoretical model for a binary star system could predict a gravitational wave emission that matches observations so extremely closely is extraordinary. The supposed correction term for "galactic acceleration" exists because the initial model is not perfect and nor was it ever meant to be. A 0.2% error is a fantastically small difference and demonstrates that GR provides an extremely accurate and verified prediction for the observed decay of a binary system due to emission of gravitational waves. The authors of the quoted paper state "Accuracy of the test for gravitational radiation damping is now dominated by the uncertainty in the galactic acceleration term. Work now underway should lead to improved accuracy of the pulsar proper motion, and the Sun’s galactocentric distance may be better known in the future. However, we see little prospect for a significant improvement in knowledge of the pulsar distance. Consequently, it seems unlikely that this test of relativistic gravity will be improved significantly in the foreseeable future" - that's simply a statement to the effect that there were some unknown parameters not included in the initial model but nowhere near enough to even remotely claim that the model is being tweaked to fit the theory, not for a 0.2% difference. In addition check out [http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/3308446.html?page=1&c=y | article on pulsar tests of GR] [http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/3310106.html?page=1&c=y | it's follow up article] and the following review of pulsars and GR: [http://relativity.livingreviews.org/ | Testing GR with Pulsar Timing]. I feel that these articles further demonstrate that this is not an isolated case.

:::::: You also seem to have neglected the other points. Rather than trying to talk about everything, it would take far too long in one sitting, I'll focus on the particle side of things. I've already stated that modern particle accelerators take into account relativistic effects - e.g. particle energies (using the relativistic energy equation: <math> E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 </math>, synchotron radiation [http://www.lhc-closer.es/php/index.php?i=1&s=4&p=12&e=0 | Synchotron at the LHC], particle lifetimes and so on. All of these require calculations from relativity that have been experimentally measured and verified. For instance all the predicted particle lifetimes and decay rates would require quantum field theories (which require relativity as a relativistic quantum theory) to predict the expected values which can then be matched to observations. We find that they are an extremely good fit to observations. Another example of such a calculation would be in predicting the [http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9810512 | magnetic moments] of particles - theory matches observations extraordinarily well.

:::::: As another point, just for a further example (could keep going...) we could look at neutron stars or pulsars as objects that are intrinsically relativistic. We can use observations of millisecond pulsars and, for example, compare models of synchrotron radiation (relativistic) to the observations. We find that the relativistic predictions are again in good agreement. Relativity has led to the development of many astrophysical phenomena which are intrinsically relativistic. Without the framework and foundations of relativity such insight would be impossible. The fundamental concepts introduced by relativity are absolutely essential in many, many branches of modern day science with many of the intrinsic relativistic effects being tested to a vast degree. No one claims that GR is the complete theory, it's treated as an effective field theory valid in some low energy limit, but the revolutionary concepts introduced by relativity have led to irrefutable developments in many areas of science. - 15th August 2010 [User:NotesTH | NotesTH]

== "from the muons' point of view, the Earth would have to be rushing in all directions to meet them"? ==

This would only be true if the muons shared a reference frame. Which they don't. [[User:TylerGD|TylerGD]] 10:25, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

: Good point, so that edit was removed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 12 August 2010 (EDT)

== Number 29: the fasted-frame contradiction ==

Clocks tick fastest in their rest frame. This is unique to the particular clock, but not among all clocks. No contradiction exists here. [[User:TylerGD|TylerGD]] 10:29, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

: OK, so that edit was also removed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 12 August 2010 (EDT)

== Continuation of "Curl of the gravitational field" ==

Phyllis (and any other interested parties, of course): You might want to take a look at the [[General theory of relativity]] page. I think you will be able to follow much of it. In particular, the "Coordinate Systems and Spacetime Diagrams" section is along the lines of what I discussed above. A better name for it might be "how the curvature of spacetime creates gravity". The "Quantitative Introduction to General Relativity" is a link to a separate page, that might be better named "how matter makes spacetime curve. The second of those is pretty daunting. The first was clearly never finished. A finished version seems to be on Wikiversity.

Good luck. [[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 23:54, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

== Reversion of my edit ==

I changed

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

to

''Only some, but not all effects of relativity are addressed by the [[Global Positioning System]]: not yet incorporated are the effects for fast moving receivers of the signal (e.g., satellites), therefore the Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”''

Andrew Schlafly changed it back, ignoring my edit comment: ''(changing misleading reference - as explained [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Relativity#Misleading_Reference|here]] and [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Relativity#GPS_revisited|here]])''

'''The current statement of Andrew Schlafly is wrong in at least two ways, as explained several times:'''

*the [[GPS]] addresses effects of Relativity: From the very beginning, its builders had the Theory of Relativity in mind. [http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA058591] and [http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/gpssps1.pdf]
*the paper quoted above addresses ''yet another'' effect.

Perpetuating a wrong statement doesn't seem to be very insightful.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:13, 13 August 2010 (EDT)

:You don't have to beat us over the head with it, Ron. We already knows that perpetuating wrong statements isn't insightful. We agree with that part of your remarks.

:The question is whether relativistic effects are (A) big enough to matter or (B) actually being calculated and compensated for by any major GPS.

:Now, it's interesting that the first builders considered relativity, but what our readers want to know is whether they decided that it made a big enough difference. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:52, 13 August 2010 (EDT)

::*''don't be rude'' sorry, but please don't mistake my exasperation for rudeness!
::*''The question is whether relativistic effects are (A) big enough to matter or (B) actually being calculated and compensated for by any major GPS. '' The answer to (A) as well to (B) is a very emphatic '''yes'''. It was given repeatedly and can be found in the source linked above - or in the section of this very talk page to which I linked in my edit-comment (conveniently repeated a couple of lines above, too). But to spare you the work of actually scrolling backwards, here it is again:

::::[http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/gpssps1.pdf Global Positioning System Standard Positioning Service Signal Specification], 2nd edition, June 1995:

::::p. 13: ''To compensate for relativistic effects, the output frequency of the satellite's frequency standard -- as it would appear to an observer located at the satellite -- is 10.23 MHz offset by a Df/f = -4.4647 x 10-18 or a Df = -4.567 x 10-3 Hz.''

::::p. 39: ''The coefficients transmitted in subframe 1 describe the offset apparent to the control segment two-frequency receivers for the interval of time in which the parameters are transmitted. This estimated correction accounts for the deterministic satellite clock error characteristics of bias, drift and aging, as well as for the satellite implementation characteristics of group delay bias and mean differential group delay. Since these coefficients do not include corrections for relativistic effects, the user's equipment must determine the requisite relativistic correction. Accordingly, the offset given below includes a term to perform this function.''

::*This ''Global Positioning System Standard Positioning Service Signal Specification'' is quoted on the talk-page of the article for the [[GPS]], too. It is the relevant document for everyone - engineer of physicist - who wants to work with the signals of the GPS.

::*This quote alone shows that the statement ''Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity.'' is wrong. Plain and simple.

::*Effects on the GPS became a textbook example for relativity, see e.g., [http://www.colorado.edu/physics/Web/directory/faculty/ashby_n.html Neil Ashby], who writes in [http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=title.html Relativity in the Global Positioning System]:
::::''There is an interesting story about this frequency offset. At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977), which contained the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty as to its magnitude as well as its sign. Indeed, there were some who doubted that relativistic effects were truths that would need to be incorporated! A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit was that predicted by general relativity, then the synthesizer could be turned on, bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary for operation. After the Cesium clock was turned on in NTS-2, it was operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on the synthesizer. The frequency measured during that interval was +442.5 parts in 1012 compared to clocks on the ground, while general relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 1012. The difference was well within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then gave about a 1% verification of the combined second-order Doppler and gravitational frequency shift effects for a clock at 4.2 earth radii. ''
::*But you don't have to take this secondary source at face value, you can go to the primary source: [http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA058591 Initial Results of the NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 Satellite], Naval Research Lab Washington, D.C., 25 May 1978 (Full text: [http://www.leapsecond.com/history/1978-PTTI-v9-NTS-2.pdf pdf]). '''Ever since 1978, relativistic effects are observed and compensated in various ways.''' Or as the abstract states it:
::::''NTS-2 was successfully launched on 23 June 1977 into a near 12-hour circular orbit. Precise frequency and timing signals are derived from the two cesium frequency standards. '''This paper discusses the launch and preliminary results which include verification of the relativistic clock effect.''' ''

::*PhyllisS introduced the following quote above:
::::''The Time Service Department – a department of the U. S. Navy - states: “The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require – transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”''
:::This is taken from a text of ''Henry F. Fliegel'' and ''Raymond S. DiEsposti''from December 1996 who are talking about ''another'' relativistic effect than the ones already implemented. Please keep in mind that the Specification above is from June 1995! Only someone who didn't read the text - or didn't understand it - could abuse this quote to invoke the impression that no effects of relativity were implemented in the GPS.

::*Of course, the information above may be ignored - as it was previously: ''tl;dr''. But actively ignoring facts which contravene a statement just to repeat the statement is a behavior which can only be described in a rude way.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:34, 14 August 2010 (EDT)

: Ron, the collection of statements above could be construed as easily as ''disproving'' relativity rather than proving it. Decades after GPS was launched, observers still struggle to match the data to the theoretical predictions. If some relativistic calculations are included in the synchronization but others are not, then the theory is ''disproved'', not proved by the data.

: As the [[Theory of Relativity]] page itself explains, the engineers ignored the complex predictions of relativity. And for obvious reasons: it's easier to synchronize the clocks directly based on communications!

: Note the complete absence of any identification of a particular physicist or mathematician who supposedly provided the theoretical predictions of Relativity for the engineers. ''That is because there were no such theoretical predictions of Relativity used in the design!''

: You might as well claim that clocks in a sporting game are synchronized based on relativity. That would lack credibility for the same reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:28, 14 August 2010 (EDT)

:: ''Ron, the collection of statements above could be construed as easily as ''disproving'' relativity rather than proving it. Decades after GPS was launched, observers still struggle to match the data to the theoretical predictions. If some relativistic calculations are included in the synchronization but others are not, then the theory is ''disproved'', not proved by the data.'' Effects come in various sizes. When calculating the trajectory of the projectile of a handgun, you don't include the [[Coriolis effect]]. When the bullets get faster and the range gets bigger, you have to. Does this mean that because only some classical effects are included in the first case, it has disproved classical mechanics? Frankly, that's just absurd.

:: ''As the [[Theory of Relativity]] page itself explains, the engineers ignored the complex predictions of relativity. And for obvious reasons: it's easier to synchronize the clocks directly based on communications!'' At the article of the [[Theory of Relativity]], a quote is used to bolster this claim: the same quote I've shown to be inappropriate as it is talking about other effects. From Ashby's [http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=title.html Relativity in the Global Positioning System] : '''It has become common practice not to apply such offsets to Rubidium clocks as these are subject to unpredictable frequency jumps during launch. Instead, after such clocks are placed in orbit their frequencies are measured and the actual frequency corrections needed are incorporated in the clock correction polynomial that accompanies the navigation message.''' So, yes, the clocks aren't tempered with any longer - but the relativistic correction are incorporated nontheless.

:: '' Note the complete absence of any identification of a particular physicist or mathematician who supposedly provided the theoretical predictions of Relativity for the engineers. ''That is because there were no such theoretical predictions of Relativity used in the design!'' '' No, that's because the any decent physicists can answer the questions ''what's the expected relative and gravitationl time dilation at the satellite''. Einstein, Poincare and some others get the credit for coming up with the necessary formulas, but those who merely apply these formulas aren't mentioned...

:: ''You might as well claim that clocks in a sporting game are synchronized based on relativity. That would lack credibility for the same reason. '' The clocks of a sporting game aren't accurate enough to be influenced by non-classical effects. The clocks of the [[GPS]] are - and the effects are much greater in the height and at that velocity of a satellite.

::Sorry to keep you waiting for this answer: my ISP at home (109.90.0.0/16) is still range-blocked (block ID is #63109), so I can contribute to Conservapedia only irregularly. But I don't think that this bothers you, as you may not like my comments anyhow.

::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:26, 15 August 2010 (EDT)

:::Ron, your edits are mostly talk, and the talk is superficial. I pointed out that no individual has ever been credited, identified or even alluded to for providing the Relativity work that was supposedly included in the GPS design. Obviously that was because there was no such inclusion of Relativity work. But you just duck that compelling point and fail to address it in a meaningful way.

:::The argument that GPS includes some (but not all) relativistic adjustments is even weaker, because that implies that GPS disproves rather than proves Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:36, 15 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: I agree with RonLar. The GPS clocks are accurate enough for relativity to matter. It is well-known that the system uses relativistic corrections. Otherwise, it would disprove relativity, and where is the paper proving that? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:17, 15 August 2010 (EDT)

::::: Journals won't publish any data contrary to Relativity; accepted papers have even been forced to withdraw for this reason. For example, where are the data on the advance of the perihelion of Mercury (which now disproves Relativity) or the binary pulsar (which now disproves Relativity despite the Nobel Prize being given for it years ago).

::::: The claim that GPS system "uses relativistic corrections" is meaningless. If some but not all relativistic corrections are used, as discussed above, then this disproves rather than proves Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:46, 15 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::: If the GPS system uses some but not all relativistic corrections, the article is faulty and should be corrected. I don't know about that astronomical data, but if you have some reliable source saying that it was censored somehow, then I suggest posting it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:48, 15 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::: If you think Relativity was part of the GPS design, then who did the Relativity calculations? Who was responsible for that work? Not only has no one been credited or identified for doing this work, there is not even any suggestion that anyone did such work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 15 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: Beats me, I thought GPS was a classified military project. Who did the Newtonian calculations? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:36, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::::::''I pointed out that no individual has ever been credited, identified or even alluded to for providing the Relativity work that was supposedly included in the GPS design.'' R. Schlafly answered this one very well. May I add that we don't know who actually calculated the trajectories for the [[Apollo project]]. Does this mean that the [[Moon landing]] was a hoax? That's absurd.

::::::::::''If some but not all relativistic corrections are used, as discussed above, then this disproves rather than proves Relativity.'' Again, does the omission of the [[Coriolis effect]]s - or even tidal forces - when calculating the trajectory of a bullet disprove [[classical mechanics]]? Effects come in various degrees, more about that in the next section.

::::::::::''Ron, your edits are mostly talk, and the talk is superficial. '' I wouldn't have to do so much talking if you actually read the papers you are quoting from. Even someone who thinks that he can formulate [[Einstein's postulates]] better than Wolfgang Pauli did (''[[Talk:World_History_Lecture_Eleven#Postulates_of_Special_Relativity|I have explained why Pauli's description is inadequate]]'') should sometimes stop and listen to those who at least recomputed the relevant calculations.

::::::::::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:41, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::::::: GPS was declassified nearly 30 years ago. It's well-publicized who did the work on the [[Manhattan Project]], but are you claiming that no one knows who supposedly did the Relativity work on GPS because it is top secret???? Please.

::::::::::: RonLar, your comments lack logic and suggest to me a lack of an open mind about this topic, and I'm not going to spend forever in talk, talk, talk with you about this. May I ask what your score is on the quiz on [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:09, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::::::::Though I don't know what this has to do with the subject at hand, here are my answers
::::::::::::{|class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"
!Question
!Answer
|-
|Do you resist admitting the possibility that a conservative approach to education is far more effective for students than a [[liberal]] one?
|No.
|-
|If it were proved to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?
|If it is proved to ''my'' satisfaction, no, I wouldn't.
|-
|Do you resist admitting that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false?
|I wouldn't like to admit it - is this resistance? But of course, I would admit it.
|-
|Do you resist the possibility that [[Hollywood values]] result in significant harm for those who believe in them, and to innocent bystanders?
|Resist the possibility? How could one?
|-
| Do you think it is impossible that increased gun ownership reduces the rate of crime?
|Impossible? No. Unlikely? Yes.
|-
| When President [[Ronald Reagan]] told Mr. [[Gorbachev]] to tear down the Berlin Wall, did you think that it was impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down?
|Impossible? No. But the speed was surprising!
|-
| Did you think, or still think, that the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] ("Star Wars") is impossible?
|Impossible? No. Hard to realise? Yes.
|-
| Do you think that it is impossible that the [[Shroud of Turin]] is authentic?
|Impossible? No. Very unlikely? Yes.
|-
| Do you think that there ''must'' be a purely material-based explanation (such as magnetism) for remarkable [[homing]] and [[migration]] behavior of birds and butterflies?
|A ''purely material-based explanation'' as opposed to what? Angels hinting the way? So, yes.
|-
| Do you think that it is impossible for the speed of light to have been different in the past?
|Impossible? No. Very improbable? Yes.
|-
| Do you think that it is impossible to measure openmindedness?
|Impossible? No. With this test? Yes.
|-
| Do you think that evolution ''must'' have occurred?
|Must have occurred? No. Has most probably occurred? Yes.
|-
| Do you think that is impossible for the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity, whereby the gravitational force is proportional to 1/r2, to be more precise with an exponent that is slightly different from 2, such as a gravitational force proportional to 1/r2.00000001?
|Impossible? No. Aesthetically unsatisfying? Yes.
|-
| Do you resist admitting that some things taught to you in school are completely false, and even known to be false by some responsible for the material?
|No. There were errors, and there were (over-)simplifications
|-
| Do you deny that some widely required theories of science may actually impede the progress of science?
|Generally: Yes, Locally: No.
|-
| Do you deny that the imposition of socialism and same-sex marriage on a nation could harm its competitiveness at international events like the Olympics?
|Yes - think of synchronised diving and swimming!
|-
| Do you refuse to consider the possibility that "experts" may not have all the answers, and that the [[best of the public]] may have valuable insights to which experts are blind?
|Generally, the best of the public are called experts, so yes and no.
|-
| Do you think that if you read parts of the Bible years ago as a child, you can claim to "have read the Bible" and that you have no reason to read it regularly now?
|If you read only parts, you didn't read the Bible. Is there a necessity to read it regularly? No.
|-
| Do you think that it is impossible for an oppressing society (like [[Communism]] or [[theocracy]])
to become a [[democracy]]?
|No.
|-
| Do you believe that because the Earth's orbit and rotation are what they are now, they are guaranteed to remain stable for billions of years?
|No.
|}

::::::::::::Looking at the subject of the questions - and at your convictions as stated here on Conservapedia, this quiz seems to measure the possibility to agree with you in any point. That isn't necessarily the same as being open-minded...
::::::::::::So, I have answered your questions. Could you now answer the following ones? You can regard it as my version of a test of open-mindedness - it shows that you are willing to climb on the shoulders of the giants (to use [[Newton]]'s picture)
::::::::::::*Who did the Newtonian calculations for the GPS? Please cite a source.
::::::::::::*In the official Specification of the GPS we read:
::::::::::::::::p. 13: ''To compensate for relativistic effects, the output frequency of the satellite's frequency standard -- as it would appear to an observer located at the satellite -- is 10.23 MHz offset by a Df/f = -4.4647 x 10-18 or a Df = -4.567 x 10-3 Hz.''

::::::::::::::::p. 39: ''The coefficients transmitted in subframe 1 describe the offset apparent to the control segment two-frequency receivers for the interval of time in which the parameters are transmitted. This estimated correction accounts for the deterministic satellite clock error characteristics of bias, drift and aging, as well as for the satellite implementation characteristics of group delay bias and mean differential group delay. Since these coefficients do not include corrections for relativistic effects, the user's equipment must determine the requisite relativistic correction. Accordingly, the offset given below includes a term to perform this function.''
:::::::::::::How can you reconcile this with your view that ''GPS is a work of engineering and any timing discrepancies between the satellite and ground are obviously better handled directly by synchronization rather than asking a physicist what he thinks of relativity.'' Please elaborate.
::::::::::::*Have a look at the paper ''Initial Results of the Navstar GPS NTS-2 Satellite'' by James A. Buisson, Roger L. Easton, Thomas B. McCaskill of tje U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) Washington, D.C. This is the primary source for results of the first GPS mission. The abstract states
::::::::::::::''NTS-2 was successfully launched on 23 June 1977 into a near 12-hour circular orbit. Precise frequency and timing signals are derived from the two cesium frequency standards. This paper discusses the launch and preliminary results which include verification of the relativistic clock effect.''
:::::::::::::How do you reconcile this with your statements that ''GPS satellite clocks were not built based on predictions made by the theory of relativity'' or that ''GPS never used the theory of relativity'' - when the very first clocks for the GPS were not only used to verify the effect, but after the initial phase to conduct such experiments were offset according to the ''predictions made by the theory of relativity''? Please elaborate.
::::::::::::Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:25, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::::please, reconsider the block of my ISP at home (block ID #63109, intended blockee: 109.90.0.0/16)

My goodness! Andy and RonLar are ''still'' debating the GPS issue? You two clearly enjoy debating each other, and I enjoy reading what you have to say.

As far as the questions above "who did the Relativity calculations?" and "who did the Newtonian calculations?" for GPS, I don't think it's important for the person doing the relativity calculations to have published his work or otherwise made himself known. The fundamental formulas for the GR time dilation effect under discussion are known to nearly all physics graduate students. This isn't to say that GR isn't very complicated, but the number of people who understand it is now ''way'' more than 3. The equation for the relative incremental time dilation/contraction is <math>g/c^2</math> per meter of distance "uphill" or "downhill" in the gravitational field, where <math>g</math> is the strength of the field. (Since the field is conservative, this distance uphill or downhill is independent of the path; it's just a property of the locations of the two observers.) Now the rest of the derivation is straightforward. I'll take you through it. In the vicinity of the Earth, we have
::<math>g = \frac{GM}{r^2}</math>
so the dilation is
::<math>\frac{GM}{c^2r^2}</math>
Because the satellites are so high, we have to take into account the change in strength between the receiver and the transmitter, so we have to do an integration:
::<math>\int_{R1}^{R2}\frac{GM}{c^2r^2}\ dr</math>
where <math>R_1</math> and<math>R_2</math> are the radii at the receiving point (6.4E6 meters) and the satellite (20E6 meters). We have G (Newton's constant) equals 6.7E-12, and M (Earth's mass) equals 6E24.
The integral is
::<math>- \frac{GM}{c^2r}\left|\right.^{R_2}_{R_1}</math>
Plugging in the numbers, we get .477E-9, which is about 45 microseconds per day. The special relativity correction due to the speed of motion is about 7 microseconds per day in the opposite direction. The total is about 38 microseconds per day, which is compensated for by adjusting the clock rates. Without this, the ability of GPS devices to show position would drift by about 10 kilometers per day, which would make them useless.

The correctness of these equations is independent of whether the people running the system have gone through the derivation, just as the correctness of Maxwell's equations is independent of whether people using electric motors understand those equations. Scientific theories are not correct or incorrect depending on whether specific people understand them, or the thought processes that went into the design of any particular device.

A final note to Andy: Since you and RonLar are clearly enjoying this debate, and clearly consider each other to be worthy adversaries, I'd suggest that you unblock RonLar's IP address, if indeed it is still blocked. It's the honorable and gentlemanly thing to do. [[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 10:52, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

=== Problems with Peer Review ===
(unindent) Andy and Roger, I appreciate both of your viewpoints, and I'd like to sidetrack this discussion to an important point about peer review and "refereed" journals. It is often argued that since idea X has no papers supporting it, to be found in scientific journals, it therefore is "unscientific", i.e., false (see [[pseudoscience]]). However, we are aware of a significant number of ideas which we know to be true (or at least likely), but which mainstream journals have refused to publish.
*Ideas on global warming which run counter to the [[AGW]] hypothesis, such as [[sunspots and cosmic rays]] affecting cloud formation: several researchers have published reports showing a much stronger correlation between the sunspot cycle and earth atmosphere temperature than that between the carbon dioxide level and temperature, but ''Science'' spiked the most important such paper on the grounds that it would be "of no interest" to their readers!
*Intelligent design: The last time a journal editor managed to get an ID paper through peer review, he was forced to resign. The refrain, "No peer reviewed papers on ID" is the strongest (non-scientific) argument against ID, but it's based on [[circular reasoning]].
Perhaps we need an article on [[Scientific censorship]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:12, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

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

Even if the sentence stood alone, that would be hardly justifiable: ''the effect of relativity [...] are too small to matter [...] '''for users on or near the earth''' '' shows what the authors intention is: they show that the effects of relativity for users in a distance from the Earth's surface (satellites etc.) and at high speed do matter.
If you read the article the sentence is taken from (''GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview'' by Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond S. DiEsposti), you'll find on p. 193:
::''Since GPs receivers work in the time and not in the frequency domain, they handle the velocity, gravity, and acceleration shifts differently than described above. First, each GPS space vehicle (SV) clock is offset from its nominal rate by about -4.45×10-10 (= -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.''

So, the authors of this text are well aware of the relativistic effects on the GPS space vehicles. And these effects are big enough to justify a compensation. So what are the ''effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter''? To repeat it again, these are the additional effects on the receivers of the signal, which may be in higher altitude and moving on a higher speed than it was anticipated in the 1970s.

Including such effects make the GPS more precise, it doesn't disprove the theory of relativity.

You could have guessed as much from the abstract of the article:
::''We give and explain in detail the formulas for the relativistic corrections to be implemented in high-speed aircraft, or when using other satellites in connection with GPS, or when using GPS from another satellite. We explain how to use these formulas in various scenarios, give numerical examples, and itemize the pitfall to be avoided by (for example) receiver manufacturers.

It's an amusing twist that the intended audience for this articles are engineers - people who have no need for the theory of relativity as you have repeatedly made clear.

So, the sentence you took of the article only ''seemingly'' bolstered your position, in fact, when read in context, it ''disproves'' your opinion. That is an example for a [[quote mine]].

I hope that this comment - and my previous ones - which are not superficial at all, but go straight to the source, convince you to unblock my ISP at home (block ID #63109, intended blockee: 109.90.0.0/16). and to give me the possibility to engage in a meaningful discussion.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:41, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

==My Great-grandfather==

This is where I came in ... [[Charles Lane Poor]] was my great-grandfather, and he protested the media love-fest celebrating the theory of relativity on the grounds that it was premature. Based on the accuracy of observations at the time (early 20th century), there just wasn't enough proof that Einstein's idea was correct.

I'd like this article to take the scientific path of (1) explaining the theory in layman's terms, (2) describing predictions that the theory makes, e.g., observed star positions during a [[solar eclipse]], and (3) comparing predicted to actual values. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:45, 13 August 2010 (EDT)

: That's very interesting about your great-grandfather, Ed. As to explaining the theory and discussing claims supporting it, other entries like [[Theory of Relativity]] do that but can always be improved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 14 August 2010 (EDT)

== Countering the counterexamples ==

The content of this page aside, I question whether it serves the interests of CP for it to exist in its current form. CP has been lucky to attract a long string of competent math and physics editors. Yet once again it finds itself in the position of not having any except ASchlafly and Ed Poor. Many of these editors were good-faith contributors who wrote a lot of other science articles and generally improved the site, but were eventually driven out after becoming frustrated with this opposition to relativity (and its cousin, the pervasive skepticism about complex numbers).

:Actually, it was their refusal to write articles on basic topics accessible to our average reader's background that sealed their doom. While Andy is much more tolerant of "advanced" articles on math, etc., I prefer that each article at least '''begin''' with an introduction that even a high school student can understand.

:I even started to suspect that this refusal went beyond mere inability to empathize with our readership, but could be a deliberate flouting of editorial policy.

:Bottom line: it's not the topic, but how it's described. No science topic is out of bounds here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:00, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

Yes, maybe free speech dictates that this page ought to remain. But when the viewpoints of supporters of relativity have been ''without exception'' removed from the page, is there really free speech at all? ASchlafly, you remove these views on the grounds that they are not logical. But their proponents hold them surely as you hold your position, so would it not be reasonable to allow the other side to be posted somewhere, maybe on another page rebutting this one?

Disbelieving the theory of relativity is really not a ''conservative'' position as such, so I think it's a shame that it has caused CP so much harm. Indeed, the only person who seems to be convinced by these "counterexamples" is ASchlafly: the public (liberal and conservative) constantly disputes them on the talk page; the media openly mocks this page and hurts the public perception of CP's credibility; even some CP administrators, surely open-minded conservatives, disagree with these positions. (Maybe some editors have expressed agreement. Such are certainly parodists and should be banned on sight.)

I think it would be advisable to allow some pro-relativity views back on this site, in the interest of free speech, keeping productive editors, and maintaining credibility. --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 11:54, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

: Kyle, your rant is misplaced and does not warrant a detailed response. If you would like to set up a new entry along the lines of what you propose, please do so. It can go point-by-point in trying to rebut the counterexamples. Good luck doing so, because each counterexample has withstood every attempt to criticize it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:58, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

Despite my oppositions to the arguments contained on this page, science is about progress through repeatable experimentation. If a theory is found to be incompatible to experimental data, then it is editted or thrown out. A great many papers published on relativity (see websites such as NASA's ADS for peer reviewed papers) contain a great many references to other authors that have aided the writers in their work. These references are peer reviewed and in turn built on the foundations of many older peer reviewed references.

The references that are presently used in the 'Counterexamples to Relativity' page are of dubious origin.

1. Is not a reference, as it does not contain
1) The author, title, ISBN number, print edition, print date, publisher, and page number where the quote about how relativity misleads the public is contained. It can be corrected if you input these important bits of information, so that people can follow your reasoning.

2. Whilst this is arguably a reference, the website does not contain data as to when it was originally accessed, which may bring into question if the page has been edited by some outsider since your use as a reference. There is also and more importantly the question of MSNs reliability as a reference. As it is not a peer reviewed article, it is written by a non-scientist, with no references to papers written BY NASA scientists on the occurrence claimed within, it is highly unreliable. It would be more precise to actually reference a peer-reviewed paper, or report by an acclaimed institute, which specialise in the sciences explaining or even mentioning the anomalies.

3. Reference 3 is not a reference, as it does not actually refer to a specific source of data. There is no reference to percentages of physics majors that cannot replicate relativity equations. The data quoted is also unreferenced, and should in any case be contained in the body of the article, and not in the references. Finally when mentioning Professor Clifford Will, it is again unreferenced about his 'omitted this in listing tests confirming relativity.' Please reference this quotation by finding it in his articles, and reference it.

4. Reference 4 is not a reference at all, as it is a statement of opinion. I would also point out that you say 'If space were curved, one would never expect the universe as a whole to be almost precisely flat. Yet it is.' But as you can see using the term 'almost precisely flat' you are actually saying that there is a partial curvature in space-time, as the universe would have to be precisely flat, and not almost precisely flat. Again reference peer reviewed papers on the curvature of space-time and perhaps the explanations of the so called 'flatness problem in cosmology' and perhaps look at 'solutions to the flatness problem'.

5. Again this reference does not contain any information as to where you are getting your claims. Perhaps referencing papers from a peer reviewed paper about quantum entanglement, involving the author, title, Journal title or ISBN number, print edition, print date, publisher, and page number.

6. This link actually sends the user to another conservapedia page, and upon inspection then reveals the reference to this page as a BBC website article. Whilst I am a strong fan of the BBC, again as my issue with reference number 2, the data accessed has not been input, and the BBC is also a dubious source for referencing. Please use peer reviewed papers as sites such as BBC/MSN are 'popular' science ie do not explain the actually cause of certain anomalies, and please follow reference guidelines.

7. Again New Scientist is not a peer-reviewed paper and is not a reliable reference source. Whilst the paper goes into more detail that your average website article, it is still written in laymen’s terms, and often actually avoids the mathematical details that are unbendable by opinion. It would be more correct to reference the paper that the scientists within have published on their findings, rather than relying on the NS's analysis of it.

8. Again for reference 7.

9. Excellent! An actual peer reviewed paper in here! However when citing papers, it is more correct to cite the author, title, Journal title or ISBN number, print edition, print date, publisher, and page number rather than the website that the data is taken from.

10. Again this is not referenced. It would be correct to reference Professor Stephen Hawking’s papers on black hole entropy. I believe that there may be some in NASA's that you can find and reference following conventions.

11. This is again not referenced as it does not contain any link to the press release, or papers written by the The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy refuting the claims by scientists that GPS does not rely on relativity. Doing so would be useful to disprove relativity.

12. Reference 12 links back to reference 1, which for some reason starts out scientific, but then the reference it is linked to be reference 1, which at no point actually explains, or even mentions the tensor-stress-energy that is present in relativity. Again using a corrected reference 1 would be more correct than having a reference 12. It would also more good to mention that the scientific part of reference 12 should also be contained in the body of the text, and a reference for the science, such as Einstein's papers should be referenced for the mathematical cases to be seen as correct.

13. Reference 13 is a statement and not a reference. It should be moved into the main body of the text and referenced itself, by citing a peer-reviewed paper.

14. Nature magazine is a reputable peer reviewed source, but as reference no 9, it should be referenced by the author, title, Journal title or ISBN number, print edition, print date, publisher, and page number rather than the website that the data is taken from.

15. Again this is not referenced correctly, as it does not say who the author is, etc. It would actually be honest to point out that in no case in physics, engineering, biology, chemistry, can equations be shone to be perfectly correct, but more often as moderately to highly accurate models, depending on the situation.

Editing the above errors in referencing will make the page more professional. Vancouver or Harvard referencing are used world wide, and there is no excuse to reference incorrectly. Doing so cheapens the image of the author, and is often than not an insult to the reader.

Hope this has been helpful. Regards, ARogers

== A reminder ==

We are all scientists here: we all seek the truth.

"When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

-- Isaac Asimov

[[User:Freiberg|Freiberg]] 15:42, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

:That's misleading. Hardly anyone ever thought the earth was flat, at least not since Western Civilization began. And the earth is so near to a perfect sphere that a globe (atlas) needs no "polar flattening".

:Don't try to make subtle points: come out and say whatever it is you were trying to say. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:58, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

== Pioneer anomoly ==

The first counterexample, "The [[Pioneer anomaly]]", doesn't actually satisfy the list's purpose as stated by "Here is a list of 29 counterexamples: any one of them shows that the theory is incorrect."

Under [[Pioneer_anomaly#Explanations]] there's a list of potential explanations for the anomaly, and while "The theory of General Relativity and the Law of Universal Gravitation could be wrong" is on that list so are drag forces and the presence of unknown celestial bodies. In other words, the anomaly itself could still exist even if general relativity is 100% accurate.

Maybe "shows" should be changed to "suggests"?
[[User:Stoob|Stoob]]

: All of the other items also have explanations that do not contradict relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:28, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

::I have to agree wholeheartedly - and I can see that you are trying for quite a while to get rid of these distortions, at [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] and [[Theory of Relativity]]. I liked your comment:

:::{{Quotebox|''All of those statements are completely false. Relativity has no physical discontinuities, logic contradictions, or contradictions from evidence. Relativity promoters are no more liberal than those who promote quantum mechanics, superconductivity, or any other aspect of physics. RSchlafly 10:30, 24 November 2009 (EST) ''}}

::But seeing how long this is going on, my hopes for any improvements are vanishing... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:23, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

== If Biblical quotes are allowed... ==

Since we are allowing quotes from the Bible to undermine Relativity, can I also use quotes from the Quran in the "Counterexamples to the Bible" section? Seems only fair.

: Are you saying all books are created equal, Pete?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:49, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

::That is ''precisely'' what I am saying. For example, it seems to me that the page "Christian apologetics" could, with a few alterations, be renamed "Islamic apologetics". Pete 17 August 2010 (EDT)

:::Sorry, Pete, but truth is not relative on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:04, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

::::I agree, truth is not relative, neither here nor anywhere. However, it seems to me, but the laws of logic, that exactly one of the following statements must be true -

::::1. The Bible is true
::::2. The Qu'ran is true
::::3. Neither are true

::::You are assuming #1 to falsify #2 and #3. Then why can't I assume #2 to falsify #1 and #3. That seems perfectly in line with what you are doing. [[User:Pete5383|Paul]] 18:07, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::No, Pete, you have come here assuming the Bible is false, and you're ''pushing'' your religious beliefs here. I think you better give it up. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:10, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::I have no religious beliefs. What I am "pushing" is rational thinking and embracing science. [[User:Pete5383|Paul]] 18:26, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::::You are pushing a religious belief, and it certainly is not rational. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:29, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

What religion am I adhering to? And is it irrational because it is supported by hundreds of years of scientific scrutiny?
:Belief or non-belief in God is a religious belief. And which scientists are irrational? Do they include the thousands of PHd's who believe in God? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:37, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

::Non-belief is a religion the same way that bald is a hair color. You disregard a million gods; I disregard a million plus one, and I'm irrational? Out of those thousands of PhD holder's, how many have written papers presenting testable evidence of God? The difference between my non-belief and your belief is that my non-belief is not actively trying to undo scientific advancement; my non-belief has never raised millions of dollars to pass laws that tell two loving adults that they are not as good as their heterosexual counterparts; my non-belief has never caused my young son to come home in tears because he was told that he was destined to spend an eternity being tortured because "Your daddy doesn't go to church"; my non-belief ruler (if it had one) has never refrained from intervening in the molestation of a child despite being perfectly capable of doing so.

::I am sitting now, alone in my study, and there is a quarter on my desk. If this quarter were to flip from heads to tails by itself, I would instantly become a convert to Christianity. As of yet, the quarter has not moved. Either there is no god, or he does not care about saving me enough to give me even the slightest bit of evidence. Now, absence of proof does not proof there is no god; however, the silence has been awful hard to ignore. [[User:Pete5383|Paul]] 18:54, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

:::I don't expect you to change in an instant if that quarter flips by itself, but here you are, in our site, knowing we are Christian, and you are willfully and deliberately pushing your non-beliefs here. A wolf amongst the sheep.
:::And there is a God, and He does care enough about you to send His Son; the evidence for it is historical and documented. Whether or not you choose to accept Him is up to you, but I don't think He's going to give into a demand for a test just because you feel like it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:01, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

:::Paul, atheists don't build hospitals, don't have championship teams, and don't give much to charity. Atheism is a self-centered ideology that leads individuals and societies to self-destructive rather than selfless conduct. Even your quarter example is self-centered. Atheists are also censors of classroom prayer, even when everyone in the classroom wants to pray.

:::There's no free lunch. Selfish ideologies aren't getting away with anything. Over time, the objective individual wakes up to where the road of atheism takes him, and he finds another road.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:08, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

::::Aren't Warren Buffet and Bill Gates atheists? They've donated billions to charity, I think more than a third of everything they earned during their lifetimes. Definitely no championship teams though... [[User:Stoob|Stoob]]

:::::Gates' wife is a devout Catholic, I think, and ''together'' they've given money to a foundation they control. I'm not aware of their building any hospitals. Ditto for Buffet. Moreover, their wealth is just a drop in the bucket of the overall wealth of atheists, very little of which goes to atheists.

:::::What's another name for a self-centered, uncharitable person who censors classroom prayer? An atheist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:35, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

::::Andy, there are atheists doing charitable work. The relatively small work being done is easily attributable to atheists being cast out from society for millenia, and only recently gathering ground and forging a community. See [http://www.redcross.org/] [http://foundationbeyondbelief.org/] [http://www.aclu.org/] [http://www.amnesty.org/] [http://www.eff.org/about]. There are many others, and the number and size of these organizations continues to grow. You may want to believe that atheists lack charity, but the world simply must disagree with you. [[User:AAckermann|AAckermann]] 11:03, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::The world disagrees with you in one respect, AAckermann. Since 1963 when a loud-mouth atheist named Madalyn Murray O'Hair used her hate to remove prayer from public schools, we have had consistent and constant attacks by atheists and like-minded individuals against Christians through legislation, speeches, books and other published material, film and television, as well as personal threats, intimidation, and violence. That is mainstream atheism in action here, and I would hardly call that "charitable." [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:13, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::Prayer is still permitted in schools; Any child can, at their choosing, pray as they feel. All that has changed is the school must not direct it. Just as I'm sure you wouldn't want your children forced to pray for Allah, we must not force children to pray for God, or any other deities. [[User:AAckermann|AAckermann]] 11:31, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::::And you're wrong once again. A kid begins a prayer, an atheistic parent gets mad and sues the school district with the help of the ACLU; that fact alone is in the newspapers in some part of the country at least once a week. We're not going to make atheism look good here, AAckermann, not just because doing so is against the site's policies, ''but because doing so is an impossibility.'' [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:38, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::::Please cite any case where that happened. The ACLU defends human rights, not anti-Christian concepts. [[User:AAckermann|AAckermann]] 11:43, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::You know full-well what I'm talking about, AAckermann; you've seen the citations and the news about the subject too many times yourself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:49, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::In answer to the above troll's "request" for a cite backing up what I said about prayer and the ACLU's attempts to stop it, how about 22,000 of them: [http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=aclu+sues+school+prayer&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=93c3c78db929eee0]. If the ACLU was so bent up about defending human rights, they would be defending the rights of anyone to engage in prayer anytime, anywhere, as per the First Amendment. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:01, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:Karajou, I'm not sure a list of google results is an accepted citation...however, playing along, I looked at the first result. It was about how a school was required to take down a banner that asked "Our Heavenly Father" to watch over them. Are you saying, Karajou, that if a school hung a banner that said "Praise be to Allah", you'd be fine with that? Side note, in your "citation", I noticed, a couple down, that the ACLU also sued a Twin Cities school for promoting Islam. Are you outraged about that?
:AAckermann, I've noticed from posting here for a while, that any time you request proof or a citation, you get responses in line with "You know full-well what I'm talking about" and little else.
:PS Karajou, I have a "citation" for you: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=andy+schlafly+hates+kittens&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=634be7f9c98ae18c
:Mine has 27,000 results. More true, then, yes? (Mr. Schlafly, I mean no disrespect with that link. I was just using it as an illustration. I'm sure you love kittens as everyone does :) [[User:Pete5383|Paul]] 14:19, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

== Black Holes are High Entropy ==

Point 16 states that black holes are highly ordered, thus possess low entropy. However, black hole entropy is understood to increase as expected by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: [http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v7/i8/p2333_1]. The citation refuting a similar proposition by Stephen Hawking is also not a citation, but an assertion by some individual. It would be more effective to cite peer-reviewed research showing black holes do not possess entropy through these mechanisms. [[User:AAckermann|AAckermann]] 14:47, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

== Searchlight Paradox ==

Number 30 is a misunderstanding of relativity. The essence of the argument is that the "spotlight (that is, where the light ends)" will move faster than the speed of light, moving from point A to point B faster than the speed of light. However, the inaccuracy in this thinking is that the light at point A and point B are not the same - point A and point B share no common photons.

Think of it like a water hose. You are spraying water onto the lawn. Then you turn around, 180 degrees, and spray on the street. Did the water on the lawn move to the street? No, they are two different sets of water.

Also, there is no violation in the transmission of information, because point A and point B are not communicating with each other - the searchlight is communicating with point A, and THEN with point B.

I await the removal of this counterexample. [[User:Pete5383|Paul]] 18:07, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

: I agree with this general sentiment. There is a mistake in reasoning in the article that even if we suppose that the light source was a movie projector for instance. Two observers that are located the same distance away from the light source would receive the same information, they have not communicated with each other in any way. Imagine a light source that radiates in two polar directions, and two observers located 1 light year away from the source. Both would receive the information in 1 year. Using the naive reasoning in the article this constitutes a breakdown in causality because the observers are two light years apart, however they clearly have not communicated with each other and have simply received the same information from a single source. There is no way for observer A to confirm that observer B has received the information. You can argue that they agreed that they will be in the same location, but this act of agreement requires transmission of information (telling the other where to wait) along a causal channel, and you have gleaned no NEW information about the other observer, all the information you have gleaned has come from causal channels. This same reasoning applies to the sweeping light source.I would remove the argument, but since I am a new user I would prefer to wait for someone who has more say in the community--[[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 16:50, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2010-08-19T20:04:15Z

DenisTR: /* 2009 Nobel Peace Prize */ new section

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

==Rense==
Jeff Rense may not be a such a good source. The Anti-Defamation League accuses him of promoting anti-Semitic views and 9/11 Conspiracy theories. OTOH, what is wrong with a Pravda article written in the post Soviet-censorship era when democratic Russia hungars to exercise a free press, open discussion and discernment of facts? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:39, 23 January 2010 (EST)

:See my talk page, Rob. I never noticed who added the Pravda cite, so if you say so, it is of course fine with me, and please add it back if you haven't already! I now suspect it was yet another vandal site troll stirring the pot, so feel free to deal with him as well. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:02, 24 January 2010 (EST)

== Terror Attacks ==
I have an issue with a claim made in the second paragraph. ''Since abandoning the "War on Terror" in Obama's first year, the United States has suffered more terrorist attacks with deadly intent on American soil than in the previous eight years combined.'' Since Obama replaced the 'Global War on Terror' with 'Overseas Contingency Operation', there have been only four domestic terrorist attacks, a far cry from the 19 that took place under Bush's tenure. This sentence should be reworded or removed in its entirety; it only makes the article look embarrassing. --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 15:46, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:More [[liberal]] poppycock, Michael? Even the New York Times counts more, excluding 9/11, under Obama. Perhaps you should consider sources other than the Kos? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::A short time ago you gave me grief for making assumptions, yet here you are doing the same. I didn't get any information from Kos, it all came from legitimate news sources. Do you really believe that more terror attacks occurred on US soil from March 2009 to January 2010 than in the eight years of the Bush administration? I would really like to see all your references for making such a bold claim. And why would you want to exclude the WTC/Pentagon attacks?
::Some people have been making some really stupid claims lately about domestic terror. Dana Perino and Rudy Guiliani both claimed there was not a terror attack on the US when Bush was in office. The fact that these people could make such stupidly partisan claims is incredible. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kpfhGxJbLc] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tYoMoJHNDs] The claim made in this article reeks of the same idiocy of Perino and Guiliani, why not delete the sentence or at least make it factual? --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 20:23, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:::The facts are undeniable that America was totally unprepared to protect itself from terrorist homeland attacks as Bush entered office, due to the total lack of focus of the Clinton Administration and Congress on the issue. Bush can in no way be blamed for the 9/11 attacks with any real credibility.

:::As I have stated many times before, as Mr. Schlafly has stated many times before, as several other Admins have as well, coming here to argue-without-end against our conservative point of view in all articles you come across, is silly. If you and others cannot bring yourselves to accept alternative points of view, so be it. If you want a place to argue against conservatism in general, make your own site or try the Kos or HuffPo; but CP isn't a debate forum, it is a conservative encyclopedia ''project''. Article talk pages are for suggesting ways to improve articles from a conservative point of view, not a liberal one. Is that a clear enough statement? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::::TK: The change you made is completely unacceptable from a moral and ethical standpoint because instead of correcting an error, you are now highlighting a lie. Three terror attacks occurred during Pres. Bush's last year in office. I sent you links to all three events but you are willing to over look such trivial matters as the truth. It's funny that a liberal who has been blocked twice for pointing out errors and outright falsehoods is vilified as a trouble-maker while the conservatives that knowingly mislead and lie are in charge of an alleged 'trustworthy encyclopedia'.
::::I'm trying to make these changes because I don't want Americans to look stupid, even the conservative ones. It's an uphill battle.

::::Gunman killed two people in a church. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-29-church-shooting_N.htm]
::::Suicide bomber attacked a Georgia law firm. [http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ga_law_firm_explodes_causing_multiple_injuries/]
::::Two police officers were killed by a bomb placed in a bank. [http://www.odmp.org/officer/19697-captain-thomas-paul-tennant]
::::--[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 01:25, 29 January 2010 (EST)

MichaelJB you cannot tell the difference between Muslim terrorists and someone with an ax to grind? Godspeed! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 06:36, 29 January 2010 (EST)v
:So Michael's point is that progressive liberal leftwing commie socialist (or whatever the flavor of the week) Prof. [[Amy Bishop]] conducted a domestic overseas contingency operation attack. It's beginning to make sense. How would we classify the guy who crashed the plane into the IRS building in Houston, a tax protester who railed against corporations. Dang, this is a tuff one.... [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 08:13, 12 March 2010 (EST)

== Middle name in article title? ==

----

::::<big>'''Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded.</big>'''

----

It strikes to me odd that the title of the article is Barach Hussein Obama. While there is nothing wrong with that by itself, looking at the [[President_of_the_United_States_of_America#Presidents_list|list of all the U.S. presidents]], it seems that all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense to rename the article to either Barack Obama or Barack H. Obama to follow suit? [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:19, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:There is a big difference between Walker or Jefferson and Hussein. My two cents. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:22, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::What about [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 18:26, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:::This topic had been discussed before. He decided to be inaugurated with his middle name after not using it during the campaign. He is not ashamed of it and we are not ashamed to include it.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::Ah, I see. Looking at some lists though ([http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/] and [http://www.apples4theteacher.com/holidays/presidents-day/past-presidents-of-usa.html]), it seems that many presidents were also inaugurated in a similar fashion. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:33, 26 February 2010 (EST)

::: I think that, as all encyclopedias and scholarly works try to do, we should try to decide on a particular set of rules and always follow it. In this case, these are the options:
:::1) Always cite the full name in the title, so "Barack Hussein Obama", "George Herbert Walker Bush" and "Ronald Wilson Reagan";
:::2) Always use initials for middle names, so "Barack H. Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald W. Reagan";
:::3) Use the names in the way they most commonly used, using middle name initials only where they are necessary to distinguish one particular individual from another, therefore "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald Reagan".

::: We are talking about titles of articles; the full name should always be cited in the body of the article. Personally, I would vote for solution n.3. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:34, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::I like the idea. Either 2 or 3 seem best in my opinion; full names seem a bit to long for article titles. The name that the president was inaugurated with isn't bad either, but it would seem less formal, as some have middle names and others don't. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:38, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::: I thought about that solution, but then I thought that we should better set very general rules; by this I mean that we should decide how to title page names referring to INDIVIDUALS, not to US PRESIDENTS. Deciding that "the name that the president was inaugurated with" is a rule that, naturally, can only be applied to presidents. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:41, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::: Another good rule would be to use the name that is mostly used to refer to that individual; this has the disadvantage of not being objective, but it is also the most effective. So "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" (to distinguish him from his son), "Ronald Reagan", "Eminem" instead of "Marshall Mathers", "O.J. Simpson" instead of "Orenthal J. Simpson"... --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:56, 26 February 2010 (EST)

There isn't any vote here, nor was one asked for. Since Obama tries to soft-pedal his Muslim roots and associations, our editorial policy is to call attention to that ''fact''. In addition you should note the [[Ronald Wilson Reagan|Reagan]] article, where well before anyone had an inkling Obama would run for President, Conservapedia used his full name, ''Ronald Wilson Reagan'' which Reagan himself preferred for formal use. So I submit President Obama isn't being singled out, contrary to the insistence of silly-minded liberals. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:06, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:But why call attention to that ''fact'' in the title of the article? The ''fact'' is never going to be denied. The introduction sentence would still say "Barack Hussein Obama". Italicize his middle name in the introduction or change the font color to bring out the ''fact'' if you wish. What I am trying to point at is, why should his middle name be used in the article title? Reagan may have preferred it for formal use, but does Mr. Obama say that same? He is commonly known as Barack Obama; I haven't seen it used in any other way (except Obama, of course). If he is commonly known as that, it would make sense to title the article like that, as should every article on people. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 21:05, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::Richard Milhous Nixon was commonly refered to as [[Milhous]] by his detracters. Indeed, googling milhouse brings up hundreds of thousands of hits on Nixon that dwarf most all other uses of the name. Now, googling [[Hussein]] presents a host of other problems. The [[Heshamite Dynasty]] of [[Hussein bin Ali]] had been the Islamic Keeper of the Holy places for 700 years until Western British Imperialist interests unseated them and installed the Saudi ruling clan thier place (visualize Islamists dethroning the Pope and installing thier own choice as successor). How does it look when Hussein bin Ali's namesake bows to tne Saudi puppet? Why not focus on how Obama ''is'' bringing real change to the whole planet, rather than argue about how things have traditionally been done? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 27 February 2010 (EST)
Drop it. Further discussion is last-wordism. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:14, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:On the question of "''all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense ...to follow suit? ''"
:You will recall Barack Hussein Obama is the transformational president of change. Wouldn't it make sense to begin change right here, with his name? (assuming that is his name). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:54, 26 February 2010 (EST)

<nowiki>:</nowiki>D 
--<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)

Pretty slick conservative trap there TK. despite the fact that you neglected to answer some massive holes in the arguments above, you declare the debate "ended" (even though its not) then decry anything else as last wordism to stifle any further debate. well done--[[User:DerikJ|DerikJ]] 11:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:What holes? We're implementing change. Let's find common ground and compromise. We've done just that. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:35, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::I like your comment on change, Rob, it made me laugh :) Anyway, I don't see how an argument that Obama's slogan being "change" is any reason to title his article to what he is less commonly known as/less traditional. It's pushing it, in a sense. Besides, being a conservative, I would think that you wouldn't want to follow Obama's way of thinking ;) [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 13:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:::Conservatives are for change, both economic and social. They want to change tax law and abortion rulings, for example. Above all, change public education. Being anti-change is just a vulgar stereotype held by closeminded and intolerant people. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:09, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::::I can agree with that. But ''why'' "change" how Obama's article is titled when others are titled either without their middle name or with their middle name if they are commonly known and identified by the name, in some cases. Simply changing something doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing, there has to be reason, and the reason has to be, well, reasonable. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 14:44, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:::::Call it the price of progress. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:17, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::::::In that case, would changing the titles of all the other peoples' articles to include their middle names sound all right to you? It would be progress, after all. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)
I have always wondered why the Obamabots get so upset with the name Obama's parents chose. Pretty silly. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:I actually like the name, it has a nice ring to it. It's more of just keeping a solid style of titling pages, a format if you want to call it that. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::Which brings us to the question of Barry Soetero. If Obama went by this name, then he may have lied to the Illinois Supreme Court when asked to provide former names, according to this Attorney’s Registration Record. [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2061988/posts] I'm not the sure what the resolution of this issue ever was, and we don't have a word about it in this article. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:49, 27 February 2010 (EST)

I know I am new here but there really needs to be a consensus amongst all Presidential and Vice President articles, actually this should probably extend to all US politicians. I know there is a specified conservative bias, however the lack organization and consensus has nothing to do with liberal or conservative bias, it has to do with disorganization and lazyiness by the admins.

If you want to leave the middle, that is fine, however, there would need to be a quick modification of all or the majority of the US Politian article so as not to look so disorganized.[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:01, 10 March 2010 (EST)

:You hit the nail on the head. You are new here. Don't come in criticizing and such off the bat. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:12, 10 March 2010 (EST)

My criticization is to help the article(s) to be better as a whole. None of the above discussion explains the reasoning for leaving it as is. Just people saying he used it in his inauguration so we use it here, however, almost every pres does this so why not have it that way for everyone????[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:15, 10 March 2010 (EST)

Not really discussion just more of a question. I just recently found this site and was looking through the religious articles and for the most part they seemed pretty good. However, when I come to the political articles, some of them seem a little crazy. I know it is to call more attention to the things that are being overlooked by the media. But I have ask about the middle name thing.

I read all of the information above and I still am not sure why it was decided to leave it as is. Can someone clarify this?
Please don't ban me, I noticed that basically everyone with discussion in this thread that isn't an admin now has banned accounts. I personally don't care, I am just confused. [[User:StevenS|StevenS]] 01:12, 12 March 2010 (EST)

: As it says up at the top of this section, "Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded." If you do have one, let's have it. But it sure seems like everyone who signs up to this site and immediately starts complaining has nothing new to say at all. Why don't you spend some time reading here with an open mind first, and complain later? [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:20, 12 March 2010 (EST)

Now, why would a single individual come here under several different user names all in an effort to get the word "Hussein" removed from the title of this article? It makes no sense at all unless that individual has a personal agenda to perform. The article title stays as it is. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:42, 12 March 2010 (EST)

:My only concern is that the title seems to exist in its current state for no purpose other than to further a bias. The arguments that "well he asked for it" seem to suggest that accuracy and fairness are non-valuable in this wiki. I sincerely hope this is not the case and that I may not be banned and able to start a fun future in helping this wiki grow in the impressive way it has so far. [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 07:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

::'''"Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded."'''
I guess you missed the bold title at the top of this section? Also, see [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]] to see how silly your argument is. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:16, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
:I guess it wasn't as bright an idea as I had hoped. Heh... It still comes off as somewhat purposeful, though. Okie, I'll back away! - [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 08:24, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
::Purposeful, as in done with the same horribly malevolent intent as ''my'' adding Reagan's middle name several years ago? You are giving away your intent in advance, good sir, by refusing to admit your already formed assumptions about us are wrong. I hope you prove me wrong, and turn out to be that rare U.K. denizen that turns out to be open-minded and as fair to us as you wish us to be to you. There have been precious few. And please do check out our editors guide and all of that. We differ quite a bit from Wikipedia. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:33, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
:::::I think we should keep the current title of the article. Furthermore, I think we should replace the top picture, which is currently a picture of Obama, with a picture of an oil drenched pelican (and a new caption) as a tribute to Obama's indifference, sloth and incompetence. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:36, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== I moved the material dealing with the present to the top ==

I moved the material dealing with the present to the top as I thought readers would be more interested in how Obama is screwing up the present. For example, I think Americans right now are very concerned about how Obama is screwing up the economy. Of course, he is also doing a poor job in other areas presently as well such as holding terrorists court cases in civilian courts, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:30, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

:That makes sense to me. I do appreciate letting me try the other timeline structure. However, I didn't really take into consideration the fact that because he is a high profile individual it may benefit readers to see more recent info before his earlier biography facts. At least while he's fulfilling his one failed term as president, your structure makes sense to me. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 12:42, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

::As the ==Maoism== section is being being built, we may eventually be able to free up space from the sections on the Ayers/Dohrn relationship by moving some of that material to Ayers own page, and/or creating a new separate page documenting Obama's rise with communist and terrorist assistance. An acceptable title for that page would be needed. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:23, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

==Citation==

"Any orders he gives to the American military are subject to being refused. Orders that Obama gives to America’s Joint Chiefs of Staff of the military can be refused." --http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-01-2009/106972-Barry_Soetoro-0

Do we really want to cite an article that makes this claim? Do any of us really support this opinion, or if we do, do we support the use of opinion articles as sources in addition to factual ones? --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 08:42, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

:Is the opinion piece backed by valid and factual citations from the United States Code, Ben, as opposed to a unsupported rant? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

== pronunciation of "Pakistan" ==

This is really considered evidence of anything? I've heard [[Mark Levin]] use the Spanish-inflected pronunciation of Sonia Sotomayor's name (''so tow my OR'' rather than ''so tow MY er''), but nobody would claim that proves he's Catholic or Hispanic. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 23:55, 9 April 2010 (EDT)
:Pronunciation shows an enormous amount about someone's views and history. Obama doesn't use the American pronunciation, and this is telling, since ''no one else in the public sphere'' pronounces it in the muslim way ''but'' Obama. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:15, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
[[David Petraeus]] does [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtCLp7siY7I]. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:50, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
And [http://www.forvo.com/word/pakistan/ numerous other languages] use a pronunciation closer to the native form. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:57, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

::"Golgaronok" (if that is your name), your quibbles with the entry have already been argued ad nauseum, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama/archive4#.22Pokiston.22.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F here], for instance. If you've only come to argue on talk pages, you're wasting your own time. Try making substantive contributions to the project; excessive talk is disfavored here. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:04, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
I don't see any responses to the points I raised. But it's y'all's funeral. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 01:13, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
:::Kind of interesting that Davis Petraeus was mentioned here. When that general was ordered to command US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, the liberal elites decided that his name should be pronounced "BETRAY US". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:29, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

==Barry Soetoro = birth name?==
This may have already been discussed, so forgive me if this has been settled. I noticed that the article says ''"Barack Hussein Obama II (birth name Barry Soetoro..."'', however the articles cited do not support the idea that "Barry Soetoro" is Obama's birth name, in fact quite the opposite. My understanding, from reading the Newsweek article, is that "Barack" is his birth name, although he went by "Barry" when he was younger. His father's name, as I understand it, is Barack Hussein Obama, and he was named after his father. "Seotoro", if I remember right, was his stepfather's last name, so it is unlikely that it would have been part of Obama's birth name. To be clear, I do realize that he spent his younger years being known as "Barry Soetoro", and I think that should be included in the article, I just don't think it was actually his birth name. 
Please understand that I am not as knowledgeable in this kind of thing as many other contributors here, so I may have gotten it all wrong - that's why I didn't attempt to edit the article. Please correct me if I have gotten it wrong - I won't be offended and I am curious as to the truth of the matter. [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 18:11, 1 May 2010 (EDT)

According to the citation that shows the birth certificate, the birth name is, in fact, Barack Hussein Obama II, NOT Barry Soetoro. Also, because there is an actual document, i.e. physical, demonstrable proof, the word "allegedly" should be removed.

== Remove name repetition? ==

Would anyone mind if I removed some of the repetition of Obama's name in certain portions of the article? For example, in this paragraph:
{{cquote|
[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving]] and [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism|Barack Obama's liberal elitism]] is consistent with Obama being a [[Narcissism|narcissist]] which is a charge that has often been made against Barack Obama. However, it is also true that Barack Obama is an [[evolution|evolutionist]]. Barack Obama told the ''York Daily Record'' that "I believe in [[evolution]]...". Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is also in accordance with someone who has a certain degree of [[Social Darwinism|social darwinistic]] thinking. In addition to [[Liberals and uncharitableness|American liberals giving less to charity]], it is also true that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|American liberals are also more likely to believe in evolution]].
}}

I think I could alter it to make it more readable with "Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is consistent with that of a narcissist, a charge that has often been made against him."

And so forth. In my linguistics class, we talked about semantic satiation, and I believe that paragraphs like these, along with the fact that it never seems to use pronouns, somewhat diminish the readability of the article. If I were to make this change, I would preserve every wikilink, reference, etc, but I believe it would become more readable. In Christ, [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 09:09, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

== Insults? ==

Does the entire beginning of the article have to be so laden with insults? Couldnt it simply say what the article will be about, and THEN express views? As it is it appears very unprofessional. 19:11, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
:We believe in the truth here, and the fact that [[liberals]] like yourself feign offense at the display of it speaks volumes about you. If you insist on closing your mind, at least take ownership of your [[deceit]]! Sign your comments with <nowiki> ~~~~ </nowiki> next time. Godspeed! [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 19:58, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

== "The first president who is biracial" ==

There have been other presidents of more than one race. Bush Jr. is has some German and English ancestry. [[User:NP|NP]]

:George W is German and English, is that two races according to our census? I think the readers will understand what biracial refers to.

::English and German are '''''not''''' races, and neither is Hispanic. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:16, 17 May 2010 (EDT)

== Reorganizing ==

I'm glad to see the edit feature is enabled here once more. I think this page needs a revamp to structure information better. I've reorganized everything into a better structure, let me know what you think. I am trying to put a summary of the presidency at the top, information about his life/career next, and then a political summary. This should really improve the page's appearance, as it appears too disorganized right now. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 15:56, 20 May 2010 (EDT)
:What you're doing is burying important information so fewer users will find it. That's unacceptable. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 15:57, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

== Obama is a Muslim theory and the alleged claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit ==

Here is what the American Thinker reported: "The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim." That was the claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, as reported in the May 2010 issue of Israel Today. According to journalist Avi Lipkin, Gheit appeared on Nile TV's "Round Table Show" in January, on which he said that "he had had a one-on-one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda."[http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/report_obama_said_i_am_a_musli.html] Here is what Hot Air says: http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/06/14/obama-is-a-muslim-take-two/

Personally, I am beginning to think Obama is: not a Muslim, not a Christian, and not an atheist. I think Obama is a narcissist who worships himself. I can also see him telling one person he is a Christian and then later telling someone else he is a Muslim. There are many examples of Obama being insincere such as all the substantive healthcare discussions were going to be on C-Span, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:53, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== 2009 Nobel Peace Prize ==

I find it strange that there is not a single mention of the president being awarded the Nobel peace prize in this article. Considering that other prominent award winners have it at least mentioned in their respective articles. The [[Mother Teresa]] article, for instance, prominently states her award in the introduction to the article, and even political figures like [[Al Gore]] and [[Henry Kissinger]] (both of whom won the peace prize) have their award at least mentioned in the article.
--[[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 16:04, 19 August 2010 (EDT)