Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Overrated Sports Stars

2012-06-26T22:52:10Z

GMilhouse: /* More removals */

== Some issues with this list ==

I see some issues with this list; as an avid follower of basketball and football, I will attempt to rebut some of the claims made in this article.

*Kobe Bryant (who the article says has not won a championship except under the coaching of Phil Jackson) has played 11 of his 16 seasons under Jackson. He was not the leader of the Lakers his first 3 seasons (that would be Shaq) and was only 17 when he was drafted, so let's write those off. Since then, he played one season (in which he was injured) under Rudy Tomjanovich, and one under Mike Brown. Hardly a large sample size. Say whatever you'd like about him, but he won two championships as the leader of the Lakers without Shaq, lifting an average supporting cast. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Bryant couldn't win after Jackson left. Enough said. Jackson has a phenomenal record of winning championships no matter whom he's coaching.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Jackson's been gone for ONE season. One. That is nowhere near a reliable sample size. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::For what it's worth, Michael Jordan never won a title without Phil Jackson either. I hardly think that takes away from his accomplishments. --[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:53, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Magic Johnson is one of the greatest, most versatile players in NBA history, and turned in the greatest Finals performance ever (Game 6 in 1980, when he had 42 points and 15 rebounds in plaee of the injured Kareem at center...as a ROOKIE). Basketball is a team sport and it is rarely fair to attribute most or all of a team's success to one player (although in rare cases that may be done, like Kobe post-Shaq); calling those teams Kareem's is patently false. They belonged to Kareem, Magic, James Worthy, Michael Cooper, Kurt Rambis, and every other player. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::What was Magic's shooting percentage??? Look, Magic with good teammates had trouble beating Bird with nobodys as teammates for the NCAA championship, and Michael Jordan nearly swept Magic when they finally met in an NBA finals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Magic primarily played point guard, a position that places much more emphasis on passing. The fact that he averaged 18-20 points a game is a testament to his offensive ability. And of course Jordan is better, he's the best player of all time. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::Magic shot 52% for his career, an absurdly high number for a point guard, and he is almost without dispute, the greatest point guard in NBA history. He won multiple titles by beating Bird's Celtics in the NBA.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:57, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

:The relevant questions are (1) is he rated higher than someone else who's actually better? and (2) is this because of some liberal ideological reason, such as promoting the gay lobby's contention that [[AIDS is not a gay disease]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
::Obviously there is no entirely unquestioned ranking of NBA players, but Magic Johnson is rightly regarded as one of the 2 or 3 greatest point guards ever and one of the top 12-15 players ever. And his ranking has nothing to do with politics, and Johnson is not homosexual. He contracted HIV through unprotected sex with a woman. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 11:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*LeBron James (who by any stretch is NOT "far from the best" in the NBA) is certainly one of the top 5 players in the NBA today. And this "overrating" by the media...LeBron has been the villain of the media narrative for the last 2 years since he joined Miami. Do you even wtach ESPN? And Durant is not underrated in the least; again, the media narrative is that he and the Thunder will be contending for a spot in the Finals for years to come (which they will). Plus, he went to a Catholic school. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::LeBron wasn't my addition but the hype for him seems a bit much. Perhaps his unusual name helps.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)\
:::How does his name impact anything at all? [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Steve Nash and his 2 MVPs...does the phrase "Most Valuable Player" mean anything? It is awarded to the player judged to be most valuable to his team. Not the best player on the best team...the player most important to his team's success. And Nash was certainly the most valuable to the Suns those years considering his supporting cast. Nash is an extremely inventive, creative point guard and the ultimate team player. Plus, he produced a documentary about famed conservative runner Terry Fox. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::MVP is by popular vote by ... the [[lamestream media]]. It's like the Academy Awards and Nobel Prize -- being liberal is worth more than being talented.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::NBA MVPs will always more likely be liberal because the league is so heavily black. For comparison, let's look at the last 20 NFL MVPs (awarded by an AP poll of "liberal media", as you would call them). Republican Favre thrice, Steve Young (a relative of Brigham Young, for crying out loud) twice, Manning 4 times, Christian Aaron Rodgers once, outspoken Christian Kurt Warner twice...that's 60% of the MVPs from 1992-2011. Clearly your argument fails. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Peyton Manning...the MVP stuff from above holds true in the NFL. Yes, he won 1 Super Bowl, but he made another and had to deal with the Steelers and Patriots in the AFC (hardly weak competition). He is one of the smartest football minds to ever play the game, and no serious football analyst would claim he was a downgrade from Tebow. Not one. And he's a Republican.
::The maneuver to replace Tebow with Peyton in a [[swing state]] in an election year is transparent, wouldn't you say?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::...so John Elway, a Republican, apparently isn't concerned with his team primarily and traded his Republican starting QB once he acquired an even better Republican quarterback? Your argument makes no sense. Elway is a Republican but not a national political figure. None of this has anything to do with politics. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::: So anything that occurs in a [[swing state]] during an election year is a political maneuver? Well, it rained today in Florida. Clearly a plot by Obama to gather more votes. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 14:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

::::: I wasn't being entirely serious with my "wouldn't you say?" comment above, but even some jokes can carry a germ of truth. Colorado is very polarized politically and ideologically, as a swing state, and there was pressure to find a substitute who could serve as a plausible reason to trade Tebow away. Florida is not as much of a [[swing state]] as Colorado, and rain is not the result of political pressure!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:13, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::: If you weren't being entirely serious then why did you write the thing about Tebow being traded from a swing state during an election year in the article?! Or is Conservapedia openly a satire site now? (Many people seem to think it is one.) Anyway, the evidence that political pressure having anything to do with Tebow being trade is just as strong as political pressure being responsible for the rain. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 16:40, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::::The entry is obviously about the ''hype'', the ''overrated'' aspect. Peyton Manning was overrated earlier this year in connection with replacing Tebow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:44, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::How exactly was Manning overrated in this case? Please tell me using your knowledge of football, not your political views. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:05, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Mark Sanchez...say what you will, but he's been to 2 AFC Championship games, Tebow none. I will acknowledge his below average play last season (I'm not the biggest fan of him) but it would be suicidal for Rex Ryan to bench him in favor of a new acquisition who completed 46% of his passes last season. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Not my addition, but I bet Tebow is replacing him by mid-season, but the replacement should occur before the first regular season game, if it weren't for liberal politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Please tell me specifically how "liberal politics" is keeping Sanchez as the starter, and use your knowlege of football to tell me why Tebow would be a better starter than Sanchez. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

== Becks ==

I follow US soccer closely and have never seen David Beckham promoted as he is Pele. He is one of the best, probably top 3, free kick takers to have played the sport. This is shown by his stats. I don't see how he is overrated when he actually is a fantastic athlete. He has six Premier League titles, 2 FA Cup titles, 4 FA community shields, 2 MLS supporters shields , an MLS Cup.. the list goes on and on (that doesn't include lengthy list of personal honors he has received.) I am seriously curious as to how he is overrated. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 13:25, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:With respect, I think you are missing the point. This list has nothing to do with sporting achievements. Rather it has to do with whether the athletes involved are deserving of the praise they receive. Beckham, due to his promotion of [[Hollywood Values]] does not deserve the accolades he has acquired. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 09:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
::Athletes should be praised, or criticized, for the job they do on whatever sporting field they participate in - that's their job, and that's how they should be rated. Period. Everything else is just petty gossipmongering. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:18, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
:::With regards to DamianJohn's comments... I believe this list should have everything to do with their sporting achievements. It is called "Overrated Sports Stars". Unless the point is just to list every sports player that votes on the Democrat ticket. If that is the case, the title of the page should be changed. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 11:29, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

== Quick question about standards... ==

Are these athletes overrated based on their entire career, or just based on the last years of it, as they age and their skills fade due to injuries and/or age? Truly, the only ''fair'' way to judge someone is based on the entirety of their career, as objectively as possible. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

== Tiger Woods? ==

I know that Tiger Woods is not well liked and that people here enjoy seeing him fail, but his achievements still place him in the upper echelons of golfers for all time

:Yes, he merits a place on the all-time list, but he is no longer one of the very top golfers currently playing. Yet the media still claim that he is one of the favorites, or "can't be written off", going into each big tournament, at the expense of giving coverage to other players who actually have a much better chance.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:23, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::So, is it a terrible thing to root for someone who was once on top of their game, but now is struggling? Isn't that what all of us do in our daily lives - struggle? Should we sneer at others when they go through something difficult, or should we show support? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:32, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::Ok I understand. Based on that outline I've added Michael Schumacher

::::No, we shouldn't sneer. I'm not advocating sneering. But we ought to be realistic about his chances, which are small, and the media often aren't. That's the definition of being overrated.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:01, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::Sorry - this is sneering as far as I'm concerned. Either that, or gloating as a once-great player stumbles. Dissing someone because someone else (the media) likes them is petty and is certainly not Christ-like. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:13, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::: If Tiger's chances are slim, wouldn't he then be the underdog? Didn't this site [[Mystery:Why_Do_Atheists_Dislike_Underdogs%3F|not too long ago]] claim that rooting for the [[underdog|underdog]] was a Christian characteristic? So in that sense, the media is hyping the underdog.. if Tiger's chances of winning are small. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 11:35, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

== More removals ==

I removed Wayne Gretzky and Sol Campbell, because neither is particularly overrated. Also Bradman, which was obviously a frivolous addition - it criticised him for "not achieving anything for decades", when he retired decades ago and died in 2001.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:I've re-added Sol Campbell as Conservative himself at one point reverted the page to the edit where I added him, so it must be fine. To make the case more robust, I've added a statement about how he has played for the top Soccer clubs.

Talk:Overrated Sports Stars

2012-06-26T22:51:34Z

GMilhouse: /* More removals */

== Some issues with this list ==

I see some issues with this list; as an avid follower of basketball and football, I will attempt to rebut some of the claims made in this article.

*Kobe Bryant (who the article says has not won a championship except under the coaching of Phil Jackson) has played 11 of his 16 seasons under Jackson. He was not the leader of the Lakers his first 3 seasons (that would be Shaq) and was only 17 when he was drafted, so let's write those off. Since then, he played one season (in which he was injured) under Rudy Tomjanovich, and one under Mike Brown. Hardly a large sample size. Say whatever you'd like about him, but he won two championships as the leader of the Lakers without Shaq, lifting an average supporting cast. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Bryant couldn't win after Jackson left. Enough said. Jackson has a phenomenal record of winning championships no matter whom he's coaching.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Jackson's been gone for ONE season. One. That is nowhere near a reliable sample size. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::For what it's worth, Michael Jordan never won a title without Phil Jackson either. I hardly think that takes away from his accomplishments. --[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:53, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Magic Johnson is one of the greatest, most versatile players in NBA history, and turned in the greatest Finals performance ever (Game 6 in 1980, when he had 42 points and 15 rebounds in plaee of the injured Kareem at center...as a ROOKIE). Basketball is a team sport and it is rarely fair to attribute most or all of a team's success to one player (although in rare cases that may be done, like Kobe post-Shaq); calling those teams Kareem's is patently false. They belonged to Kareem, Magic, James Worthy, Michael Cooper, Kurt Rambis, and every other player. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::What was Magic's shooting percentage??? Look, Magic with good teammates had trouble beating Bird with nobodys as teammates for the NCAA championship, and Michael Jordan nearly swept Magic when they finally met in an NBA finals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Magic primarily played point guard, a position that places much more emphasis on passing. The fact that he averaged 18-20 points a game is a testament to his offensive ability. And of course Jordan is better, he's the best player of all time. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::Magic shot 52% for his career, an absurdly high number for a point guard, and he is almost without dispute, the greatest point guard in NBA history. He won multiple titles by beating Bird's Celtics in the NBA.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:57, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

:The relevant questions are (1) is he rated higher than someone else who's actually better? and (2) is this because of some liberal ideological reason, such as promoting the gay lobby's contention that [[AIDS is not a gay disease]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
::Obviously there is no entirely unquestioned ranking of NBA players, but Magic Johnson is rightly regarded as one of the 2 or 3 greatest point guards ever and one of the top 12-15 players ever. And his ranking has nothing to do with politics, and Johnson is not homosexual. He contracted HIV through unprotected sex with a woman. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 11:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*LeBron James (who by any stretch is NOT "far from the best" in the NBA) is certainly one of the top 5 players in the NBA today. And this "overrating" by the media...LeBron has been the villain of the media narrative for the last 2 years since he joined Miami. Do you even wtach ESPN? And Durant is not underrated in the least; again, the media narrative is that he and the Thunder will be contending for a spot in the Finals for years to come (which they will). Plus, he went to a Catholic school. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::LeBron wasn't my addition but the hype for him seems a bit much. Perhaps his unusual name helps.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)\
:::How does his name impact anything at all? [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Steve Nash and his 2 MVPs...does the phrase "Most Valuable Player" mean anything? It is awarded to the player judged to be most valuable to his team. Not the best player on the best team...the player most important to his team's success. And Nash was certainly the most valuable to the Suns those years considering his supporting cast. Nash is an extremely inventive, creative point guard and the ultimate team player. Plus, he produced a documentary about famed conservative runner Terry Fox. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::MVP is by popular vote by ... the [[lamestream media]]. It's like the Academy Awards and Nobel Prize -- being liberal is worth more than being talented.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::NBA MVPs will always more likely be liberal because the league is so heavily black. For comparison, let's look at the last 20 NFL MVPs (awarded by an AP poll of "liberal media", as you would call them). Republican Favre thrice, Steve Young (a relative of Brigham Young, for crying out loud) twice, Manning 4 times, Christian Aaron Rodgers once, outspoken Christian Kurt Warner twice...that's 60% of the MVPs from 1992-2011. Clearly your argument fails. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Peyton Manning...the MVP stuff from above holds true in the NFL. Yes, he won 1 Super Bowl, but he made another and had to deal with the Steelers and Patriots in the AFC (hardly weak competition). He is one of the smartest football minds to ever play the game, and no serious football analyst would claim he was a downgrade from Tebow. Not one. And he's a Republican.
::The maneuver to replace Tebow with Peyton in a [[swing state]] in an election year is transparent, wouldn't you say?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::...so John Elway, a Republican, apparently isn't concerned with his team primarily and traded his Republican starting QB once he acquired an even better Republican quarterback? Your argument makes no sense. Elway is a Republican but not a national political figure. None of this has anything to do with politics. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::: So anything that occurs in a [[swing state]] during an election year is a political maneuver? Well, it rained today in Florida. Clearly a plot by Obama to gather more votes. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 14:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

::::: I wasn't being entirely serious with my "wouldn't you say?" comment above, but even some jokes can carry a germ of truth. Colorado is very polarized politically and ideologically, as a swing state, and there was pressure to find a substitute who could serve as a plausible reason to trade Tebow away. Florida is not as much of a [[swing state]] as Colorado, and rain is not the result of political pressure!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:13, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::: If you weren't being entirely serious then why did you write the thing about Tebow being traded from a swing state during an election year in the article?! Or is Conservapedia openly a satire site now? (Many people seem to think it is one.) Anyway, the evidence that political pressure having anything to do with Tebow being trade is just as strong as political pressure being responsible for the rain. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 16:40, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::::The entry is obviously about the ''hype'', the ''overrated'' aspect. Peyton Manning was overrated earlier this year in connection with replacing Tebow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:44, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::How exactly was Manning overrated in this case? Please tell me using your knowledge of football, not your political views. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:05, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Mark Sanchez...say what you will, but he's been to 2 AFC Championship games, Tebow none. I will acknowledge his below average play last season (I'm not the biggest fan of him) but it would be suicidal for Rex Ryan to bench him in favor of a new acquisition who completed 46% of his passes last season. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Not my addition, but I bet Tebow is replacing him by mid-season, but the replacement should occur before the first regular season game, if it weren't for liberal politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Please tell me specifically how "liberal politics" is keeping Sanchez as the starter, and use your knowlege of football to tell me why Tebow would be a better starter than Sanchez. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

== Becks ==

I follow US soccer closely and have never seen David Beckham promoted as he is Pele. He is one of the best, probably top 3, free kick takers to have played the sport. This is shown by his stats. I don't see how he is overrated when he actually is a fantastic athlete. He has six Premier League titles, 2 FA Cup titles, 4 FA community shields, 2 MLS supporters shields , an MLS Cup.. the list goes on and on (that doesn't include lengthy list of personal honors he has received.) I am seriously curious as to how he is overrated. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 13:25, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:With respect, I think you are missing the point. This list has nothing to do with sporting achievements. Rather it has to do with whether the athletes involved are deserving of the praise they receive. Beckham, due to his promotion of [[Hollywood Values]] does not deserve the accolades he has acquired. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 09:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
::Athletes should be praised, or criticized, for the job they do on whatever sporting field they participate in - that's their job, and that's how they should be rated. Period. Everything else is just petty gossipmongering. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:18, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
:::With regards to DamianJohn's comments... I believe this list should have everything to do with their sporting achievements. It is called "Overrated Sports Stars". Unless the point is just to list every sports player that votes on the Democrat ticket. If that is the case, the title of the page should be changed. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 11:29, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

== Quick question about standards... ==

Are these athletes overrated based on their entire career, or just based on the last years of it, as they age and their skills fade due to injuries and/or age? Truly, the only ''fair'' way to judge someone is based on the entirety of their career, as objectively as possible. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

== Tiger Woods? ==

I know that Tiger Woods is not well liked and that people here enjoy seeing him fail, but his achievements still place him in the upper echelons of golfers for all time

:Yes, he merits a place on the all-time list, but he is no longer one of the very top golfers currently playing. Yet the media still claim that he is one of the favorites, or "can't be written off", going into each big tournament, at the expense of giving coverage to other players who actually have a much better chance.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:23, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::So, is it a terrible thing to root for someone who was once on top of their game, but now is struggling? Isn't that what all of us do in our daily lives - struggle? Should we sneer at others when they go through something difficult, or should we show support? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:32, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::Ok I understand. Based on that outline I've added Michael Schumacher

::::No, we shouldn't sneer. I'm not advocating sneering. But we ought to be realistic about his chances, which are small, and the media often aren't. That's the definition of being overrated.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:01, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::Sorry - this is sneering as far as I'm concerned. Either that, or gloating as a once-great player stumbles. Dissing someone because someone else (the media) likes them is petty and is certainly not Christ-like. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:13, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::: If Tiger's chances are slim, wouldn't he then be the underdog? Didn't this site [[Mystery:Why_Do_Atheists_Dislike_Underdogs%3F|not too long ago]] claim that rooting for the [[underdog|underdog]] was a Christian characteristic? So in that sense, the media is hyping the underdog.. if Tiger's chances of winning are small. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 11:35, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

== More removals ==

I removed Wayne Gretzky and Sol Campbell, because neither is particularly overrated. Also Bradman, which was obviously a frivolous addition - it criticised him for "not achieving anything for decades", when he retired decades ago and died in 2001.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:I've re-added Sol Campbell as conservative himself reverted to my edit where I added him, so it must be fine. To make the case more robust, I've added a statement about how he has played for the top Soccer clubs.

Talk:Overrated Sports Stars

2012-06-26T22:51:17Z

GMilhouse: /* More removals */

== Some issues with this list ==

I see some issues with this list; as an avid follower of basketball and football, I will attempt to rebut some of the claims made in this article.

*Kobe Bryant (who the article says has not won a championship except under the coaching of Phil Jackson) has played 11 of his 16 seasons under Jackson. He was not the leader of the Lakers his first 3 seasons (that would be Shaq) and was only 17 when he was drafted, so let's write those off. Since then, he played one season (in which he was injured) under Rudy Tomjanovich, and one under Mike Brown. Hardly a large sample size. Say whatever you'd like about him, but he won two championships as the leader of the Lakers without Shaq, lifting an average supporting cast. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Bryant couldn't win after Jackson left. Enough said. Jackson has a phenomenal record of winning championships no matter whom he's coaching.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Jackson's been gone for ONE season. One. That is nowhere near a reliable sample size. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::For what it's worth, Michael Jordan never won a title without Phil Jackson either. I hardly think that takes away from his accomplishments. --[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:53, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Magic Johnson is one of the greatest, most versatile players in NBA history, and turned in the greatest Finals performance ever (Game 6 in 1980, when he had 42 points and 15 rebounds in plaee of the injured Kareem at center...as a ROOKIE). Basketball is a team sport and it is rarely fair to attribute most or all of a team's success to one player (although in rare cases that may be done, like Kobe post-Shaq); calling those teams Kareem's is patently false. They belonged to Kareem, Magic, James Worthy, Michael Cooper, Kurt Rambis, and every other player. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::What was Magic's shooting percentage??? Look, Magic with good teammates had trouble beating Bird with nobodys as teammates for the NCAA championship, and Michael Jordan nearly swept Magic when they finally met in an NBA finals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Magic primarily played point guard, a position that places much more emphasis on passing. The fact that he averaged 18-20 points a game is a testament to his offensive ability. And of course Jordan is better, he's the best player of all time. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::Magic shot 52% for his career, an absurdly high number for a point guard, and he is almost without dispute, the greatest point guard in NBA history. He won multiple titles by beating Bird's Celtics in the NBA.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:57, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

:The relevant questions are (1) is he rated higher than someone else who's actually better? and (2) is this because of some liberal ideological reason, such as promoting the gay lobby's contention that [[AIDS is not a gay disease]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
::Obviously there is no entirely unquestioned ranking of NBA players, but Magic Johnson is rightly regarded as one of the 2 or 3 greatest point guards ever and one of the top 12-15 players ever. And his ranking has nothing to do with politics, and Johnson is not homosexual. He contracted HIV through unprotected sex with a woman. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 11:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*LeBron James (who by any stretch is NOT "far from the best" in the NBA) is certainly one of the top 5 players in the NBA today. And this "overrating" by the media...LeBron has been the villain of the media narrative for the last 2 years since he joined Miami. Do you even wtach ESPN? And Durant is not underrated in the least; again, the media narrative is that he and the Thunder will be contending for a spot in the Finals for years to come (which they will). Plus, he went to a Catholic school. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::LeBron wasn't my addition but the hype for him seems a bit much. Perhaps his unusual name helps.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)\
:::How does his name impact anything at all? [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Steve Nash and his 2 MVPs...does the phrase "Most Valuable Player" mean anything? It is awarded to the player judged to be most valuable to his team. Not the best player on the best team...the player most important to his team's success. And Nash was certainly the most valuable to the Suns those years considering his supporting cast. Nash is an extremely inventive, creative point guard and the ultimate team player. Plus, he produced a documentary about famed conservative runner Terry Fox. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::MVP is by popular vote by ... the [[lamestream media]]. It's like the Academy Awards and Nobel Prize -- being liberal is worth more than being talented.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::NBA MVPs will always more likely be liberal because the league is so heavily black. For comparison, let's look at the last 20 NFL MVPs (awarded by an AP poll of "liberal media", as you would call them). Republican Favre thrice, Steve Young (a relative of Brigham Young, for crying out loud) twice, Manning 4 times, Christian Aaron Rodgers once, outspoken Christian Kurt Warner twice...that's 60% of the MVPs from 1992-2011. Clearly your argument fails. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Peyton Manning...the MVP stuff from above holds true in the NFL. Yes, he won 1 Super Bowl, but he made another and had to deal with the Steelers and Patriots in the AFC (hardly weak competition). He is one of the smartest football minds to ever play the game, and no serious football analyst would claim he was a downgrade from Tebow. Not one. And he's a Republican.
::The maneuver to replace Tebow with Peyton in a [[swing state]] in an election year is transparent, wouldn't you say?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::...so John Elway, a Republican, apparently isn't concerned with his team primarily and traded his Republican starting QB once he acquired an even better Republican quarterback? Your argument makes no sense. Elway is a Republican but not a national political figure. None of this has anything to do with politics. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::: So anything that occurs in a [[swing state]] during an election year is a political maneuver? Well, it rained today in Florida. Clearly a plot by Obama to gather more votes. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 14:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

::::: I wasn't being entirely serious with my "wouldn't you say?" comment above, but even some jokes can carry a germ of truth. Colorado is very polarized politically and ideologically, as a swing state, and there was pressure to find a substitute who could serve as a plausible reason to trade Tebow away. Florida is not as much of a [[swing state]] as Colorado, and rain is not the result of political pressure!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:13, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::: If you weren't being entirely serious then why did you write the thing about Tebow being traded from a swing state during an election year in the article?! Or is Conservapedia openly a satire site now? (Many people seem to think it is one.) Anyway, the evidence that political pressure having anything to do with Tebow being trade is just as strong as political pressure being responsible for the rain. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 16:40, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::::The entry is obviously about the ''hype'', the ''overrated'' aspect. Peyton Manning was overrated earlier this year in connection with replacing Tebow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:44, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::How exactly was Manning overrated in this case? Please tell me using your knowledge of football, not your political views. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:05, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Mark Sanchez...say what you will, but he's been to 2 AFC Championship games, Tebow none. I will acknowledge his below average play last season (I'm not the biggest fan of him) but it would be suicidal for Rex Ryan to bench him in favor of a new acquisition who completed 46% of his passes last season. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Not my addition, but I bet Tebow is replacing him by mid-season, but the replacement should occur before the first regular season game, if it weren't for liberal politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Please tell me specifically how "liberal politics" is keeping Sanchez as the starter, and use your knowlege of football to tell me why Tebow would be a better starter than Sanchez. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

== Becks ==

I follow US soccer closely and have never seen David Beckham promoted as he is Pele. He is one of the best, probably top 3, free kick takers to have played the sport. This is shown by his stats. I don't see how he is overrated when he actually is a fantastic athlete. He has six Premier League titles, 2 FA Cup titles, 4 FA community shields, 2 MLS supporters shields , an MLS Cup.. the list goes on and on (that doesn't include lengthy list of personal honors he has received.) I am seriously curious as to how he is overrated. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 13:25, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:With respect, I think you are missing the point. This list has nothing to do with sporting achievements. Rather it has to do with whether the athletes involved are deserving of the praise they receive. Beckham, due to his promotion of [[Hollywood Values]] does not deserve the accolades he has acquired. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 09:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
::Athletes should be praised, or criticized, for the job they do on whatever sporting field they participate in - that's their job, and that's how they should be rated. Period. Everything else is just petty gossipmongering. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:18, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
:::With regards to DamianJohn's comments... I believe this list should have everything to do with their sporting achievements. It is called "Overrated Sports Stars". Unless the point is just to list every sports player that votes on the Democrat ticket. If that is the case, the title of the page should be changed. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 11:29, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

== Quick question about standards... ==

Are these athletes overrated based on their entire career, or just based on the last years of it, as they age and their skills fade due to injuries and/or age? Truly, the only ''fair'' way to judge someone is based on the entirety of their career, as objectively as possible. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

== Tiger Woods? ==

I know that Tiger Woods is not well liked and that people here enjoy seeing him fail, but his achievements still place him in the upper echelons of golfers for all time

:Yes, he merits a place on the all-time list, but he is no longer one of the very top golfers currently playing. Yet the media still claim that he is one of the favorites, or "can't be written off", going into each big tournament, at the expense of giving coverage to other players who actually have a much better chance.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:23, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::So, is it a terrible thing to root for someone who was once on top of their game, but now is struggling? Isn't that what all of us do in our daily lives - struggle? Should we sneer at others when they go through something difficult, or should we show support? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:32, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::Ok I understand. Based on that outline I've added Michael Schumacher

::::No, we shouldn't sneer. I'm not advocating sneering. But we ought to be realistic about his chances, which are small, and the media often aren't. That's the definition of being overrated.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:01, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::Sorry - this is sneering as far as I'm concerned. Either that, or gloating as a once-great player stumbles. Dissing someone because someone else (the media) likes them is petty and is certainly not Christ-like. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:13, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::: If Tiger's chances are slim, wouldn't he then be the underdog? Didn't this site [[Mystery:Why_Do_Atheists_Dislike_Underdogs%3F|not too long ago]] claim that rooting for the [[underdog|underdog]] was a Christian characteristic? So in that sense, the media is hyping the underdog.. if Tiger's chances of winning are small. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 11:35, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

== More removals ==

I removed Wayne Gretzky and Sol Campbell, because neither is particularly overrated. Also Bradman, which was obviously a frivolous addition - it criticised him for "not achieving anything for decades", when he retired decades ago and died in 2001.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
-I've re-added Sol Campbell as conservative himself reverted to my edit where I added him, so it must be fine. To make the case more robust, I've added a statement about how he has played for the top Soccer clubs.

Overrated Sports Stars

2012-06-26T22:49:25Z

GMilhouse: I've re-added Sol Campbell, as Conservative reverted the article to the edit where I added him (so it must be fine)

The [[lamestream media]] like to promote athletes based not on skill, but for other reasons. Here's a growing list of the most overrated sports stars (notice how none are on the list of [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]]):

#[[Andre Agassi]] — [[Pete Sampras]] was far better, but Sampras is [[conservative]]. Agassi is a big donor to [[Democrat]] politicians.
#[[David Beckham]] — far from the best, but promoted like he's [[Pele]]. Is Beckham socially [[liberal]] like some of the others on this list?
#[[Kobe Bryant]] — not as valuable to the game as [[Jeremy Lin]]; hasn't won a title without super-coaching by Phil Jackson, who observes that Kobe is not on the high level of [[Michael Jordan]];<ref>[http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2011-03-14/phil-jackson-says-kobe-bryant-not-in-michael-jordans-company ("Stop comparing anyone to Michael Jordan. It's just not fair. He was remarkable.... (Kobe) doesn't shoot the same percentage (.455) as Michael (.497). He has the same characteristics as Michael, but he's not the same player. It takes nothing away from him — he's a great player in his own right.")]</ref> Kobe makes only 46% of his shots, and scores lots of points because he hogs the ball.
#[[LeBron James]] — 2012's NBA Finals MVP is far from the best player in the [[NBA]], he is way overrated by the liberal ESPN compared to Christian Kevin Durant
#[[Magic Johnson]] — lucky enough to play on [[Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]]'s Lakers to win some titles, but was crushed by [[Michael Jordan]] and the Bulls; no problem, Magic was a critic of President [[George H.W. Bush]], which thrilled liberals.
#*People look at him (a heterosexual male who had unprotected sex with numerous women), and say, 'Hey, it's OK to get HIV because I'm living with it.' That is the wrong message. [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57319698/20-years-since-magic-johnsons-hiv-stunner/]
#[[Peyton Manning]] — a [[quarterback]] who won only one [[NFL]] championship, despite being voted by the media and others to be NFL MVP 4 times, AFC Player of the Year 6 times, and Pro Bowler 11 times. The [[liberal media]] treated him like the Second Coming of [[Christ]] in order to oust [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]] from his leadership position in the [[swing state]] of [[Colorado]] prior to the [[Presidential Election 2012]].
#[[Steve Nash]] — an [http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2009/3/25/809516/steve-nash-on-media-bias-t outspoken liberal who supported Obama], Nash was chosen ''twice'' by the [[lamestream media]] as the [[NBA]] MVP despite never leading his team to even an NBA Finals
#[[Mark Sanchez]] — the [[New York Jets]] [[quarterback]] is being touted as the team's best QB over [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]] despite falling apart at the end of the 2011–12 season. Now that Tebow's on-board, [[liberals]] are championing the former [[USC]] star as the superior player despite his recently poor play.
#[[Tiger Woods]] — hasn't won a major golf tournament in four years, and yet he's still the only one liberals want to talk about while reporting on tournaments.<ref>Years ago Woods, amid media hoopla, won the PGA Player of the Year a record ten times; Byron Nelson Award for lowest adjusted scoring average a record eight times; holds the record for leading the money list in nine different seasons; won 14 professional major golf championships, the second highest of any player, and 73 PGA Tour events, tied for 2nd all time; has more career major wins and career PGA Tour wins than any other active golfer; is the youngest player to achieve the career Grand Slam, and the youngest and fastest to win 50 tournaments; is only the second golfer to have achieved a career Grand Slam three times.</ref>
#[[Michael Schumacher]] — has failed to perform after his return to [[Formula One]] racing and has been consistently outperformed by his teammate. His first podium finish since 2006 came only after many drivers in front of him retired from the race. Schumacher still receives generous media attention.
#[[Sol Campbell]] — Is known to be sympathetic towards [[homosexual]] rights campaigners. During his England career they failed to win a single major tournament. While at Arsenal he failed to win the champions League, only ever making the final once and only won the Premier League a measly two times. Despite this, he has had a career which has seen him play for some of the best clubs.

(please revise or add to list)

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:sports]]

Overrated Sports Stars

2012-06-25T19:49:15Z

GMilhouse:

The [[lamestream media]] like to promote athletes based not on skill, but for other reasons. Here's a growing list of the most overrated sports stars (notice how none are on the list of [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]]):

#[[Andre Agassi]] — [[Pete Sampras]] was far better, but Sampras is [[conservative]]. Agassi is a big donor to [[Democrat]] politicians.
#[[David Beckham]] — far from the best, but promoted like he's [[Pele]]. Is Beckham socially [[liberal]] like some of the others on this list?
#[[Kobe Bryant]] — hasn't won a title without super-coaching by Phil Jackson, who observes that Kobe is not on the high level of [[Michael Jordan]];<ref>[http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2011-03-14/phil-jackson-says-kobe-bryant-not-in-michael-jordans-company ("Stop comparing anyone to Michael Jordan. It's just not fair. He was remarkable.... (Kobe) doesn't shoot the same percentage (.455) as Michael (.497). He has the same characteristics as Michael, but he's not the same player. It takes nothing away from him — he's a great player in his own right.")]</ref> Kobe makes only 46% of his shots, and scores lots of points because he hogs the ball.
#[[LeBron James]] — 2012's NBA Finals MVP is far from the best player in the [[NBA]], he is way overrated by the liberal ESPN compared to Christian Kevin Durant
#[[Magic Johnson]] — lucky enough to play on [[Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]]'s Lakers to win some titles, but was crushed by [[Michael Jordan]] and the Bulls; no problem, Magic was a critic of President [[George H.W. Bush]], which thrilled liberals.
#*People look at him (a heterosexual male who had unprotected sex with numerous women), and say, 'Hey, it's OK to get HIV because I'm living with it.' That is the wrong message. [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57319698/20-years-since-magic-johnsons-hiv-stunner/]
#[[Peyton Manning]] — a [[quarterback]] who won only one [[NFL]] championship, despite being voted by the media and others to be NFL MVP 4 times, AFC Player of the Year 6 times, and Pro Bowler 11 times. The [[liberal media]] treated him like the Second Coming of [[Christ]] in order to oust [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]] from his leadership position in the [[swing state]] of [[Colorado]] prior to the [[Presidential Election 2012]].
#[[Steve Nash]] — an [http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2009/3/25/809516/steve-nash-on-media-bias-t outspoken liberal who supported Obama], Nash was chosen ''twice'' by the [[lamestream media]] as the [[NBA]] MVP despite never leading his team to even an NBA Finals
#[[Mark Sanchez]] — the [[New York Jets]] [[quarterback]] is being touted as the team's best QB over [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]] despite falling apart at the end of the 2011–12 season. Now that Tebow's on-board, [[liberals]] are championing the former [[USC]] star as the superior player despite his recently poor play.
#[[Tiger Woods]] — hasn't won a major golf tournament in four years, and yet he's still the only one liberals want to talk about while reporting on tournaments.<ref>Years ago Woods, amid media hoopla, won the PGA Player of the Year a record ten times; Byron Nelson Award for lowest adjusted scoring average a record eight times; holds the record for leading the money list in nine different seasons; won 14 professional major golf championships, the second highest of any player, and 73 PGA Tour events, tied for 2nd all time; has more career major wins and career PGA Tour wins than any other active golfer; is the youngest player to achieve the career Grand Slam, and the youngest and fastest to win 50 tournaments; is only the second golfer to have achieved a career Grand Slam three times.</ref>
#[[Sol Campbell]] — Is known to be sympathetic towards [[homosexual]] rights campaigners. During his England career they failed to win a single major tournament. While at Arsenal he failed to win the champions League, only ever making the final once and only won the Premier League a measly two times.

(please revise or add to list)

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:sports]]

Overrated Sports Stars

2012-06-25T19:48:52Z

GMilhouse: I forgot to include a hyphen.

The [[lamestream media]] like to promote athletes based not on skill, but for other reasons. Here's a growing list of the most overrated sports stars (notice how none are on the list of [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]]):

#[[Andre Agassi]] — [[Pete Sampras]] was far better, but Sampras is [[conservative]]. Agassi is a big donor to [[Democrat]] politicians.
#[[David Beckham]] — far from the best, but promoted like he's [[Pele]]. Is Beckham socially [[liberal]] like some of the others on this list?
#[[Kobe Bryant]] — hasn't won a title without super-coaching by Phil Jackson, who observes that Kobe is not on the high level of [[Michael Jordan]];<ref>[http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2011-03-14/phil-jackson-says-kobe-bryant-not-in-michael-jordans-company ("Stop comparing anyone to Michael Jordan. It's just not fair. He was remarkable.... (Kobe) doesn't shoot the same percentage (.455) as Michael (.497). He has the same characteristics as Michael, but he's not the same player. It takes nothing away from him — he's a great player in his own right.")]</ref> Kobe makes only 46% of his shots, and scores lots of points because he hogs the ball.
#[[LeBron James]] — 2012's NBA Finals MVP is far from the best player in the [[NBA]], he is way overrated by the liberal ESPN compared to Christian Kevin Durant
#[[Magic Johnson]] — lucky enough to play on [[Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]]'s Lakers to win some titles, but was crushed by [[Michael Jordan]] and the Bulls; no problem, Magic was a critic of President [[George H.W. Bush]], which thrilled liberals.
#*People look at him (a heterosexual male who had unprotected sex with numerous women), and say, 'Hey, it's OK to get HIV because I'm living with it.' That is the wrong message. [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57319698/20-years-since-magic-johnsons-hiv-stunner/]
#[[Peyton Manning]] — a [[quarterback]] who won only one [[NFL]] championship, despite being voted by the media and others to be NFL MVP 4 times, AFC Player of the Year 6 times, and Pro Bowler 11 times. The [[liberal media]] treated him like the Second Coming of [[Christ]] in order to oust [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]] from his leadership position in the [[swing state]] of [[Colorado]] prior to the [[Presidential Election 2012]].
#[[Steve Nash]] — an [http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2009/3/25/809516/steve-nash-on-media-bias-t outspoken liberal who supported Obama], Nash was chosen ''twice'' by the [[lamestream media]] as the [[NBA]] MVP despite never leading his team to even an NBA Finals
#[[Mark Sanchez]] — the [[New York Jets]] [[quarterback]] is being touted as the team's best QB over [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]] despite falling apart at the end of the 2011–12 season. Now that Tebow's on-board, [[liberals]] are championing the former [[USC]] star as the superior player despite his recently poor play.
#[[Tiger Woods]] — hasn't won a major golf tournament in four years, and yet he's still the only one liberals want to talk about while reporting on tournaments.<ref>Years ago Woods, amid media hoopla, won the PGA Player of the Year a record ten times; Byron Nelson Award for lowest adjusted scoring average a record eight times; holds the record for leading the money list in nine different seasons; won 14 professional major golf championships, the second highest of any player, and 73 PGA Tour events, tied for 2nd all time; has more career major wins and career PGA Tour wins than any other active golfer; is the youngest player to achieve the career Grand Slam, and the youngest and fastest to win 50 tournaments; is only the second golfer to have achieved a career Grand Slam three times.</ref>
#[[Sol Campbell]] - Is known to be sympathetic towards [[homosexual]] rights campaigners. During his England career they failed to win a single major tournament. While at Arsenal he failed to win the champions League, only ever making the final once and only won the Premier League a measly two times.

(please revise or add to list)

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:sports]]

Overrated Sports Stars

2012-06-25T19:46:37Z

GMilhouse: Added Sol Campbell

The [[lamestream media]] like to promote athletes based not on skill, but for other reasons. Here's a growing list of the most overrated sports stars (notice how none are on the list of [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]]):

#[[Andre Agassi]] — [[Pete Sampras]] was far better, but Sampras is [[conservative]]. Agassi is a big donor to [[Democrat]] politicians.
#[[David Beckham]] — far from the best, but promoted like he's [[Pele]]. Is Beckham socially [[liberal]] like some of the others on this list?
#[[Kobe Bryant]] — hasn't won a title without super-coaching by Phil Jackson, who observes that Kobe is not on the high level of [[Michael Jordan]];<ref>[http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2011-03-14/phil-jackson-says-kobe-bryant-not-in-michael-jordans-company ("Stop comparing anyone to Michael Jordan. It's just not fair. He was remarkable.... (Kobe) doesn't shoot the same percentage (.455) as Michael (.497). He has the same characteristics as Michael, but he's not the same player. It takes nothing away from him — he's a great player in his own right.")]</ref> Kobe makes only 46% of his shots, and scores lots of points because he hogs the ball.
#[[LeBron James]] — 2012's NBA Finals MVP is far from the best player in the [[NBA]], he is way overrated by the liberal ESPN compared to Christian Kevin Durant
#[[Magic Johnson]] — lucky enough to play on [[Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]]'s Lakers to win some titles, but was crushed by [[Michael Jordan]] and the Bulls; no problem, Magic was a critic of President [[George H.W. Bush]], which thrilled liberals.
#*People look at him (a heterosexual male who had unprotected sex with numerous women), and say, 'Hey, it's OK to get HIV because I'm living with it.' That is the wrong message. [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57319698/20-years-since-magic-johnsons-hiv-stunner/]
#[[Peyton Manning]] — a [[quarterback]] who won only one [[NFL]] championship, despite being voted by the media and others to be NFL MVP 4 times, AFC Player of the Year 6 times, and Pro Bowler 11 times. The [[liberal media]] treated him like the Second Coming of [[Christ]] in order to oust [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]] from his leadership position in the [[swing state]] of [[Colorado]] prior to the [[Presidential Election 2012]].
#[[Steve Nash]] — an [http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2009/3/25/809516/steve-nash-on-media-bias-t outspoken liberal who supported Obama], Nash was chosen ''twice'' by the [[lamestream media]] as the [[NBA]] MVP despite never leading his team to even an NBA Finals
#[[Mark Sanchez]] — the [[New York Jets]] [[quarterback]] is being touted as the team's best QB over [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]] despite falling apart at the end of the 2011–12 season. Now that Tebow's on-board, [[liberals]] are championing the former [[USC]] star as the superior player despite his recently poor play.
#[[Tiger Woods]] — hasn't won a major golf tournament in four years, and yet he's still the only one liberals want to talk about while reporting on tournaments.<ref>Years ago Woods, amid media hoopla, won the PGA Player of the Year a record ten times; Byron Nelson Award for lowest adjusted scoring average a record eight times; holds the record for leading the money list in nine different seasons; won 14 professional major golf championships, the second highest of any player, and 73 PGA Tour events, tied for 2nd all time; has more career major wins and career PGA Tour wins than any other active golfer; is the youngest player to achieve the career Grand Slam, and the youngest and fastest to win 50 tournaments; is only the second golfer to have achieved a career Grand Slam three times.</ref>
#[[Sol Campbell]] Is known to be sympathetic towards [[homosexual]] rights campaigners. During his England career they failed to win a single major tournament. While at Arsenal he failed to win the champions League, only ever making the final once and only won the Premier League a measly two times.

(please revise or add to list)

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:sports]]

Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2012-06-15T22:39:15Z

GMilhouse: /* Existence of dinosaurs */

[[File:Newton.png|thumb|alt=scientific foreknowledge in the bible|250px|[[Isaac Newton]], cornerstone of the [[scientific revolution]], based his research on the scientific authority of the Bible and sought enlightenment in scripture.]]‎
'''Biblical scientific foreknowledge''' is how the [[Bible]] shows a comprehension of [[science|scientific]] knowledge far ahead of its time. ''Biblical scientific foreknowledge illustrates what is possible.''

[[Bible denier]]s — such as [[atheist]]s and [[evolution]]ists — engage in [[liberal denial]] about the many truths in the Bible. '''''Their irrational [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|closed-mindedness]] against the Bible obstructs the advancement of science'''''.

'''Biblical scientific foreknowledge''' has another benefit: it facilitates improvements in the translation of verses that describe scientific-related events, such as [[Jesus]]'s [[Essay:Calming the Storm|Calming the Storm]] and the reference to the universe in [[Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)#1:10-11|Hebrews 1:10]].

== Geology ==

===Flood===
Modern scientists long opposed a young earth [[creation|created]] by God and the suggestion that cataclysmic flooding, such as the [[Great Flood]] as described in the Bible, shaped the landscape. However, ample [[counterexamples to an old earth]] exist and the discovery in the Northwest of "giant ripple marks, 50 feet high and 200-500 feet apart" proved that a cataclysmic flood did indeed occur. As a result, "[a]mong geologists, the concept of a catastrophic flood came to be accepted by the late 1950s."<ref>http://www.iafi.org/floods.html</ref>

===Continental drift===
[[Continental drift]] was first proposed by a creationist in 1859 based on Genesis 1:9-10, which implies that all of dry land was in one place.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c001.html#1</ref> [[Atheists]] mocked the concept for about 100 years, until finally accepting its truth.

=== Underwater springs ===

Only in moderns times have scientists become aware of enormous underwater springs feeding into the oceans, and the very deep valleys at the bottom of the oceans.

But the Bible repeatedly describes this thousands of years earlier: "on that very day '''''the deep subcrustal springs were broken open''''', and the windows of the sky were thrown open." ([[Genesis_1-8_%28Translated%29#Chapter_7|Genesis 7:11 (CBP)]], emphasis added). And again, in 2 Samuel 22:16, the Bible says, "And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered ...." ([[KJV]])

=== Agriculture ===

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, intellectuals insisted that the world's population would grow larger than the food supply, resulting in mass starvation. Yet there are examples in both the Old and New Testaments of the food supply increasing to be more plentiful than expected. Indeed, by 2011 obesity was far more prevalent and harmful than hunger.

== History ==

The Bible describes a [[Great Flood]] occurring around 3300 B.C., or about 5300 years ago. It involved a cataclysmic rainstorm of a magnitude never seen before or since. For centuries atheists have denied its possibility.

In 1991, an "ice mummy" was discovered: a remarkably preserved ancient body, including even the contents of his last meal, due to an extraordinary ice storm in the [[Alps]]. By scientific dating the occurrence of this massive ice storm in the mountains (and rainstorm below) was 5300 years ago.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/icemummies/iceman.html</ref>

=== False Theories ===

Jesus's recognition that the truth would remain hidden from arrogant intellectuals while simultaneously revealed to humbler, [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|openminded]] people. This foreshadowed the promotion of theories to pull self-centered intellectual wannabees away from [[God]], based on the [[Theory of Evolution]], [[Theory of Relativity]], [[homosexual agenda]], [[abortion]], [[communism]], etc.

==Health, Biology and Medicine==

===Common DNA===

[[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_1|John 1:3]] explains that "All things were made by Him; not one thing was made without Him." If something had been made without Him then creatures would exist that had completely different DNA from other creatures.

===Eighth Day Blood Clotting Factors===

In Genesis 17:12, God mandated that Abraham circumcise his sons on the 8th day after birth. In 1935, it was discovered that Vitamin K, together with prothrombin, causes blood coagulation, (important in any surgical procedure). On the 8th day, the amount of prothrombin present is elevated above 100% of normal and is therefore the only day in the male’s life in which this will be the case (normally). If surgery is to be performed, day 8 is the perfect day to do it as vitamin K and prothrombin levels are at their peak.

===Lifespan===

The Bible put the maximum lifespan for man at 120 years (Genesis 6:3), the typical lifespan at 70 years and the typical for a good-living person at 80 years (Psalm 90:10).

Thousands of years after that was written, despite immense advances in medicine and technology, these figures remain remarkably accurate. The longest recorded life of a man is precisely 120 years (Shigechiyo Izumi), the average lifespan for a man is roughly 70 years, and the average for a good-living man is about 80 years.

[[Jeanne Calment]] lived to age 122, only two years past 120. She was said to have never worked and used olive oil on her skin, outliving many of of her [[feminist]] counterparts.

===Oldest Human Ancestor===

The Bible suggests that the oldest maternal ancestor — [[Eve]] — first lived slightly more than 6000 years ago.<ref>http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/ussher.html</ref> The mutation rate of [[mitochondria]] indicates roughly the same date for the oldest common human ancestor.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Mitochondrial_Eve_lived_only_6500_years_ago_%28Talk.Origins%29</ref>

===Anesthesia===

The first surgical operation described in the Bible was the removal of a rib from [[Adam]], which was performed by first putting Adam into an unconscious, "deep sleep-like trance."<ref>[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 2:21]]</ref> This was the equivalent of anesthesia — thousands of years before anesthesia using inhaled ether was developed by William Morton in 1846. Had scientists and physicians been more [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|openminded]] about Genesis 2:21 (perhaps they had considered it a miracle, and thus impossible for humans to achieve), they may have discovered anesthesia far sooner, and saved many more lives.

===Bloodletting hastens death===

At the time of Jesus and for centuries afterward, arteries and veins were thought to be filled with air, and blood was viewed as something to be used up rather than recirculate. Bloodletting -- the practice of intentionally draining blood from a patient -- was common medical practice through the time of [[George Washington]], hastening his death prematurely for reasons not understood until years later.<ref>http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/37212.php</ref>

Most victims of crucifixion in Roman times languished on the cross for days. But the Bible describes how Pilate, who crucified many, was surprised at how quickly Jesus passed away. 2000 years later, scientific knowledge has advanced to understand that this was caused by his prior loss of blood during his scourging (being brutally whipped), a punishment typically given ''instead of'' crucifixion.

===Homosexuality and disease===
The Bible's prohibition against [[homosexuality]] predated knowledge about the [[Homosexuality and Health|many diseases and disorders associated with homosexuality]], and thus showed scientific wisdom prescient for its time.

=== Eyesight ===

The description in the [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Gospel of Mark 8:24]] for the sensation when one's eyesight is restored includes his perception of "trees walking." This perception was first confirmed nearly 2000 years later as physicians developed medical techniques for restoring eyesight.<ref>This newspaper account is not specific but describes the overall sensation of restored sight: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-138886/Robot-eye-restore-lost-sight-20-years.html]</ref>

=== Maximum Human Height ===

Atheists thought the size of [[Goliath]] in the Bible to be absurdly large (over nine feet tall), until [[Robert Wadlow]] grew to nearly 9 feet tall and was still growing when he died at a young age in 1940.

=== Quarantining Against Leprosy Epidemics ===

Although leprosy is not as contagious as other infectious diseases, and some forms of it (such as tuberculoid or paucibacillary form are not contagious), Leviticus 13 and 14 set forth rules to prevent epidemics of this disease among the people of Israel. Western science did not catch up until, in 1663, such laws were introduced in America in an attempt to curb an outbreak of smallpox.

Centuries ahead of medical science, Jesus subsequently explained that leprosy was not as contagious as people thought.

=== Hygiene ===

Millennia before germ theory was proposed in the late 19th century, Leviticus 15 mandated hygiene laws that included bathing, washing of clothing, destruction of contaminated pottery and washing of hands.

In Matthew 15:2, Jesus then curbed compulsive hand-washing by explaining why it n no longer typically necessary (in a non-farming, non-medical context) with respect to man's digestive system.

=== Digestive System ===

It was common thought throughout history that infections and illness resulted from the digestive system, based on unclean hands or food. Jesus rejected that view, and declared hand-washing before meals to be typically unnecessary. It took many centuries before science caught up to the Bible on this.

It is part of the Jewish kosher law to not eat milk with meat. In some Jewish homes they have separate refrigerators for meat and milk products. It comes from Deuteronomy 14:21 "...Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk." There is evidence that the body has difficulty digesting both meat and milk at the same time.

Also, as part of the Jewish kosher law a pork is on the list of prohibited foods. Under cooked pork can transmit Trichinosis, a parasitic disease that can infect muscle tissue, the brain, and the central nervous system, among other [[parasite]]s and zoonotic diseases. [[Creation denial|Creation deniers]] can counter this point only with such desperate non-arguments as asking why God had to create trichinae at all and then allow them onto the [[Ark]].

=== Feasibility of [[Abiogenesis]] ===
Although scientists dismissed ideas involving [[Abiogenesis|abiogenesis]], or the process from which life emerges from nothing, as nothing more than archaic beliefs in [[spontaneous generation]], the Bible very clearly depicts an occurrence of this phenomenon, for beginning in Genesis 1:20, [[God]] creates life from nothing. It was not until the early 20th century that science finally began to accept the viability of abiogenesis, a view that the Bible had held for almost 2000 years, except that [[atheists]] falsely claim that abiogenesis is somehow possible without a creator.

=== Awareness while Unborn ===
[[Abortion]] advocates argue that it is ok to terminate a baby while dismissing the pain inflicted by ending an innocent life. They argue that a fetus cannot feel pain because senses are incomplete. There is a heart-beating human in the womb that can feel even though still unborn and developing. In modern times, we now know the baby in the womb is alert, aware of their mother's emotions, recognizes voices, responds to stimuli and music. The Bible tells us the baby feels (1 Luke 44), ''"the babe leaps for joy in Elizabeth’s womb at the sound of Mary’s voice."'' The inwomb developing baby, John the Baptist, notices the presence of the unborn [[Lord]] in [[Mary]], and is excited. In addition (St. Paul to the Galatians 1:15), ''"God… from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace."'' Paul's very first thought, feeling awareness, began while unborn.

=== Embalming ===

[[Mark_9-16_(Translated)#Chapter_14|Mark 14:3-8]] describes an embalming process to preserve a body after death, which was not discovered in the West until 1867.

=== The significance of blood ===

The Old Testament teaches that the [[life]] of all flesh is its [[blood]] ({{Bible ref|book=Leviticus|chap=17|verses=13-14|version=KJV}}). Secular science remained ignorant of the properties and circulation of blood until the 17th century A.D.<ref>http://books.google.com.au/books?id=OPOu1UgIKjYC&lpg=PA364&dq=%22but%20not%20scientifically%20tested%20and%20proved%20until%20the%2017th%20century%22&pg=PA365#v=snippet&q=%22not%20scientifically%20tested%20and%20proved%20until%20the%2017th%20century%22&f=false</ref>

=== Menstruation ===

The Biblical laws concerning [[menstruation]], including the setting apart of the menstruating woman and the prohibition on intimacy during menstruation, address health concerns that were not known to secular science until the 20th century.<ref>Neuburger, Max. History of Medicine. Oxford University Press, 1910, Vol. I, p. 38.</ref> Also, modern science has only very recently discovered that following such rules dramatically reduces the rate of [[illegitimacy]].<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120604182027.htm How Religion Promotes Confidence About Paternity]</ref>

=== Cloning ===

{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=2|verses=21-22|version=KJV}} records that God made a [[woman]] out of one of [[Adam]]'s [[rib]]s. Secular scientists did not believe that [[cloning]] such a complex organism (apart from plants) was possible until 1997.<ref>[http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml Cloning Fact Sheet]</ref>

===Inbreeding===

Leviticus 18:7-11 elaborates in detail the relationships it regards as incestuous unions, to forbid inbreeding. Secular science was able to scientifically explain the mechanisms and risks of inbreeding only in modern times.

==Cosmology==

===The Starlight Problem===

The [[Starlight Problem]] confounds all theories about the universe: light has reached us from stars that are too far away to transmit the light within the age of the universe. But Genesis explains this easily: "let there be light" means that God created light, not merely stars.

===Planet Formation at Dawn of Universe===

Theories of an old universe insisted that planet formation did not occur until long after the origin of the universe, contrary to the [[Book of Genesis]]. But in 2012 scientists announced the existence of planets that formed "at dawn of universe."<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0330/Planets-found-at-dawn-of-universe-but-their-existence-is-a-mystery</ref>

===UFOs and Extraterrestrial Life===

For most of the 20th century, scientists typically believed in the existence of extraterrestrial life, despite the lack of any reference to it in the [[Bible]]. After spending many billions of dollars looking for such life, and investigating countless reports of UFOs, no such life has been found.

===Number of Stars===

The [[Bible]] repeatedly refers to the number of stars as being innumerable,<ref>''See'' Genesis 15:5, Jeremiah 33:22 and Hebrews 11:12.</ref> despite scientists insisting throughout most of history that there were only about 6000 stars. In the early 17th century [[Galileo]] turned a telescope to the heavens and discovered a great number of stars that had been previously invisible to the naked eye.<ref>http://galileo.rice.edu/lib/student_work/astronomy95/orionpleiades.html</ref>

Not until the 20th century did scientists discover the tremendous number of stars:<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/22/stars.survey/index.html</ref>

:There are "10 times as many stars as grains of sand on all the world's beaches and deserts," totaling "7 followed by 22 zeros or, more accurately, 70 sextillion.

But even that scientific estimate was much too low. On December 1, 2010, scientists admitted:<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/1201/Universe-might-hold-three-times-more-stars-than-previously-thought</ref>

:"a cosmic embarrassment of riches – ''the universe appears to hold three times the number of stars many [[astronomer]]s might have estimated only a year ago''."

===Each Star is Unique===
Although the use of telescopes to chart the outer-reaches of God's heavenly creation was developed around the 16th century in Europe, the Bible accurately hypothesized that every star is unique.

"There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory"- 1 Corinthians 15:41 <ref>http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml</ref>

===Spherical Earth===
The Book of Isaiah establishes that the true shape of the earth is a sphere:
{{cquote|He sits above the sphere of the earth, and its inhabitants look to him like grasshoppers. He stretches out the galaxies like a curtain, spreading them out like a tent to live under: - [[Isaiah_34-42_(Translated)#Chapter_40|Isaiah 40:22 (CBP]])}}

Note that Isaiah was written circa the 8th century BC, centuries before Greek philosophers, beginning with [[Pythagoras]], theorized the earth was round.

=== Earth free floating in space ===
The book of Job states that God "hangs the earth on nothing." It also contrasts with pagan mythologies such as [[Atlas]] holding up the earth or the earth being supported by a giant turtle, as in ancient Hindu and native American myths.

The Bible presaged the modern view that space is in fact empty, which wasn't known until the dawn of the 20th century when ether theories became disfavored.

=== Darkness, and Unexplained Ripples in Cosmic Background Radiation ===

[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis Chapter 1]] explains that [[God]] created light first, rather than merely stars. A "big bang" would result in light everywhere, without darkness, and without ripples in cosmic background radiation. Yet in the 21st century ripples were discovered in cosmic background radiation, which can only be plausibly explained by recognizing that light was created first.

=== Meteoroids ===
The Revelation of Saint John notes,
{{cquote|And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood; And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed. Revelation 8:8-9 (KJV)}}
This accurately describes meteoroids, essentially large chunks of rock lit on fire by the shock of entering the earth's atmosphere. They were not discovered until 1801, and their composition was not otherwise known until the 20th century.

=== Stellar proper movement ===
In [[Job]], there is a list of challenges that are constructed in the form of questions, with the idea that man can't do it, but God can.

Among those challenges, two are remarkable: one mentions the ''untying'' of Orion's belt, and the other is the ''binding'' of the Pleiades. One recently astronomers could measure the proper movement of those stars; Orion's belt is moving apart, with each star going in a different direction, while the Pleiades are moving together.

=== Space flight ===
Many theorize that the book of [[Ezekiel]] contains descriptions of spaceships and rockets, as they would have been described by someone thousands of years ago. [http://www.spaceshipsofezekiel.com/ Author Blumrich] has even published an entire book about this.

===Expanding universe===
The [[Bible]] explains, in 17 different verses, that [[God]] "stretched out" the heavens,<ref>http://www.creationists.org/God-streched-out-the-universe-bible-verses.html</ref> in other words, expanding the fabric of space-time from a smaller size to a much larger one. Scientists have discovered only in the last 100 years that, by studying the red shift of galaxies, the universe indeed appears to be expanding, or "stretching out."

== Meteorology ==
=== Existence of the [[Jet Stream]] ===
Ecclesiastes 1:6 notes, "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits." This described the jet stream long before its 19th-20th century discovery.

=== Water cycle ===

The existence of the water cycle was not known until imperial Roman times, but the Bible described it over a thousand years before that!
See [[Ecclesiastes]] 11:3, [[Job]] 26:8 and [[Amos]] 9:6

== Physics ==

=== Impossibility of a Grand Unified Theory ===

Billions of dollars and millions of hours have been wasted by [[atheists]] in futile pursuit of a "grand unified theory" for physics. But [[Genesis_1-8_(Translated)#Chapter_1|Genesis]] explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of unification with matter.

=== Light and Color ===

Prior to the work of [[Isaac Newton]], white was considered to be the fundamental color of light, and other colors (such as red, green and blue) were formed by adding to white light. Under that traditional theory, the fullness of all light (a combination of all colors of light) would result in something other than pure white.

The transfiguration of Jesus is described with remarkable consistency in all three synoptic [[Gospel]]s: in the fullness of light Jesus and his clothing display an intense white, whiter than any bleach could produce. This illustrates what was not discovered and accepted until nearly 1700 years later: that white is the combination of other fundamental colors, and the purest white light is formed by a perfectly full combination (see [[Prism]]).

=== Action-at-a-distance ===

[[Jesus]] demonstrated [[action-at-a-distance]], as recounted in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]]. Scientists, particularly [[atheists]], denied the possibility of this phenomenon for thousands of years. When Newton proposed action-at-a-distance as the basis of gravity, scientists continued to reject it, but eventually accepted it as being true.

Later the [[Theory of Relativity]] again denied the possibility of action-at-a-distance, but [[quantum mechanics]] subsequently proved that it does occur.<ref>See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].</ref>

=== Quantum Mechanics ===

==== Observation of the Wave Function ====
The second chapter of the [[Gospel of John]] describes the conversion of water into wine by [[Jesus]] at a wedding reception. [[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_2|John 2:9]] states: "When the host of the wedding feast tasted the water, it had been made into wine." This passage implies that the drink was not wine until it had been tasted, or observed. Possibly, the drink was a superposition of the state of wine and the state of water until it was observed as wine.

The miraculous [[Essay:Calming the Storm|calming of the storm]] is typically translated as the result of a "rebuke" by [[Jesus]] of the bad weather. But a closer look at the Greek reveals that the key term means "judge" rather than "rebuke", and thus it was the act of Jesus observing the chaos that caused it to "collapse" into an orderly state, similar to the effect of observing a wave function.

In Matthew 16:19, Jesus draws a then-unusual distinction between what is fixed and what is uncertain by declaring, "Whatever you make binding on earth will be binding in heaven, and whatever you set loose on earth will be set loose in heaven."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Matthew_10-19_%28Translated%29&oldid=870778#Chapter_16</ref> This may describe the fundamental uncertainty that continues unless and until there is human observation that then causes the wave function to collapse into a particular ("bound") state.

==== [[Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle]] ====

Both the Old and New Testaments refer to a fundamental uncertainty that requires observation to resolve, akin to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle discovered in the 1920s:

* "The earth came to exist in an utterly formless and empty state." [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 1:2]].
* The master refusing to order the removal of the weeds sowed among the wheat because of the uncertainty in distinguishing between the two until later: [[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)|Matthew 13:24-30]].

==== Wave-Particle Duality ====

Particles are subject to gravity; waves are not. Wave-particle duality, first discovered in the 20th century, allows for a particle to sometimes be subject to gravity and sometimes not.

The wave-particle duality was described nearly 2000 years earlier in the Gospel account of Jesus walking on water: [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Mark 6:45-54]]. A close reading of the passage reveals the wave-like (or light-like) characteristic of the walking on water:
{{cquote|he walked on the surface of the lake and came to the boat, ''nearly passing it''. But when they saw him walking on water, they thought it must have been ''a ghost'', and cried out.}}
[[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Mark 6:48-49]] (italics added).

In a more general sense, [[Jesus]] could be viewed as the "particle" and the [[Holy Spirit]] as the "wave" of [[God]]. A fuller understanding of the [[Trinity]] could have opened the eyes of scientists much earlier to the fundamental wave-particle duality of nature ... and still could.

==== Quantum tunneling ====

[[Quantum tunneling]] is the ability of particles to move through energy barriers even though ostensibly impossible based on classical laws of mechanical physics. This was not discovered by scientists until the 20th century.

[[Jesus]] proved this was possible in [[John_15-21_(Translated)#Chapter_20|John 20:26]], when he appeared before the [[Apostles]] in a closed room with completely shut doors.

=== Classical Relativity ===
Romans 10:6-7: But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).

Equating ascending into heaven to bringing Christ down is an example of the fact that there is no universal reference frame, and only relative speeds matter.

=== Modern Relativity ===
The [[Theory of Relativity]] denies the possibility of action-at-a-distance. But several passages in the Bible, such as [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]] and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)|Matthew 27:51]], describe simultaneous actions from afar.

The list of [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] has grown recently, and modern experiments in [[quantum mechanics]] have confirmed action-at-a-distance.

=== [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] ===

The [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Book of Genesis]] states that the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order. This same concept was not discovered in physics until the development of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which holds that heat (or order or light) always travels in the direction of cold (or disorder or darkness), and never in the opposite direction.

[[Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)#1:10-11|Hebrews 1:10-11]] explains that the universe shall "wear out" like a "garment", centuries before the discovery of the physical law that [[entropy]] is always increasing.

=== The nature of air ===

Until about 300 years ago, common knowledge believe that the air was "empty" and didn't weigh anything. But [[Job]] 28:25 says "To establish a '''weight''' for the wind, And apportion the waters by measure" indicating that the divinely inspired author knew the air had substance and weight.

== Mathematics ==

=== [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] ===
The only miracle described in all four [[Gospels]] is the multiplication of loaves and fish by [[Jesus]], thought for thousands of years to be a mathematical and physical impossibility. But the 20th century discovery of the so-called [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] proved a mathematical basis for creating identical copies of an object.

=== Axiomatization of Arithmetic ===
The full set of axioms for integer arithmetic may be found in the Bible, as demonstrated by J.C. Keister.<ref>http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/027a-MathandtheBible.pdf</ref> For example, [[Luke 9-16 (Translated)|Luke 12:52]] is a striking statement of the commutative law for addition: "For from this point forward there will be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three." This understanding presaged both later attempts at the axiomatization of arithmetic by Peano and the development of [[abstract algebra]] in the 19th and 20th centuries.

== Sociology ==

===Crime===

Mark 4:22 says how nothing can be hid, neither can anything be kept secret. Empirical statistics show that the vast majority of crimes worldwide are solved.

== Zoology ==

===Inability of Animals to Understand Morality===

[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 3:1-10]] explains that only humans understand good and evil, and clothe themselves because of it. Repeatedly scientists have attempted to demonstrate that animals can understand morality also, but every attempt has failed. No animal (other than humans) has ever been found that clothes itself.

===Existence of dinosaurs===
[[Dinosaur]] fossils were not discovered until the 19th century, but the book of [[Job]] describes enormous creatures called behemoth and leviathan, the descriptions being similar to dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures. It may also have referred to another similarly giant now-extinct species. Other dinosaur like creatures mentioned are the cockatrice and satyr <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp</ref>

===Lions' killing methods===

Until the 1970s naturalists believed that lions killed their prey by biting through the neck or by breaking the neck with a swat of a paw, while the Bible says that lions suffocated their prey. (Nahum 2:12) It was not until the 1970s that it was discovered that the [[Bible]] was correct.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm</ref> Lions fit their mouth over the mouth and nose of their prey and hold it while it suffocates, in addition to other killing methods.

=== Giant sea creatures and Jonah ===

The [[Jonah (Translated)|Book of Jonah]] describes his survival in the belly of a giant sea creature for 2.5 to 3 days. Scientists declared this to be impossible due to powerful stomach acids that quickly break down any material and the lack of breathable air inside marine animals.

In 2010, scientists found the following materials intact in the belly of a gray whale that had died after being stranded on a Northwest beach:<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/19/pair-sweat-pants-garbage-beached-whales-stomach/</ref>

*a pair of sweat pants
*a golf ball
*over 20 plastic bags
*small towels
*duct tape
*surgical gloves

Of course, many sea creatures have gone extinct in the thousands of years since Jonah lived.

===Worker ants===
Proverbs 6:6-8 correctly states the sex of worker [[ant]]s (female), using the correct one of the two [[Grammar#Gender|grammatical genders]] available in Biblical [[Hebrew]]. Secular entomologists would not discover that fact until the 19th century.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=rzwSAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA6&dq=ant+undeveloped+female+worker+date:1700-1850&lr=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES#v=onepage&q&f=false The study of medicine, Volume 5 By John Mason Good]</ref>

==Linguistics==

===Common Descent?===
The [[theory of evolution]] suggests that all languages are descended from a common ancestral language, and for a century (1860 to about 1960) scientists clung to that view. But now most linguists identify many different families of languages that have no common ancestor, just as described in Genesis 11 with the [[Tower of Babel]].

===Earliest Hebrew Writings===
Skeptics have claimed that [[Hebrew]] writing did not exist before the 6th century B.C. But a recent Israeli archaeological dig dated four centuries earlier, in the 10th century B.C., included an artifact found at Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Elah Valley. This artifact contained a written inscription in Hebrew relating to "slaves, widows and orphans." Haifa University Professor Gershon Galil noted that this disproves the theory that the Bible could not have been written before the 6th century.<ref>http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2010/01/08/Bible-may-be-centuries-older-than-thought/UPI-21171262997765/</ref>

== Economics ==

Jesus stated that there will always be poverty,<ref>See Mark 14:7, Matthew 26:11 and John 12.8.</ref> yet [[liberals]] repeatedly insist that poverty can be eliminated with more government spending. Every attempt to eliminate poverty has failed just as Jesus predicted. In 1991 [[Ronald Coase]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] in [[Economics]] for the [[Coase Theorem]], which implies that government attempts to reduced poverty will interfere with efficient operation of the economy, and thereby reduce wealth.

== Government and Politics ==

===Nation State===
Ancient Israel, as described in the [[Old Testament]], was a [[nation-state]] and that model was not utilized again until thousands of years later, well after the Renaissance in Western Europe. This model of a nation-state has become the modern standard worldwide.

===Separation of Powers===
The separation of powers adopted successfully by the [[U.S. Constitution]] in 1787, with the legislative, executive, and judicial branches having separate authority and jurisdiction, was first described in the Old Testament.<ref>See Jeremiah 17:19 and Isaiah 33:22.</ref>

===The Liberal Influence of the Media===
The Third [[Three Temptations of Christ|Temptation of Christ]] is to bow down and worship the [[Satan]] in exchange for becoming ruler of the world. The media plays that role and its influence is predictably [[liberal]] and anti-[[Christian]].

==Engineering examples==

Biblical scientific foreknowledge about these engineering developments has been proposed:<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2191</ref>
{{cquote|automobiles (Joel 2:3-4); airplanes (Isaiah 31:5, also 40:31); submarines (Revelation 9:1-11); radio (Ecclesiastes 10:20); and television (Revelation 11:3-12)}}
Classical photography, using negative imaging, was predated by the [[Shroud of Turin]] with respect to the imaging on the Shroud likely due to the light of the [[Resurrection]]. The Shroud ([[Greek]]: σινδών - sindón) is mentioned in three Gospels: Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53, while John 20:5-7 talks about a face cloth or napkin ([[Greek]]: σουδάριον - soudárion - perhaps the [[Sudarium of Oviedo]]), and a piece of fine linen ([[Greek]]: ὀθόνιον - othonion). The description by the eyewitness John implies that his sighting of the Shroud may have confirmed his [[faith]], though he doesn't mention its photograph-like image <ref>John Calvin, who opposed the Catholic Church, wrote a book in 1543 criticizing all material evidence of Jesus and the martyrs. In it he claimed that because the negative image on the Shroud is not described in the Gospels, it must not be authentic. [[John Calvin]]: ''Traité des Reliques'', Geneve 1543, translated by Valerian Krasinski: ''A treatise on Relics'', Edingburgh 1854</ref>.

== Alleged absurdities and contradictions ==

Biblical scientific foreknowledge is an underpinning of creation science, and is widely credited by Christian scientists and apologists, including the organizations [[Creation Ministries International]], [[Answers in Genesis]], and [[CreationWiki]].<ref>http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge.</ref><ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1718/</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref>

Atheists unsuccessfully attempt to discredit the Bible based on science. Here are some examples:

=== Bat as a bird ===
A favorite evolutionist canard is that Leviticus 11:13-19 labels the [[bat]], a [[mammal]], as a [[bird]]. But this is an obvious failure of translation, as the Hebrew term '' 'owph'' did not entail the "clade" of birds, but was a non-biological category referring to any winged creature, mammalian, avian, or insect. The KJV translation as "fowl" is simply incorrect.

=== Incorrect value of Pi ===
Two sections of the bible (1 Kings 7, 23-26, 2 Chronicles, 4, 2-5) appear to indicate that the correct value of [[Pi]] is 3, whereas Pi is in fact an irrational number, equalling approximately 3.14159. Atheists, including [[Sam Harris]] and [[Richard Dawkins]], allege that this value indicates the fallacious nature of scripture.<ref>The Richard Dawkins Foundation, ''Reply to a Christian'', Sam Harris - [http://richarddawkins.net/articles/139]</ref> However, a simple explanation of the claimed "contradiction" is that the Bible records the ratio of the actual object which Hiram created, not that of a mathematical [[sphere]]. The claim that it was round all about does not equate to a claim that it was a perfect sphere, as atheists have claimed.<ref>''Theology'', Volume 59, Issues 427-438, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (Great Britain), London, 1956, p. 23 </ref>

Moreover, [[Pi]], when expressed as one significant digit, is equal to 3.

==See Also==
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[The Bible]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Atheism]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible scientific foreknowledge] by [[CreationWiki]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Creationism]]

{{Template:Creation vs. evolution}}

Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2012-06-15T22:38:12Z

GMilhouse: /* Existence of dinosaurs */ Added cockatrice, which as a beaked dragon-type creature also resembles a dinosaur and is mentioned in the bible.

[[File:Newton.png|thumb|alt=scientific foreknowledge in the bible|250px|[[Isaac Newton]], cornerstone of the [[scientific revolution]], based his research on the scientific authority of the Bible and sought enlightenment in scripture.]]‎
'''Biblical scientific foreknowledge''' is how the [[Bible]] shows a comprehension of [[science|scientific]] knowledge far ahead of its time. ''Biblical scientific foreknowledge illustrates what is possible.''

[[Bible denier]]s — such as [[atheist]]s and [[evolution]]ists — engage in [[liberal denial]] about the many truths in the Bible. '''''Their irrational [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|closed-mindedness]] against the Bible obstructs the advancement of science'''''.

'''Biblical scientific foreknowledge''' has another benefit: it facilitates improvements in the translation of verses that describe scientific-related events, such as [[Jesus]]'s [[Essay:Calming the Storm|Calming the Storm]] and the reference to the universe in [[Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)#1:10-11|Hebrews 1:10]].

== Geology ==

===Flood===
Modern scientists long opposed a young earth [[creation|created]] by God and the suggestion that cataclysmic flooding, such as the [[Great Flood]] as described in the Bible, shaped the landscape. However, ample [[counterexamples to an old earth]] exist and the discovery in the Northwest of "giant ripple marks, 50 feet high and 200-500 feet apart" proved that a cataclysmic flood did indeed occur. As a result, "[a]mong geologists, the concept of a catastrophic flood came to be accepted by the late 1950s."<ref>http://www.iafi.org/floods.html</ref>

===Continental drift===
[[Continental drift]] was first proposed by a creationist in 1859 based on Genesis 1:9-10, which implies that all of dry land was in one place.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c001.html#1</ref> [[Atheists]] mocked the concept for about 100 years, until finally accepting its truth.

=== Underwater springs ===

Only in moderns times have scientists become aware of enormous underwater springs feeding into the oceans, and the very deep valleys at the bottom of the oceans.

But the Bible repeatedly describes this thousands of years earlier: "on that very day '''''the deep subcrustal springs were broken open''''', and the windows of the sky were thrown open." ([[Genesis_1-8_%28Translated%29#Chapter_7|Genesis 7:11 (CBP)]], emphasis added). And again, in 2 Samuel 22:16, the Bible says, "And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered ...." ([[KJV]])

=== Agriculture ===

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, intellectuals insisted that the world's population would grow larger than the food supply, resulting in mass starvation. Yet there are examples in both the Old and New Testaments of the food supply increasing to be more plentiful than expected. Indeed, by 2011 obesity was far more prevalent and harmful than hunger.

== History ==

The Bible describes a [[Great Flood]] occurring around 3300 B.C., or about 5300 years ago. It involved a cataclysmic rainstorm of a magnitude never seen before or since. For centuries atheists have denied its possibility.

In 1991, an "ice mummy" was discovered: a remarkably preserved ancient body, including even the contents of his last meal, due to an extraordinary ice storm in the [[Alps]]. By scientific dating the occurrence of this massive ice storm in the mountains (and rainstorm below) was 5300 years ago.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/icemummies/iceman.html</ref>

=== False Theories ===

Jesus's recognition that the truth would remain hidden from arrogant intellectuals while simultaneously revealed to humbler, [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|openminded]] people. This foreshadowed the promotion of theories to pull self-centered intellectual wannabees away from [[God]], based on the [[Theory of Evolution]], [[Theory of Relativity]], [[homosexual agenda]], [[abortion]], [[communism]], etc.

==Health, Biology and Medicine==

===Common DNA===

[[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_1|John 1:3]] explains that "All things were made by Him; not one thing was made without Him." If something had been made without Him then creatures would exist that had completely different DNA from other creatures.

===Eighth Day Blood Clotting Factors===

In Genesis 17:12, God mandated that Abraham circumcise his sons on the 8th day after birth. In 1935, it was discovered that Vitamin K, together with prothrombin, causes blood coagulation, (important in any surgical procedure). On the 8th day, the amount of prothrombin present is elevated above 100% of normal and is therefore the only day in the male’s life in which this will be the case (normally). If surgery is to be performed, day 8 is the perfect day to do it as vitamin K and prothrombin levels are at their peak.

===Lifespan===

The Bible put the maximum lifespan for man at 120 years (Genesis 6:3), the typical lifespan at 70 years and the typical for a good-living person at 80 years (Psalm 90:10).

Thousands of years after that was written, despite immense advances in medicine and technology, these figures remain remarkably accurate. The longest recorded life of a man is precisely 120 years (Shigechiyo Izumi), the average lifespan for a man is roughly 70 years, and the average for a good-living man is about 80 years.

[[Jeanne Calment]] lived to age 122, only two years past 120. She was said to have never worked and used olive oil on her skin, outliving many of of her [[feminist]] counterparts.

===Oldest Human Ancestor===

The Bible suggests that the oldest maternal ancestor — [[Eve]] — first lived slightly more than 6000 years ago.<ref>http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/ussher.html</ref> The mutation rate of [[mitochondria]] indicates roughly the same date for the oldest common human ancestor.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Mitochondrial_Eve_lived_only_6500_years_ago_%28Talk.Origins%29</ref>

===Anesthesia===

The first surgical operation described in the Bible was the removal of a rib from [[Adam]], which was performed by first putting Adam into an unconscious, "deep sleep-like trance."<ref>[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 2:21]]</ref> This was the equivalent of anesthesia — thousands of years before anesthesia using inhaled ether was developed by William Morton in 1846. Had scientists and physicians been more [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|openminded]] about Genesis 2:21 (perhaps they had considered it a miracle, and thus impossible for humans to achieve), they may have discovered anesthesia far sooner, and saved many more lives.

===Bloodletting hastens death===

At the time of Jesus and for centuries afterward, arteries and veins were thought to be filled with air, and blood was viewed as something to be used up rather than recirculate. Bloodletting -- the practice of intentionally draining blood from a patient -- was common medical practice through the time of [[George Washington]], hastening his death prematurely for reasons not understood until years later.<ref>http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/37212.php</ref>

Most victims of crucifixion in Roman times languished on the cross for days. But the Bible describes how Pilate, who crucified many, was surprised at how quickly Jesus passed away. 2000 years later, scientific knowledge has advanced to understand that this was caused by his prior loss of blood during his scourging (being brutally whipped), a punishment typically given ''instead of'' crucifixion.

===Homosexuality and disease===
The Bible's prohibition against [[homosexuality]] predated knowledge about the [[Homosexuality and Health|many diseases and disorders associated with homosexuality]], and thus showed scientific wisdom prescient for its time.

=== Eyesight ===

The description in the [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Gospel of Mark 8:24]] for the sensation when one's eyesight is restored includes his perception of "trees walking." This perception was first confirmed nearly 2000 years later as physicians developed medical techniques for restoring eyesight.<ref>This newspaper account is not specific but describes the overall sensation of restored sight: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-138886/Robot-eye-restore-lost-sight-20-years.html]</ref>

=== Maximum Human Height ===

Atheists thought the size of [[Goliath]] in the Bible to be absurdly large (over nine feet tall), until [[Robert Wadlow]] grew to nearly 9 feet tall and was still growing when he died at a young age in 1940.

=== Quarantining Against Leprosy Epidemics ===

Although leprosy is not as contagious as other infectious diseases, and some forms of it (such as tuberculoid or paucibacillary form are not contagious), Leviticus 13 and 14 set forth rules to prevent epidemics of this disease among the people of Israel. Western science did not catch up until, in 1663, such laws were introduced in America in an attempt to curb an outbreak of smallpox.

Centuries ahead of medical science, Jesus subsequently explained that leprosy was not as contagious as people thought.

=== Hygiene ===

Millennia before germ theory was proposed in the late 19th century, Leviticus 15 mandated hygiene laws that included bathing, washing of clothing, destruction of contaminated pottery and washing of hands.

In Matthew 15:2, Jesus then curbed compulsive hand-washing by explaining why it n no longer typically necessary (in a non-farming, non-medical context) with respect to man's digestive system.

=== Digestive System ===

It was common thought throughout history that infections and illness resulted from the digestive system, based on unclean hands or food. Jesus rejected that view, and declared hand-washing before meals to be typically unnecessary. It took many centuries before science caught up to the Bible on this.

It is part of the Jewish kosher law to not eat milk with meat. In some Jewish homes they have separate refrigerators for meat and milk products. It comes from Deuteronomy 14:21 "...Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk." There is evidence that the body has difficulty digesting both meat and milk at the same time.

Also, as part of the Jewish kosher law a pork is on the list of prohibited foods. Under cooked pork can transmit Trichinosis, a parasitic disease that can infect muscle tissue, the brain, and the central nervous system, among other [[parasite]]s and zoonotic diseases. [[Creation denial|Creation deniers]] can counter this point only with such desperate non-arguments as asking why God had to create trichinae at all and then allow them onto the [[Ark]].

=== Feasibility of [[Abiogenesis]] ===
Although scientists dismissed ideas involving [[Abiogenesis|abiogenesis]], or the process from which life emerges from nothing, as nothing more than archaic beliefs in [[spontaneous generation]], the Bible very clearly depicts an occurrence of this phenomenon, for beginning in Genesis 1:20, [[God]] creates life from nothing. It was not until the early 20th century that science finally began to accept the viability of abiogenesis, a view that the Bible had held for almost 2000 years, except that [[atheists]] falsely claim that abiogenesis is somehow possible without a creator.

=== Awareness while Unborn ===
[[Abortion]] advocates argue that it is ok to terminate a baby while dismissing the pain inflicted by ending an innocent life. They argue that a fetus cannot feel pain because senses are incomplete. There is a heart-beating human in the womb that can feel even though still unborn and developing. In modern times, we now know the baby in the womb is alert, aware of their mother's emotions, recognizes voices, responds to stimuli and music. The Bible tells us the baby feels (1 Luke 44), ''"the babe leaps for joy in Elizabeth’s womb at the sound of Mary’s voice."'' The inwomb developing baby, John the Baptist, notices the presence of the unborn [[Lord]] in [[Mary]], and is excited. In addition (St. Paul to the Galatians 1:15), ''"God… from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace."'' Paul's very first thought, feeling awareness, began while unborn.

=== Embalming ===

[[Mark_9-16_(Translated)#Chapter_14|Mark 14:3-8]] describes an embalming process to preserve a body after death, which was not discovered in the West until 1867.

=== The significance of blood ===

The Old Testament teaches that the [[life]] of all flesh is its [[blood]] ({{Bible ref|book=Leviticus|chap=17|verses=13-14|version=KJV}}). Secular science remained ignorant of the properties and circulation of blood until the 17th century A.D.<ref>http://books.google.com.au/books?id=OPOu1UgIKjYC&lpg=PA364&dq=%22but%20not%20scientifically%20tested%20and%20proved%20until%20the%2017th%20century%22&pg=PA365#v=snippet&q=%22not%20scientifically%20tested%20and%20proved%20until%20the%2017th%20century%22&f=false</ref>

=== Menstruation ===

The Biblical laws concerning [[menstruation]], including the setting apart of the menstruating woman and the prohibition on intimacy during menstruation, address health concerns that were not known to secular science until the 20th century.<ref>Neuburger, Max. History of Medicine. Oxford University Press, 1910, Vol. I, p. 38.</ref> Also, modern science has only very recently discovered that following such rules dramatically reduces the rate of [[illegitimacy]].<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120604182027.htm How Religion Promotes Confidence About Paternity]</ref>

=== Cloning ===

{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=2|verses=21-22|version=KJV}} records that God made a [[woman]] out of one of [[Adam]]'s [[rib]]s. Secular scientists did not believe that [[cloning]] such a complex organism (apart from plants) was possible until 1997.<ref>[http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml Cloning Fact Sheet]</ref>

===Inbreeding===

Leviticus 18:7-11 elaborates in detail the relationships it regards as incestuous unions, to forbid inbreeding. Secular science was able to scientifically explain the mechanisms and risks of inbreeding only in modern times.

==Cosmology==

===The Starlight Problem===

The [[Starlight Problem]] confounds all theories about the universe: light has reached us from stars that are too far away to transmit the light within the age of the universe. But Genesis explains this easily: "let there be light" means that God created light, not merely stars.

===Planet Formation at Dawn of Universe===

Theories of an old universe insisted that planet formation did not occur until long after the origin of the universe, contrary to the [[Book of Genesis]]. But in 2012 scientists announced the existence of planets that formed "at dawn of universe."<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0330/Planets-found-at-dawn-of-universe-but-their-existence-is-a-mystery</ref>

===UFOs and Extraterrestrial Life===

For most of the 20th century, scientists typically believed in the existence of extraterrestrial life, despite the lack of any reference to it in the [[Bible]]. After spending many billions of dollars looking for such life, and investigating countless reports of UFOs, no such life has been found.

===Number of Stars===

The [[Bible]] repeatedly refers to the number of stars as being innumerable,<ref>''See'' Genesis 15:5, Jeremiah 33:22 and Hebrews 11:12.</ref> despite scientists insisting throughout most of history that there were only about 6000 stars. In the early 17th century [[Galileo]] turned a telescope to the heavens and discovered a great number of stars that had been previously invisible to the naked eye.<ref>http://galileo.rice.edu/lib/student_work/astronomy95/orionpleiades.html</ref>

Not until the 20th century did scientists discover the tremendous number of stars:<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/22/stars.survey/index.html</ref>

:There are "10 times as many stars as grains of sand on all the world's beaches and deserts," totaling "7 followed by 22 zeros or, more accurately, 70 sextillion.

But even that scientific estimate was much too low. On December 1, 2010, scientists admitted:<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/1201/Universe-might-hold-three-times-more-stars-than-previously-thought</ref>

:"a cosmic embarrassment of riches – ''the universe appears to hold three times the number of stars many [[astronomer]]s might have estimated only a year ago''."

===Each Star is Unique===
Although the use of telescopes to chart the outer-reaches of God's heavenly creation was developed around the 16th century in Europe, the Bible accurately hypothesized that every star is unique.

"There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory"- 1 Corinthians 15:41 <ref>http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml</ref>

===Spherical Earth===
The Book of Isaiah establishes that the true shape of the earth is a sphere:
{{cquote|He sits above the sphere of the earth, and its inhabitants look to him like grasshoppers. He stretches out the galaxies like a curtain, spreading them out like a tent to live under: - [[Isaiah_34-42_(Translated)#Chapter_40|Isaiah 40:22 (CBP]])}}

Note that Isaiah was written circa the 8th century BC, centuries before Greek philosophers, beginning with [[Pythagoras]], theorized the earth was round.

=== Earth free floating in space ===
The book of Job states that God "hangs the earth on nothing." It also contrasts with pagan mythologies such as [[Atlas]] holding up the earth or the earth being supported by a giant turtle, as in ancient Hindu and native American myths.

The Bible presaged the modern view that space is in fact empty, which wasn't known until the dawn of the 20th century when ether theories became disfavored.

=== Darkness, and Unexplained Ripples in Cosmic Background Radiation ===

[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis Chapter 1]] explains that [[God]] created light first, rather than merely stars. A "big bang" would result in light everywhere, without darkness, and without ripples in cosmic background radiation. Yet in the 21st century ripples were discovered in cosmic background radiation, which can only be plausibly explained by recognizing that light was created first.

=== Meteoroids ===
The Revelation of Saint John notes,
{{cquote|And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood; And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed. Revelation 8:8-9 (KJV)}}
This accurately describes meteoroids, essentially large chunks of rock lit on fire by the shock of entering the earth's atmosphere. They were not discovered until 1801, and their composition was not otherwise known until the 20th century.

=== Stellar proper movement ===
In [[Job]], there is a list of challenges that are constructed in the form of questions, with the idea that man can't do it, but God can.

Among those challenges, two are remarkable: one mentions the ''untying'' of Orion's belt, and the other is the ''binding'' of the Pleiades. One recently astronomers could measure the proper movement of those stars; Orion's belt is moving apart, with each star going in a different direction, while the Pleiades are moving together.

=== Space flight ===
Many theorize that the book of [[Ezekiel]] contains descriptions of spaceships and rockets, as they would have been described by someone thousands of years ago. [http://www.spaceshipsofezekiel.com/ Author Blumrich] has even published an entire book about this.

===Expanding universe===
The [[Bible]] explains, in 17 different verses, that [[God]] "stretched out" the heavens,<ref>http://www.creationists.org/God-streched-out-the-universe-bible-verses.html</ref> in other words, expanding the fabric of space-time from a smaller size to a much larger one. Scientists have discovered only in the last 100 years that, by studying the red shift of galaxies, the universe indeed appears to be expanding, or "stretching out."

== Meteorology ==
=== Existence of the [[Jet Stream]] ===
Ecclesiastes 1:6 notes, "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits." This described the jet stream long before its 19th-20th century discovery.

=== Water cycle ===

The existence of the water cycle was not known until imperial Roman times, but the Bible described it over a thousand years before that!
See [[Ecclesiastes]] 11:3, [[Job]] 26:8 and [[Amos]] 9:6

== Physics ==

=== Impossibility of a Grand Unified Theory ===

Billions of dollars and millions of hours have been wasted by [[atheists]] in futile pursuit of a "grand unified theory" for physics. But [[Genesis_1-8_(Translated)#Chapter_1|Genesis]] explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of unification with matter.

=== Light and Color ===

Prior to the work of [[Isaac Newton]], white was considered to be the fundamental color of light, and other colors (such as red, green and blue) were formed by adding to white light. Under that traditional theory, the fullness of all light (a combination of all colors of light) would result in something other than pure white.

The transfiguration of Jesus is described with remarkable consistency in all three synoptic [[Gospel]]s: in the fullness of light Jesus and his clothing display an intense white, whiter than any bleach could produce. This illustrates what was not discovered and accepted until nearly 1700 years later: that white is the combination of other fundamental colors, and the purest white light is formed by a perfectly full combination (see [[Prism]]).

=== Action-at-a-distance ===

[[Jesus]] demonstrated [[action-at-a-distance]], as recounted in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]]. Scientists, particularly [[atheists]], denied the possibility of this phenomenon for thousands of years. When Newton proposed action-at-a-distance as the basis of gravity, scientists continued to reject it, but eventually accepted it as being true.

Later the [[Theory of Relativity]] again denied the possibility of action-at-a-distance, but [[quantum mechanics]] subsequently proved that it does occur.<ref>See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].</ref>

=== Quantum Mechanics ===

==== Observation of the Wave Function ====
The second chapter of the [[Gospel of John]] describes the conversion of water into wine by [[Jesus]] at a wedding reception. [[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_2|John 2:9]] states: "When the host of the wedding feast tasted the water, it had been made into wine." This passage implies that the drink was not wine until it had been tasted, or observed. Possibly, the drink was a superposition of the state of wine and the state of water until it was observed as wine.

The miraculous [[Essay:Calming the Storm|calming of the storm]] is typically translated as the result of a "rebuke" by [[Jesus]] of the bad weather. But a closer look at the Greek reveals that the key term means "judge" rather than "rebuke", and thus it was the act of Jesus observing the chaos that caused it to "collapse" into an orderly state, similar to the effect of observing a wave function.

In Matthew 16:19, Jesus draws a then-unusual distinction between what is fixed and what is uncertain by declaring, "Whatever you make binding on earth will be binding in heaven, and whatever you set loose on earth will be set loose in heaven."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Matthew_10-19_%28Translated%29&oldid=870778#Chapter_16</ref> This may describe the fundamental uncertainty that continues unless and until there is human observation that then causes the wave function to collapse into a particular ("bound") state.

==== [[Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle]] ====

Both the Old and New Testaments refer to a fundamental uncertainty that requires observation to resolve, akin to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle discovered in the 1920s:

* "The earth came to exist in an utterly formless and empty state." [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 1:2]].
* The master refusing to order the removal of the weeds sowed among the wheat because of the uncertainty in distinguishing between the two until later: [[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)|Matthew 13:24-30]].

==== Wave-Particle Duality ====

Particles are subject to gravity; waves are not. Wave-particle duality, first discovered in the 20th century, allows for a particle to sometimes be subject to gravity and sometimes not.

The wave-particle duality was described nearly 2000 years earlier in the Gospel account of Jesus walking on water: [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Mark 6:45-54]]. A close reading of the passage reveals the wave-like (or light-like) characteristic of the walking on water:
{{cquote|he walked on the surface of the lake and came to the boat, ''nearly passing it''. But when they saw him walking on water, they thought it must have been ''a ghost'', and cried out.}}
[[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Mark 6:48-49]] (italics added).

In a more general sense, [[Jesus]] could be viewed as the "particle" and the [[Holy Spirit]] as the "wave" of [[God]]. A fuller understanding of the [[Trinity]] could have opened the eyes of scientists much earlier to the fundamental wave-particle duality of nature ... and still could.

==== Quantum tunneling ====

[[Quantum tunneling]] is the ability of particles to move through energy barriers even though ostensibly impossible based on classical laws of mechanical physics. This was not discovered by scientists until the 20th century.

[[Jesus]] proved this was possible in [[John_15-21_(Translated)#Chapter_20|John 20:26]], when he appeared before the [[Apostles]] in a closed room with completely shut doors.

=== Classical Relativity ===
Romans 10:6-7: But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).

Equating ascending into heaven to bringing Christ down is an example of the fact that there is no universal reference frame, and only relative speeds matter.

=== Modern Relativity ===
The [[Theory of Relativity]] denies the possibility of action-at-a-distance. But several passages in the Bible, such as [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]] and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)|Matthew 27:51]], describe simultaneous actions from afar.

The list of [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] has grown recently, and modern experiments in [[quantum mechanics]] have confirmed action-at-a-distance.

=== [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] ===

The [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Book of Genesis]] states that the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order. This same concept was not discovered in physics until the development of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which holds that heat (or order or light) always travels in the direction of cold (or disorder or darkness), and never in the opposite direction.

[[Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)#1:10-11|Hebrews 1:10-11]] explains that the universe shall "wear out" like a "garment", centuries before the discovery of the physical law that [[entropy]] is always increasing.

=== The nature of air ===

Until about 300 years ago, common knowledge believe that the air was "empty" and didn't weigh anything. But [[Job]] 28:25 says "To establish a '''weight''' for the wind, And apportion the waters by measure" indicating that the divinely inspired author knew the air had substance and weight.

== Mathematics ==

=== [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] ===
The only miracle described in all four [[Gospels]] is the multiplication of loaves and fish by [[Jesus]], thought for thousands of years to be a mathematical and physical impossibility. But the 20th century discovery of the so-called [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] proved a mathematical basis for creating identical copies of an object.

=== Axiomatization of Arithmetic ===
The full set of axioms for integer arithmetic may be found in the Bible, as demonstrated by J.C. Keister.<ref>http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/027a-MathandtheBible.pdf</ref> For example, [[Luke 9-16 (Translated)|Luke 12:52]] is a striking statement of the commutative law for addition: "For from this point forward there will be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three." This understanding presaged both later attempts at the axiomatization of arithmetic by Peano and the development of [[abstract algebra]] in the 19th and 20th centuries.

== Sociology ==

===Crime===

Mark 4:22 says how nothing can be hid, neither can anything be kept secret. Empirical statistics show that the vast majority of crimes worldwide are solved.

== Zoology ==

===Inability of Animals to Understand Morality===

[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 3:1-10]] explains that only humans understand good and evil, and clothe themselves because of it. Repeatedly scientists have attempted to demonstrate that animals can understand morality also, but every attempt has failed. No animal (other than humans) has ever been found that clothes itself.

===Existence of dinosaurs===
[[Dinosaur]] fossils were not discovered until the 19th century, but the book of [[Job]] describes enormous creatures called behemoth, leviathan, cockatrice and satyr, the descriptions being similar to dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures. It may also have referred to another similarly giant now-extinct species.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp</ref>

===Lions' killing methods===

Until the 1970s naturalists believed that lions killed their prey by biting through the neck or by breaking the neck with a swat of a paw, while the Bible says that lions suffocated their prey. (Nahum 2:12) It was not until the 1970s that it was discovered that the [[Bible]] was correct.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm</ref> Lions fit their mouth over the mouth and nose of their prey and hold it while it suffocates, in addition to other killing methods.

=== Giant sea creatures and Jonah ===

The [[Jonah (Translated)|Book of Jonah]] describes his survival in the belly of a giant sea creature for 2.5 to 3 days. Scientists declared this to be impossible due to powerful stomach acids that quickly break down any material and the lack of breathable air inside marine animals.

In 2010, scientists found the following materials intact in the belly of a gray whale that had died after being stranded on a Northwest beach:<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/19/pair-sweat-pants-garbage-beached-whales-stomach/</ref>

*a pair of sweat pants
*a golf ball
*over 20 plastic bags
*small towels
*duct tape
*surgical gloves

Of course, many sea creatures have gone extinct in the thousands of years since Jonah lived.

===Worker ants===
Proverbs 6:6-8 correctly states the sex of worker [[ant]]s (female), using the correct one of the two [[Grammar#Gender|grammatical genders]] available in Biblical [[Hebrew]]. Secular entomologists would not discover that fact until the 19th century.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=rzwSAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA6&dq=ant+undeveloped+female+worker+date:1700-1850&lr=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES#v=onepage&q&f=false The study of medicine, Volume 5 By John Mason Good]</ref>

==Linguistics==

===Common Descent?===
The [[theory of evolution]] suggests that all languages are descended from a common ancestral language, and for a century (1860 to about 1960) scientists clung to that view. But now most linguists identify many different families of languages that have no common ancestor, just as described in Genesis 11 with the [[Tower of Babel]].

===Earliest Hebrew Writings===
Skeptics have claimed that [[Hebrew]] writing did not exist before the 6th century B.C. But a recent Israeli archaeological dig dated four centuries earlier, in the 10th century B.C., included an artifact found at Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Elah Valley. This artifact contained a written inscription in Hebrew relating to "slaves, widows and orphans." Haifa University Professor Gershon Galil noted that this disproves the theory that the Bible could not have been written before the 6th century.<ref>http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2010/01/08/Bible-may-be-centuries-older-than-thought/UPI-21171262997765/</ref>

== Economics ==

Jesus stated that there will always be poverty,<ref>See Mark 14:7, Matthew 26:11 and John 12.8.</ref> yet [[liberals]] repeatedly insist that poverty can be eliminated with more government spending. Every attempt to eliminate poverty has failed just as Jesus predicted. In 1991 [[Ronald Coase]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] in [[Economics]] for the [[Coase Theorem]], which implies that government attempts to reduced poverty will interfere with efficient operation of the economy, and thereby reduce wealth.

== Government and Politics ==

===Nation State===
Ancient Israel, as described in the [[Old Testament]], was a [[nation-state]] and that model was not utilized again until thousands of years later, well after the Renaissance in Western Europe. This model of a nation-state has become the modern standard worldwide.

===Separation of Powers===
The separation of powers adopted successfully by the [[U.S. Constitution]] in 1787, with the legislative, executive, and judicial branches having separate authority and jurisdiction, was first described in the Old Testament.<ref>See Jeremiah 17:19 and Isaiah 33:22.</ref>

===The Liberal Influence of the Media===
The Third [[Three Temptations of Christ|Temptation of Christ]] is to bow down and worship the [[Satan]] in exchange for becoming ruler of the world. The media plays that role and its influence is predictably [[liberal]] and anti-[[Christian]].

==Engineering examples==

Biblical scientific foreknowledge about these engineering developments has been proposed:<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2191</ref>
{{cquote|automobiles (Joel 2:3-4); airplanes (Isaiah 31:5, also 40:31); submarines (Revelation 9:1-11); radio (Ecclesiastes 10:20); and television (Revelation 11:3-12)}}
Classical photography, using negative imaging, was predated by the [[Shroud of Turin]] with respect to the imaging on the Shroud likely due to the light of the [[Resurrection]]. The Shroud ([[Greek]]: σινδών - sindón) is mentioned in three Gospels: Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53, while John 20:5-7 talks about a face cloth or napkin ([[Greek]]: σουδάριον - soudárion - perhaps the [[Sudarium of Oviedo]]), and a piece of fine linen ([[Greek]]: ὀθόνιον - othonion). The description by the eyewitness John implies that his sighting of the Shroud may have confirmed his [[faith]], though he doesn't mention its photograph-like image <ref>John Calvin, who opposed the Catholic Church, wrote a book in 1543 criticizing all material evidence of Jesus and the martyrs. In it he claimed that because the negative image on the Shroud is not described in the Gospels, it must not be authentic. [[John Calvin]]: ''Traité des Reliques'', Geneve 1543, translated by Valerian Krasinski: ''A treatise on Relics'', Edingburgh 1854</ref>.

== Alleged absurdities and contradictions ==

Biblical scientific foreknowledge is an underpinning of creation science, and is widely credited by Christian scientists and apologists, including the organizations [[Creation Ministries International]], [[Answers in Genesis]], and [[CreationWiki]].<ref>http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge.</ref><ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1718/</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref>

Atheists unsuccessfully attempt to discredit the Bible based on science. Here are some examples:

=== Bat as a bird ===
A favorite evolutionist canard is that Leviticus 11:13-19 labels the [[bat]], a [[mammal]], as a [[bird]]. But this is an obvious failure of translation, as the Hebrew term '' 'owph'' did not entail the "clade" of birds, but was a non-biological category referring to any winged creature, mammalian, avian, or insect. The KJV translation as "fowl" is simply incorrect.

=== Incorrect value of Pi ===
Two sections of the bible (1 Kings 7, 23-26, 2 Chronicles, 4, 2-5) appear to indicate that the correct value of [[Pi]] is 3, whereas Pi is in fact an irrational number, equalling approximately 3.14159. Atheists, including [[Sam Harris]] and [[Richard Dawkins]], allege that this value indicates the fallacious nature of scripture.<ref>The Richard Dawkins Foundation, ''Reply to a Christian'', Sam Harris - [http://richarddawkins.net/articles/139]</ref> However, a simple explanation of the claimed "contradiction" is that the Bible records the ratio of the actual object which Hiram created, not that of a mathematical [[sphere]]. The claim that it was round all about does not equate to a claim that it was a perfect sphere, as atheists have claimed.<ref>''Theology'', Volume 59, Issues 427-438, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (Great Britain), London, 1956, p. 23 </ref>

Moreover, [[Pi]], when expressed as one significant digit, is equal to 3.

==See Also==
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[The Bible]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Atheism]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible scientific foreknowledge] by [[CreationWiki]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Creationism]]

{{Template:Creation vs. evolution}}

Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness

2012-05-20T21:29:17Z

GMilhouse: I changed question 11 from "measure openmindedness" to "quantitatively measure openmindedness" - This is far more accurate wording for the purpose the question serves.

We quantify intelligence (IQ), academic performance (grades), body weight (pounds or kilograms), running speed, and all sorts of other personal characteristics. But perhaps more useful than any of those numbers would be a measure of open-mindedness.

By "open-mindedness" we mean a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea. We do not mean tolerance, or a rejection of absolute truth, or [[skepticism]]. Open-mindedness here means what the dictionary says: "receptive to arguments or ideas."<ref>http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=open-mindedness</ref>

One way to measure open-mindedness is to test for close-mindedness, and then take the converse. A subject for our measurement can be asked if he views certain proposals as impossible. By impossible we do not mean mathematically impossible, but so unlikely as to be considered absurd. Belief in impossibility is a sign of close-mindedness, because it reflects the unwillingness of the subject to be "receptive" to the possibility.
__NOTOC__
== Test Your Open-mindedness ==

# Do you resist admitting the possibility that a [[conservative]] approach to education is far more effective for students than a [[liberal]] one?
# 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?
# Do you resist admitting that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false?
# Do you resist the possibility that [[Hollywood values]] result in significant harm for those who believe in them, and to innocent bystanders?
# Do you think it is impossible that increased gun ownership reduces the rate of crime?
# 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? (Or for those who were not born/not old enough to have an opinion - Do you think it is impossible that North Korea and South Korea will reunite into a single country, without being the result of one invading the other?)
# Did you think, or still think, that the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] ("Star Wars") is impossible?
# Do you think that it is possible that the [[Shroud of Turin]] is authentic?
# 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?
# Do you think that it is impossible for the speed of light to have been different in the past?
# Do you think that it is impossible to quantitatively measure openmindedness?
# Do you think that [[evolution]] <ref>By "evolution" is meant the theory of evolution, especially universal common descent.</ref> ''must'' have occurred?
# 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?
# 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?
# Do you deny that some widely required theories of science, such as the [[evolution|theory of evolution]], may actually impede the progress of science?<ref>
*[http://creation.com/back-problems-how-darwinism-misled Back problems: how Darwinism misled researchers]
*[http://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-wired-retina-v-dawkins Backwardly wired retina “an optimal structure” New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins]
*[http://creation.com/stuart-burgess-interview-biomimetics Biomimetics - Expert engineer eschews “evolutionary design”]
*[http://creation.com/design-features-questions-and-answers Biometrics - Examples of Scientists copying nature]
*[http://creation.com/cutting-out-a-useless-vestigial-argument Cutting out a useless vestigial argument]
*[http://creation.com/junk-dna-functions More nails in the coffin of ‘junk DNA’]
*[http://creation.com/lingering-death-junk-dna The lingering death of junk DNA]
*[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer]
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/09/questions-for-evolutionists.html Questions for evolutions - Vox Day]</ref>
# 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?
# 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?
# 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?
# 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?

The above questions can be asked, and one's closed-mindedness can be scored based on how often they answered "yes" above. Answering more than half as "yes" reflects acute closed-mindedness.

== Follow-Up Questions ==

For each topic, a short set of follow-up questions is appropriate:

'''Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?'''

:1a. If no, then is that because you have never heard of it?

::1aa. If if you have never heard of it, then will you seriously consider the evidence?

::1ab. If you have heard of it, but have never seriously considered the evidence, then on this question you lose a point for lack of open-mindedness.

:2b. If yes, then how much time have you spent reviewing the evidence? What evidence did you look at?

::2ba. If less than 1 hour, then you lose a point for lack of open-mindedness.

::2bb. If more than 1 hour, then ... [Optional question: When, where, what and how did you review the evidence? If the answers are consistent with your claim of spending more than an hour, then ...] ... you gain a point for open-mindedness.

::2bc. If you have not reviewed the evidence due to lack of time or interest, have you formed an opinion about the idea anyway?

== Further Refinements ==

A more sophisticated approach would be to replace the time threshold (an hour in the above example) with an analog version or formula that converted time spent reviewing the evidence of a new idea into a a variable for openmindedness. For example, the open-mindedness variable O could be:

:<math>O = t/60</math>

where t is the time spent in minutes. O could then be summed over a series of topics, and normalized by dividing it by the number of topics.

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Essays]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-12-03T19:39:21Z

GMilhouse: /* Deleted example to releativity */

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

==Path Independence and Photons==
Wait, so time is some sort of vector field such that when you integrate it you get time? And that vector field is conservative? I've never heard of such a thing... 
As well, you state: "Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum." Yes, if you plug in the formula for non-relativistic, Newtonian momentum, you get zero, but SR gives you the equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2. Plug m=0 in. You get E=pc. So, the momentum is nonzero. That's a very well-known result... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 12:06, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:So should I take the "counter example" down...? Not to be rude but can someone at least respond to me? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:54, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
::Take it down, then if someone reverts (which is likely) it'll provoke a short discussion that probably won't reach a consensus. Regardless, you're unlikely to succeed in keeping it changed. I'm not trying to discourage, go ahead and try changing it, I'm just letting you know what to expect. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:33, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:::These are interesting points worthy of further discussion. As to the first point, however, merely asking two questions is not persuasive to me.

:::As to the second point, I find the argument somewhat circular. Is the energy equation cited verified by any experiment, or is it merely definitional? If merely definitional, then it does not provide a way for calculating actual momentum.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:54, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Well answer them. The point I'm making is that there is no vector field such that when integrates it, one gets time. I had never heard of it until then. I am asking you to enlighten me.
 
::::And as a matter of fact there is! The equation is E=hf where E is the energy of the photon, f is the frequency of the photon, and h is just a proportionality constant (known as Planck's constant). And it has been experimentally verified. It explains the spectrum from blackbody radiation and it explains the photoelectric effect. And if I recall correctly, your camera uses the photoelectric effect. These things are quite well known... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 14:55, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::Oh, and I forgot to mention--the Compton effect is explained by photons. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:00, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::::Please address my more substantive point: has your equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2 been experimentally verified, or is it simply definitional?

:::::::First of all, will you please answer my question...? What is the vector field such that when one integrates over it, one gets time? And oops. Misread your question. And no, it's not "definitional," it's from the relativistic expressions of energy and momentum... (And yes, those have been experimentally verified--if I recall correctly, using those equations, you can predict what can happen (i.e. speeds) when elementary particles are created. But I'm not particle physicist) Once you have those, just do a little algebra and you get that equation. And I hope you're not going to deny basic algebra....
 
:::::::Again, all this is well known.... Out of curiosity have you ever actually studied relativity or this photon stuff? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 13:39, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::OK, I've removed the counter-example of photons...I think I've provided a satisfactory explanation to Schlafly (and he's not responding for some reason...) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:50, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Schlafly, I saw you re-added the "counter-example." Will you please respond to me? Are you seriously just going to keep it there and refuse to discuss this at all? Wow and you claim that we're not open-minded.... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:45, 9 November 2011 (EST)

::::::::::Andy, there is no "counter-example of photons." Photons are not mentioned in the list. But are you referring to this counterexample:

:::::::::::28.Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.

::::::::::Let's be clear about what the dispute is first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 11 November 2011 (EST)

:::::::::::Yeah, that's the one. Sorry. Poorly-worded. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:29, 14 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::::::Will someone please tell me why (a) SR/GR promotes (moral) relativism, (b) photons aren't legit even though I've just pointed that your argument was wrong (maybe that's a bit generous. To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, I can't even say it's wrong...) and (c) what is the vector field such that when one integrates over it, one gets time? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 10:26, 27 November 2011 (EST)

==FTL Neutrinos at LHC ==

It may be jumping the gun to put the finding from Friday as evidence against GR. The results have yet to be duplicated - duplicability is needed for a claim to have scientific merit - and have yet to be carefully peer reviewed. The results are significant at the 95% CI but that means there's a 1 in 20 chance they're actually inaccurate. Given how many measurements are made at the LHC some are going to be both statistically significant and incorrect. It may be more prudent to wait to see if it's a one off or measurement error. I propose waiting at least until other particle acceleration labs can attempt to duplicate the results to make any judgement; after all, that's what CERN is doing
--[[User:BillyWest|BillyWest]] 00:18, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:I disagree. The opposition to the results from CERN -- which confirm prior results from another laboratory which were not as precise -- is unreasonable. It's not necessary to continue to pretend that Relativity is true when there is so much evidence against it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:35, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::CERN itself hasn't even confirmed the results. The data was published a lot quicker than data usually is because if it is accurate, then it changes the majority of physics laws discovered in the past century. The theory of relativity is not the only theory/law which involves the speed of light, electromagnetism does as well. Because of this, CERN wanted other scientists to try and find a flaw in the experiment quickly so that if there is a flaw, it is found quickly, and if there isn't, then scientists can begin determining what needs to change in order to accomodate this. Once the data has been properly analysed, without prematurely jumping to conclusions, then it would be fair to say that the neutrinos traveled faster than the speed of light. But something to keep in mind: this is not the first experiment done with neutrinos, all of the prior ones having travelled slower than the speed of light. If you do an experiment 500 times, and each results has a 1/1000 chance of being inaccurate, there is a 40% chance that at least one result will be inaccurate. If they find an error in the experiment (such as a piece of the measuring equipment being broken, or poor calibration of equipment, or leftover neutrinos from previous experiments, or any other impacting error), then wouldn't it make conservapedia look silly for jumping to a conclusion too quickly? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The CERN experiment is not the only one suggesting faster-than-c travel. Moreover, there is no basis for doubting the news that something travels faster than c. Most of the objections in the media are based in an irrational clinging to Relativity. Hence the counterexample is being restored ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Looks like they've found the problem already: there was a flaw with the experiment.http://www.dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php This article basically says that they used GPS to measure the locations and the times. However, because the satellite used moves at a different speed to the Earth, relativity needs to be taken into account. Usually, relativity has no significant effect until speeds get nearish the speed of light. However, the neutrinos travelled 60 nanoseconds faster than light. Because it's nanoseconds, the speed difference of the Earth and the satellite is enough that relativity affects the experiment at the nanosecond level. Scientists have done calculations to determine how this changes the results (as because of the flaw, the results they got weren't actually accurate), and found that the neutrinos actually travelled for 64 seconds longer than they previously thought, making their speed very slightly less than the speed of light. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 18:02, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

: No, this explanation has not been accepted. There have been many other papers with other explanations. The jury is still out. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:33, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Paul Johnson, the renowned historian, explains the link -- and the significance of the link -- between relativity and moral relativism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:57, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
:Do you have a link for that? It seems pretty flimsy to me. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:10, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::Ah right, I found some stuff! It appears that Johnson acknowledged that there was no ACTUAL link between the two, but pointed out how many liberals CLAIM a link. That seems pretty close to what the article is saying, so my edit probably wasn't the best idea I've ever had, and as a bonus I've learned something interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain rather than just blocking me :-S --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:17, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Have you read Tribe's article applying the curvature of space to support liberal views?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, I haven't. Is it easy to find? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: You can find it here [http://blog1.darkbuzz.com/tribe-1989.htm] or a pdf here [http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/~wat4y/103_Harv._L._Rev._1,_.PDF][http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~daw/D_Realism/Tribe.pdf]. On a college campus, you might be able to get it here.[http://www.jstor.org/pss/1341407] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Relativity and Electromagnetism ==
It is often claimed that Relativity is proven by its ability to explain aspects of electromagnetism. But those aspects do not relate to physical mass, gravity or various frames of reference throughout the universe -- the basic claims of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: Lorentz used electromagnetic relativity to predict relativistic mass in 1899, and it was experimentally confirmed a couple of years later. Poincare used E=mc2 for radiation in 1900. So I think that electromagnetic aspects of relativity do relate to physical mass. They also relate to various frames of reference, as electromagnetic experiments were done at different times of the year to test different frames of reference in the Earth's orbit. Gravity and electromagnetism are separate forces, and I guess it is fair to say that relativistic aspects had to be tested separately. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Most of the counterexamples to Relativity relate to gravity; some relate to the claim that all (non-accelerating) frames of reference are the same everywhere in the universe. The essence of Relativity is its claims about gravity and space. Electromagnetism experiments have nothing to do with this, and do not confirm any of these "grand unified" assertions of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:12, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: You have to distinguish between general relativity, which is about gravity, and special relativity, which isn't.
::: Anyway, Newtonian mechanics is not consistent with Maxwell's equations while relativity (both special and general) is. Do you deny Maxwell's equations, Aschlafly? If you accept Newtonian mechanics, you have to. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: Also, it should be noted that Einstein's famous 1905 paper (which was very important in the history of relativity) is entitled ''On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies''. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:30, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Again, a big part of the objection to Relativity is its "grand unified" approach. The insistence on that view is simply not scientific, and is contrary to the data.

::::: There are different forces in nature. There really are, and they really are different. That's what the data show.

::::: Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light. None of that exists in electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: ''Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light'' -> No. Light travels the speed of light in special relativity. Any massless particle does as well.
:::::: ''None of that exists in electromagnetism'' -> A charged particle with a velocity less than the speed of light definitely falls under the domain of electromagnetism.
:::::: Again, Maxwell's equations and Newtonian mechanics are inconsistent. You can't have both. The fact that other forces exist is irrelevant. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:56, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Special relativity makes no predictions, and only assumptions, about the speed of light. Instead, special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light.
::::::: When the claim is made that Relativity explains electromagnetism, the claim is not referring to charged particles traveling less then the speed of light.
::::::: Your statement that Maxwell's equations and Newtownian mechanics are somehow inconsistent needs explanation. They describe completely different forces.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Special relativity predicts the speed of light is the same regardless of orientation of the observer, which is consistent with the Michelson–Morley experiment. It also predicts that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer, which is consistent with the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment.
:::::::: You said velocities less than the speed of light not exist in electromagnetism. This was clearly false.
:::::::: I already mentioned that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under Galilean transformation, yet are under Lorentz transformations. This is very well known. If you want the exact details see [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.165.5841&rep=rep1&type=pdf On the Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=19TCz0cxAFMC&pg=PA484&lpg=PA484&dq=%22maxwell's+equations%22+invariant+under+%22lorentz+transformation%22&source=bl&ots=gudaGknbwi&sig=9idd1t_o89t5RUSLcemoMq7hNjc&hl=en&ei=eq9SToXdHuTH0QHig62-Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CHQQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=%22maxwell's%20equations%22%20invariant%20under%20%22lorentz%20transformation%22&f=false Understanding Physics, Invariance of electromagnetism under Lorentz transformation]. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: Special relativity says that the speed of light is constant. Maxwell's theory says that same thing, as does the Michelson-Morley experiment. It can be said to be an assumption or a prediction, depending on what textbook you are reading. At any rate, it is testable, and has been confirmed in many ways (for light in a vacuum). It was tested in outer space before testing on Earth. Relativity certainly also makes predictions about charged particles traveling less then the speed of light. The biggest prediction is the formula known as the Lorentz force law. This was an important part of relativity as decribed by Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein. The Lorentz force law used to be considered part of Maxwell's equations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:49, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: These are interesting mathematical observations, having aesthetic value. They can suggest the existence of an intelligent designer.

::::::::: But the physical significance of these mathematical observations is scant or non-existence. Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light, and claims made by special relativity with respect to such motion are not verified by electromagnetism. Claims made by general relativity are not verified at all by electromagnetism.

::::::::: I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics. I'm not saying that Newtonian mechanics must be correct, but some criticisms of it do not withstand scrutiny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Yes, electromagnetism does involve particles moving close enough to the speed of light for relativistic effects to be important. Examples include the electron gun in an ordinary CRT TV set, electric motors, speakers, and just about any electronic device. These are not new. The earliest non-optical tests of special relativity were the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments] They started in 1901 based on Lorentz's relativity, and pre-date Einstein. They show that mass increases with velocity so that nothing goes faster than light. In Newtonian mechanics, the speed of light is not an obstacle. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:13, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::: ''"Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light."'' -> [[Particle accelerator]] use electromagnetic fields to move particles close to the speed of light.
::::::::::: ''"I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics."'' -> The observed constancy of speed of the speed of light (an electromagnet wave) does. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:16, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I have an open mind about this, and would like to learn more. I wasn't familiar with the Kaufmann-Bucherer-Neumann experiments but didn't get much out of the Wikipedia description of them in the above link. Is there a clearer, more objective explanation that doesn't end with a sweeping, unsupported claim of proof of Relativity?

:::::::::::: The two most prominent claims of proof of Relativity -- the perihelion advance of Mercury and the binary pulsar -- are now counterexamples and the most precise data are not being made available to the public. So something isn't adding up in favor of Relativity.

:::::::::::: The lack of scientific basis for Relativity leaves it defenseless against another unscientific theory: string theory. Before long it may become important to list counterexamples to string theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Can I start [[counterexamples to string theory]] now? Its a good excuse for me to learn! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:57, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Please do! Also, Max, did you see the answer to your question about how Relativity is used by [[liberals]] to advance their belief system? I can repost the links if you didn't see them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Great, I'll look into String Theory (I don't know much about it) and get on to writing something. Having a project to work on is a great incentive to learn new topics. please do post those links, thanks!

::::::::::::::::I see the links are posted just above this subheading, under "You can find it here"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Ah yes, now I see. I'll read those tonight. Thanks! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:46, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: The Mercury and binary pulsar observations were used to support the gravity theory, and relativity remains the most accurate explanation. Andy, you asked about electromagnetism, not gravity. There is no way to understand electromagnetism without relativity, as far as I know. The Kaufmann experiments were supposed to disprove relativity. More precise experiments were consistent with relativity, as with all the other electromagnetic experiments. Just turn on an old-style TV set with a tube. How do you think that those pixels get lit up? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:16, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: There is some overlap between the invariant equations for electromagnetism and for relativity. The electromagnetism invariant equations came first, so I think the better description would be that one cannot understand relativity without understanding electromagnetism, not vice versa. But what that has to do with gravity is far from clear. In fact, it probably has nothing to do with gravity. Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism, because no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism.

::::::::::::: It's not relativity that lit up the pixels on an old TV screen. Quantum mechanics has more to do with that than relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:32, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ''Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism'' -> Untrue. Quantum electrodynsmics (QED) combines special relativity, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. A Nobel Prize for its discovery was awarded to Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga in 1965.

:::::::::::::: ''no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism'' -> Also untrue. QED predictions are accurate within 12 significant digits, making it the most accurate theory we have. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:17, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: By my count, Nobel prizes were given for relativistic electromagnetism were given in 1902, 1907, 1933, 1945, 1965, 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1999. Prizes for relativistic gravity were given in 1978, 1983, and 1993. The list is here.[http://www.almaz.com/nobel/physics/physics.html] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

@Andy Schlafly: Relativity predicts that no particle with mass can go the speed of light or faster. How do you explain that no particle accelerator has been able to get a massive particle at or above the speed of light? How do you explain the results that the inertial mass increases with velocity, as relativity predicts? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:00, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:PArticle accelerators don't. CERN (the biggest one) gets them exceedingly close, but not above. It's something like 99.999% of C. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:59, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: Relativity assumes that, rather than predicts it. I think relavitist purists would actually say all that is needed is a maximum velocity, whether that is "c" or something else. Many would not be genuinely surprised if velocities slightly faster than ''c'' are ultimately attained, and ''c'' itself may be changing over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:36, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

: Historically, the constant speed of light was an empirical observation, and not just an assumption. Maxwell's theory predicted that electromagnetic waves traveled at the speed of light, and that was observed. It was one of the big reasons for concluding that light was an electromagnetic wave. Experiments like Michelson-Morley (1887) found a constant speed of light. Also, there were astronomical reasons for believing in a constant speed of light. Distances were measured in light-minutes or light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant. Yes, Einstein declared the constant speed of light to be postulate in 1905, but by then it was a well-accepted empirical fact. Going faster than ''c'' or finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics that it would be like finding a perpetual motion machine. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:27, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Empirical data suggest that the speed of light has changed over time, and as recently as 1/6th of the universe's lifetime. [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html]

:: You comments, like "distances were measured in ... light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant," is a political statement, not a scientific one. Likewise for stating that "finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics ...." Is this what university science has become - ignoring the data to preserve the reputation of some current and past professors?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The article you linked to claims that "The speed of light...may have been lower as recently as two billion years ago." How do you reconcile that time frame with a Young Earth Creationist model where the universe is only 6000 years old? You cant reject that study on the one hand because it directly contradicts the Bible but embrace it on the other when it supports the idea of a shifting c. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 18:45, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: The linked article says there may have been a change in the fine structure constant, α, not necessarily the speed of light, c. Also, it hardly seems like a variable α is currently well-established. It's just the result from one set of data. But even accepting that there has been a change in α and that this means a change in c, the amount seems minuscule. The article says that α "had increased by a few parts in 105 in the past 12 billion years", which would correspond to a similar change in c. Therefore, even if c is not exactly constant it would be very nearly constant and relativity would still be a great approximation. That's ignoring that there may be a mundane explanation for this apparent change.
:::: Also, as BrentH mentions above, if you accept these results you have to accept that the universe is billions of years old. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: I was explaining historically why the speed of light was thought to be constant. It was not just some unproved Einstein relativity assumption. There was solid experimental and theoretical evidence before Einstein. There is no evidence for a variable speed of light. That 2004 paper claiming alpha changed has been superseded with a more accurate study in 2007, with no variation. [http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/the-oklo-reactor-and-varying-physical-constants/][http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0701019] Even if alpha changed, it would not necessarily mean that ''c'' changed. I am not sure why any of this is political. We can measure the speed of light to about 10 decimal places. If the speed were not constant, then an experiment would be likely to detect it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I wish you, Andy and I could have a drunken dinner together some time. That would be an epic debate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:17, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, what do you make of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation syncrotron radiation]? Here you have effects which can't be explained without relativity and which are used in many fields of research, e.g. in medicine... 08:28, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Wikipedia]] has many dubious claims that relativity explains something ... as one might expect from a [[liberal]] website. This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L] It appears that this may be unresolved and I welcome more discussion about it. I don't see evidence that relativity played a role in discovering it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Nearly everything about charged particles requires relativity and quantum mechanics. There is no alternative way to understand charged particles, as far as I know. I do not even know what it would mean to reject relativity for this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:12, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Relativity is an unproductive belief system, disproved by more precise measurements in the tests that supposedly verified it. String theory is taking over university physics programs because Relativity is so obviously flawed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 27 August

-
::::::: [[String theory]] assumes that relativity is 100% correct. Physicists pursue string theory because they are sold on Einstein's dream of using relativistic ideas to unify physics, without having to pay attention to experiments. They are ''not'' pursuing string theory because they are persuaded by your list of relativity counterexamples. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:47, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
:::::::: String theory's motivation is to provide a way to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity, so it assumes general relativity is a good description of nature. In fact, string theory becomes general relativity in the low energy limit. In addition, string theories are Lorentz invariant. Whatever the merits of string theory, relativity is incorporated fundamentally to it, so if anything this example speaks to the strength of relativity. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:11, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
::::::::: Andy Schlafly: ''"This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L]"''-> It also says (right in the abstract) that relativity ''must'' be taken into account:

-
::::::::::"However, '''when ɣB ≅ 1014 Gauss, where ɣ is the electron Lorentz factor, Compton scattering becomes important'''. The result is a reduction in the synchrotron loss rate which '''agrees closely with quantum electrodynamics'''." [Emphasis added]

-
::::::::: Both Compton scattering and quantum electrodynamics make use of special relativity. If you take a look at the equations in the paper you can see that special relativity is used explicitly. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:32, 27 August 2011 (EDT)2011 (EDT)

This discussion is interesting, and I'm learning from it. I have an open mind about this. But it seems to me that term "relativity" is being used in comments above to mean anything from "invariance" (which, of course, predates relativity), electromagnetism (which, of course, predates relativity), and even quantum mechanics (which many say conflicts with relativity). The only thing that "relativity" does not seem to mean in many of the above comments is its description of gravity -- which is what is unique to relativity and what most associate it with.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: The word "relativity" was coined by Maxwell, and it became popular from Poincare calling the "principle of relativity" the idea that different inertial frames are indistinguishable. When I said that string theory assumes relativity, I meant primarily that it assumes Lorentz/Poincare invariance. The influence of relativity on physics has been primarily in electromagnetism, not gravity. The nonlinear gravity effects are barely detectable. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:45, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:: * Again, general relativity is about gravity. Special relativity is not.
:: * No one is saying "quantum mechanics" means "relativity". However, the article you linked to referenced quantum electrodynamics (a subset of quantum mechanics) which does incorporate special relativity. Moreover, while general relativity and quantum mechanics are difficult to reconcile, special relativity and quantum mechanics aren't and doing so has produced [[Quantum electrodynamics|the most accurate theory in physics]].
:: * No one is saying "invariance" means "relativity". For example, Galilean invariance contradicts relativity. However, a special type of invariance, Lorentz invariance, is fundamental to both special and general relativity (it holds locally in general relativity). String theory is Lorentz invariant.
:: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:38, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Actually, there were some people around 1910 who wanted to rename relativity theory as invariant theory. Einstein is sometimes said to have agreed with that opinion, but I am not sure he really said that. There is some disagreement about whether relativity is compatible with quantum mechanics. The two main problem areas are collapse of the wave function during an observation, and gravitational nonlinearities at the center of a black hole. But these are a little off the subject. The theories are completely compatible for nearly all considerations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it. Most of the counterexamples here relate to the claims about gravity and the curvature of space that are made by general relativity. Special relativity, according to the theory, is a "special case" of the general theory. If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me.

:::: The mathematical theory of general or special relativity permits no exceptions. So even a slight variation (outside of measurement error) between observation and prediction means the theory is wrong. It means the worldview embodied in relativity is wrong. And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::: ''"Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it."''
::::: We encountered phenomena that none of these people had before. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the Michelson–Morley experiment, gravitational lensing, etc. Changing your worldview in light of new evidence is quite a sensible thing to do.
::::: ''"If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me."''
::::: It's not so much that, but that one must be careful to separate the two.
::::: ''"And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed."''
::::: They haven't been ignored. The data has been analyzed and it agrees with relativity. Just here we've given you the examples of the Michelson–Morley experiment, the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments, Kennedy–Thorndike experiment, synchrotron radiation, etc. We've also answered here your alleged counterexamples to relativity and the problems with them. If you have any more I'd be happy to address them.
::::: I'm not sure what data you're talking about that hasn't being publicly disclosed. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Special relativity is not so much a special case, but rather the linearized version of the general theory. The special theory has been tested in many more different ways, and it could be true without the general theory being true. I really don't think that relativity requires any different view from Maxwell's. Relativity is consistent with what Maxwell said. I really don't see why you would say that relativity does not permit any exceptions any more than Maxwells theory does not permit any exceptions. What's the difference? Theories have formulas. If observations don't agree with the formulas, then something is wrong. Why is relativity any different from any other theory in the hard sciences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:41, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Relativity should not be treated any differently compared with any other theory in the hard sciences. But Relativity obviously is:

::::::*physics journals will not accept for publication anything that conflicts with the theory of relativity
::::::*the Nobel Prize will not be given to anyone who has criticized the theory of relativity
::::::*no science graduate student or science professor dare even criticize the above two forms of censorship.

::::::As to the data, the two leading supposed verifications of the theory are the binary pulsar (for which a Nobel Prize was given) and the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it. Yet additional data have not been made fully available to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::: I have to say I had no idea of this bias until reading Conservapedia. It sounds shocking. Can you tell me which physicists have been denied awards, or refused publication on this basis? It would be really useful in arguments I'm having off-site. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:54, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: ''"But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it."''
:::::::: Can you please provide a source for this claim? What data are you talking about? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: A "source"? No source is needed, or possible given the censorship by physics journals I just described.

::::::::: Wouldn't you be at least interested yourself in looking up what the precession for the Mercury perihelion is, and comparing it to what Relativity predicts? I think that would be the first step before one made up his mind, not something that must be raised by someone else.

::::::::: The Mercury perihelion precession is 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, plus/minus 0.1. General Relativity predicts 5599.98, plus/minus 0.04. The observed precession is clearly outside of prediction by more than the standard of error. But beginning in the early 1990s, probably because of this emerging divergence, physicists stopped publishing the data perhaps to avoid pinpointing the contradiction with even greater accuracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: So by your own admission general relativity is within 0.005% of the correct value?
:::::::::: Anyway, where are you getting your information for the precession rate? From what I gather the error is larger than 0.1 arc-seconds per century.
::::::::::Some values for the anomalous precession rate (i.e, deviation from what you expect from Newtonain gravity):
:::::::::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
:::::::::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
:::::::::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
:::::::::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
:::::::::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]
:::::::::: General relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04, while Newtonian gravity predicts 0. Clearly general relativity is superior here. It's within experimental error in three out of the four experiments above, and just barely out of it with the fourth. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:22, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: The theory of relativity is proven wrong by the data, '''''beyond measurement error'''''. If you're not going to address that directly, then I'm unlikely to respond further to your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I really don't know what to say. I just showed that for four experiments of the precession of Mercury's perihelion relativity was within experimental uncertainty in three of them and just barely out of it for one. This is better that Newtonian theory which was zero for four. Measuring outside experimental uncertainty ''once'' doesn't automatically make a theory wrong. They are many differences between a simple, clean model and a complex, messy reality that can account for this. Even just by statistics alone you'd expect a correct theory to be outside measurement error once in a while. It still stands that relativity is more accurate than any other theory.
:::::::::::: If you have any citations of experiments that show relativity's predictions fall outside experimental uncertainty I'll be happy to address them. However, just declaring that it's outside experimental uncertainty, but you don't have the data because a relativity cabal is keeping it secret is doesn't merit a response. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:54, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: The most recent -- and most precise -- Mercury perihelion precession data '''''demonstrate that the [[theory of relativity]] is wrong by more than the measurement error'''''. Case closed based on the data.

::::::::::::: [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site. If someone has more precise Mercury perihelion precession data than what has disproved the theory of relativity, then a discussion of that data is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Sigh... I just explained in detail why it wasn't "case closed". Being outside experimental error doesn't automatically make a theory wrong, especially when it isn't that far off. It could mean the theory is wrong or it could mean the theory is right, but by chance measured outside experimental uncertainty. By statistics we expect that to happen every now and then. '''''You can't just cherry pick the one experiment that fits your preconceptions and declare it case closed. You have to take all the other experimental data into account.''''' When you do that here (that is, you also look at the other three experiments) the results look in favor for relativity.

:::::::::::::: You can have the last word if you want. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:31, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: It is not true that the data demonstrate that the theory of relativity is wrong by more than the measurement error. What you have is a difference of opinion, and one scientist claiming that the combination of relativity and other assumptions and observations results in a discrepancy that exceeds the ''estimated'' measurement error. The problem could be with those other assumptions and observations, or with the estimate of the measurement error. As with the Pioneer anomaly, there are explanations that do not violate relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: Any and all attempts to reconcile the observed data with the theory of relativity are welcome. Instead, I not aware of the publication of observed data for this fundamental claim of the theory since 1992 (see above), despite improvements in technology and precision since then. Anyone think that it became impossible to observe the data after that time??? Notice what the data were showing leading up that point: increasing divergence (and contradiction) with the well-settled prediction made by the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:37, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Here is the [http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf Mercury Radar Ranging Data from 1987 to 1997]. The work was carried out by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under NASA. You are absolutely free to analyze the data in depth to see if the relativists are hiding anything. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:32, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Somehow I doubt the data above (going five years after the supposed suppression of data began) is going appease you. Well, you can go send NASA a letter and ask them for the most recent data about Mercury's orbit. They might give it to you if you ask nicely and they almost certainly have it, since [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/index.html they currently have a space probe orbiting Mercury] (I guess they didn't get the memo from the relativists telling everyone to ignore Mercury because it contradicted relativity). Anyway, once you get the data you'll have definitive proof that liberals have been suppressing important information about Mercury's orbit (or something). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:18, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: Looking back, I made a mistake. I said general relativity's prediction was outside the measurement uncertainty for the fourth experiment (Anderson et al., 1992). I misread it. GR prediciton: 42.98 ±0.04, Observation: 43.13 ± 0.14. They actually do overlap. So general relativity is four for four. My bad. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:41, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::: I took a look at the JPL link above but did not find any reference to the perihelion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::::: I'm pretty sure there's no reference to the perihelion because it's the raw data, without analysis. If the data was mapped to show Mercury's location, it would (presumably) show a perihelion. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

=== More counterexamples ===
I found another page with a long list of supposed counterexamples. It looks like nonsense to me, but you can check it out for yourself. He says, "Fossil records indicate the Earth’s gravity was far less during the time of the dinosaurs." He does have references of many of his alleged anomalies. [http://knol.google.com/k/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence-presented] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

=== Denial of [[Nobel Prize]] to anyone who criticizes relativity ===

:::::::: [[Robert Dicke]], the finest American physicist of the 20th century, criticized the theory of relativity and was then never given a Nobel Prize. In fact, in a pattern also used to punish [[Fred Hoyle]] for his criticism of the theory of evolution, a Nobel Prize was given for Dicke's insight to other scientists less deserving of the award than Dicke, within years of Dicke's criticism of the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: According to the [http://www.nap.edu/readingroom.php?book=biomems&page=rdicke.html National Academies Press] Dicke was given:
::::::::: ''"the National Medal of Science (1971), the Comstock Prize of the National Academy of Sciences (1973), and the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (1973). He was a member of the National Science Board from 1970 to 1976. Bob was appointed to the Princeton University Department of Physics in 1946, served as chair from 1967 to 1970, moved to emeritus in 1984''.
::::::::: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:11, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Right ... and no [[Nobel Prize]], despite being the finest American physicist of the 20th century. Note also that it was his criticism of relativity in the mid-1970s -- after the awards you cite -- that caused him to be punished by the Nobel Prize committee. No one in grad school or on university faculties dare criticize Relativity again, no matter what the data say. No relativist will even criticize the policy of excluding anyone who criticizes the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: I am sure the Nobel committee has its prejudices. Hoyle once wrote a letter to the London Times criticizing a Nobel physics prize. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/03/fred-hoyle-nobel-prize/print] So maybe they did not like him for that. By the time they gave the big bang prize in 1978, Gamow and others were dead. I would have rather given the prize to the theorists, but those are the biases of the folks in Sweden. I am not sure it has anything to do with the acceptability of relativity. There is a lot of excellent theoretical work that never got a prize, such as the work of Poincare and Minkowski on relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:56, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: You link to an interesting, in-depth article that gives other possible examples of Nobel Prize bias. But the article misses the timing on the insult to Fred Hoyle -- fall 1983 -- which was around the time that he was challenging a tenet of evolution (I'd like to obtain further details on the timing - his partner in the research apparently raised the criticism as early as 1980). Such a coincidence in timing for a prize that was given for 1957 work can hardly be ignored. Note that the article also says Fowler was "stunned" by the award's passing over Hoyle.

:::::::::::: The article also omits the insults to Teller and Wheeler, to Robert Dicke, and to Raymond Damadian (see explanation in [[Nobel Prize]]).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: I am not sure I understand your bias theory, but even supposing that some Swedes have some prejudices, how does this relate to the merits of relativity? You criticize the 1978 prize. But that was for discovery of the cosmic microwave radiation that was predicted by relativity theorists and confirmed by a couple of telephone company engineers who were just trying to measure their satellite reception interference. They did not even believe in the relativity explanation. So why did the Swedes give the prize to the Bell engineers instead of the relativists? Maybe you should start a page on Counterexamples to Swedish Wisdom. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:00, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: "Swedes" are not picking the Nobel Prize-winners. They just act on the recommendations of [[liberal]] professors who don't like criticism of the theories of evolution, relativity, or [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Really, the bias is not that complicated. It's no different from the bias in [[Academy Award]]s, [[Pulitzer Prize]]s, [[Rhodes Scholar]]s, or any other award system that is heavily influenced by leftists.

:::::::::::::: Once [[Fred Hoyle]] and [[Robert Dicke]] criticized liberal theories, they had to be punished. The greatest punishment is to award the Nobel Prize for their work '''''to someone less deserving'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:08, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

== Standard kilogrammes? ==
I'm not sure how good an argument this is. ONE out of a batch of 40 identical standard kilogrammes has diverged in weight from the others. Common sense says that there's something wrong with that one weight, which is after all stored in France. It's not likely that the answer has anything to do with relativity, which if correct would have caused an identical change in mass in all 40. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:06, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: I have a drawer full of socks. I cannot find a match for one of them. Can I blame relativity? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::Is it a French sock? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 08:14, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Maybe so. Or from some other country where "kilogram" is spelled "kilogramme". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::That would be everywhere except the USA. I'm English. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:I believe that it has something to do with the metals used are slightly radioactive and are emitting either alpha or beta particles causing a very slight decrease in weight. The answer doesn't have anything to do with relativity and is a well know issue. Scientists are currently trying to come up with a better way of standardizing mass. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:56, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::There's a difference between relativity and quantum mechanics (which explains the above observation). If you only took high school physics--you have about two hundred years of catching up to do on the field. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

==Ummmm...==

Physics has come a long way since Albert Einstein published his theories of relativity. Actually, there are quite a few hypothetical paradigms within modern physics that would allow a particle of sufficiently high energy to apparently travel faster than light. I'm not a physicist (as I've said on other pages, I'm a biologist), but I am peripherally familiar with a few of the better-supported ideas. I suggest you read up on M theory and string theory. At the risk of butchering the explanation (I am NOT a physicist), I will say that within the paradigm of M theory and string theory, observing high-energy particles moving slightly faster than light is not all that surprising. That said, the authors of the paper describing the "faster than light" neutrinos, admit up front that the numbers they got was probably the result of some sort of experimental error--the results need to be repeatable in order to be scientific. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

: Science can advance with one observation, and it's not necessary to wait until it is repeated before discussing and learning from it. How quickly (if ever) was the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] repeated?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:: The Michelson-Morley experiment was first done in 1887. It was repeated by them and by others many times in the next few years. Illingworth and Kennedy came up with a variant that was more sensitive and could test for certain exotic explanations. They did that very soon after the initial experiment. Dayton Miller also did such experiments and continued to do them even after Einstein's work was completed. Miller acknowledged the results of the experiments but remained a committed opponent to special relativity. One of Miller's experiments did actually turn up some interesting results but his later experiments and other work failed to replicate it and it seems to have been a statistical anomaly. Others continued to duplicate versions of the MM experiment because the data from it can be used to test aspects of special relativity and other ideas. So duplicated forms have continued right up to the present day although generally using carefully tuned lasers as the light sources which give much more precision. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Some experiments done following the MM experiment (not all listed, only some early ones and some recent ones): Morley-Miller 1902-1904 (published 1904), Miller 1921, Miller 1923-1924, Antonini et al 2005, Stanwix et al 2006, Eisele et al 2009, Herrmann et al 2009. Plus others between them, just listing some early ones and some recent ones. And it is usually necessary to wait until an experiment is repeated before accepting it to be accurate. A single observation, that can't be repeated, usually has an explanation within the current understanding of physics. For example, a network of ravines and gullies was observed in the 1870s on the surface of Mars, and there was wide speculation about their origin. An explanation suggested in the early 1900s wasn't proved until the 1960s, that the ravines and gullies were in actuality an optical illusion caused by streaks of dust blowing across the surface in the strong winds. Another example of a 'discovery' that later turned out to be false was the existence of Vulcan, a planet between Mercury and the Sun. A single observation, unconfirmed by repetition, does not indicate a discovery. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:22, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::: Yes, the M-M experiment was repeated many times. It had to be done at different times of the year, at different altitudes, with different materials, etc. Eg, maybe the length contraction might have been different for wood and brass.
::: There are physicists who have suggested faster than light particles, but string theory and M theory are Lorentz invariant and useless on the issue. The string theorists would definitely be surprised by anything faster than light. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:24, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::: Claimed results from a single experiment have been proven wrong before (e.g, the claims of producing [[cold fusion]] in 1989). It makes sense to see if an experiment is replicated before throwing out an extremely well tested theory. It's very suspicious that we haven't seen neutrinos going faster than the speed of light before this. Experimenters are only human beings and could easily have made a mistake or forget to include something in their calculations. The claimed velocity is only a tiny fraction lager than c and might easily be explained by not taking into account some systematic error.
:::: If Mr. Schlafly's other 36 "counterexamples" are so strong then I don't see why he so badly needs the example of an unreplicated experiment whose data is still in the process of being analyzed. (When Einstein was asked about the book '100 Authors Against Einstein' he responded: "If I were wrong, it would only have taken one".) --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 11:27, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::::: If the experiment is disproved by subsequent experiments, then that particular counterexample can be removed. But the insistence on clinging to the [[theory of relativity]] when the available evidence is to the contrary is unjustified. Einstein's quote is inapplicable to this issue: the context of Einstein's quote refers to a government attempt to discredit his theory. His quote does apply to government efforts to deny scientific evidence today, such as the attempt by the [[NCI]] to deny the [[abortion]]-[[breast cancer]] link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Gee, the experiment counts as a counterexample even before the facts are in. What a surprise....
:::::: I'm not sure if the German government was behind '100 Authors Against Einstein', but even if it were it's completely irrelevant. The folly wasn't that it was done by the government; it was that if relativity was wrong one good argument would suffice. The inclusion of this unconfirmed experimental result just shows how this list of "counterexamples" values quantity over quality. Rather than making a few strong arguments it's a list of 37 random tidbits. '''You're expecting to overturn one of science's best theories with something that can fit inside a Twitter post?''' The reasoning for many points' inclusion are not well explained and counterarguments are not addressed (e.g, Hawking radiation is called a "[c]ontrived explanation" with no justification whatsoever). I suspect the "conciseness" of the points is just a reflection of its author's short attention span. I'll report to the Worldwide Relativity Cabal that we have nothing to fear from... oops. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:46, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Thank you MatthewQ! Oh, and Mr. Schlafly, the evidence does not support a link between abortion and breast cancer. You may find good sources on the topic [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1733063/?tool=pmcentrez here], [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)15835-2/fulltext here], and [http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814 here]. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 08:11, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::: As for redoing the M-M experiment, the [[LIGO]] experiment can be seen as a $400M modern M-M experiment. While the M-M failed to detect the motion of the Earth, LIGO has failed to detect motion in other galaxies. You may be interested in this new paper reporting on an NSF grant to teach high school students about LIGO detecting gravity waves. This is just to be ready in case LIGO ever succeeds in detecting anything, I guess. [http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.3720] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 06:08, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

== A few sections that should be removed... ==

12: For this point to be right, things need to have started VERY VERY small, which is impossible if Creationism is right. This creates an inconsistency within Conservapedia and should be removed.
26: The first part is wrong due to GPSs. In order to be more accurate, they take into account relativity, and hence relativity has produced something useful. The rest of it is repeated in 18. Hence, as everything in 26 is either wrong or repeated, it should be removed.
28: Relativity does not require everything with 0 mass to have 0 momentum. It actually takes into account that light, despite having 0 mass, has momentum.
29: This is actually wrong. The age of each twin is independent of the path travel, it is dependent only on the acceleration they experience. Therefore, this point is wrong.
Any comments or disagreements? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 22:02, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:On point 12, physicists themselves admit that relativity contradicts quantum mechanics shortly after the Big Bang. So even relativists would (or should) concede the validity of this counterexample.

:On point 26, GPS's were not developed as a result of relativity. This has been discussed at length on this site in the past. No relativists were involved in the engineering of GPS's; any differences in timing on the satellites relative to ground are more easily corrected by synchronization rather than theoretical predictions.

:Will review the other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:45, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

::I fully agree with all this. Some of the stuff in this page literally left my head hurting pretty badly from facepalming so hard.

::And, Schlafly, how does this make relativity wrong? Newtonian physics is wrong at quantum levels too. Should we add a "Counterexamples to Newtonian Mechanics" page and put something like that in there too? Of course not--it's an excellent approximation for things on the everyday scale. Same thing with GR.

::No, they were not developed because of relativity, but they were developed taking relativity into account. The people who built it didn't know the specifics, but they knew the corrections from relativity were there and they took them into account. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:53, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

::::I concur. Rather, arguing "counterexamples" is a fine way to demonstrate the weaknesses, inconsistencies, or future directions of inquiry regarding any scientific paradigm. However, it is a logical fallacy to say that "these are the problems with hypothesis A, therefore hypothesis B ''must'' be true". For a position to be effectively argued, one must present empirical evidence in support of an alternative hypothesis. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 00:56, 12 November 2011 (EST)

:::::A bigger logical fallacy occurs when someone insists or thinks that an alternative hypothesis B must exist before disproving a hypothesis A.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:14, 12 November 2011 (EST)

:::::::Good point. However, when a hypothesis is not supported the scientific process usually then entails asking the question of why it was not supported, and then forming a new hypothesis that once again fits all of the available data. This is why scientific understanding of even the most hard and fast paradigms can change so dramatically from one generation to the next (or, occasionally, from one experiment to the next). The most exciting science gets done when a well-reasoned hypothesis is rejected--simply because it opens the door to so many new possibilities.--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 13:01, 14 November 2011 (EST)

== A couple more problems ==

These went up after I posted the other section so I didn't know what to do. If you would prefer I post it there, then sorry. I'm new to wikis so I don't know proper etiquette and perhaps a missed something in the guidelines :)

Anyway, first thing, you state: "It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world."

...Honestly, I am speechless about this. Again, this was taken down but now someone put it back up... You guys honestly think this statement is true? There is no connection between the two--the only thing they have in common is the name "relativity." What, you think that people's morals depend on their frame of reference and change by the relativistic <math> \gamma (\equiv 1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2})</math> factor or something?! I am truly shocked by this...What connection is there? Where is the equation that predicts this?

Secondly: "Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light." Nope. Things can't travel at the speed of light, according to SR. Relativity explicitly states that things cannot go faster than light. If you drop this, then of course there are going to be going to be inconsistencies with SR...And that thread only talks about things going at the speed of light. What's the problem with solenoids travelling near c? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 16:52, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
:Can someone please tell me what the link between moral relativism and GR/SR is...? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:04, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::Because <s>God</s> <s>psychotic rambling homophobic momma's boy</s> Andy Schlafly said so. You have to turn off your <s>indoctrinated</s> educated mind... --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:36, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

== At first glance ==

There are so many problems with this page I don't know where to start. Whomever wrote it is obviously clueless about science and its

methods. A few of the problems include:

1. Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found.

The lack of experimental confirmation ''so far'' of gravity waves does NOT falsify the theory. Absence of evidence is not evidence of

absence.

3. Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of

Relativity.

Only in experiments that have yet to be confirmed.

7. The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds relativity

Untrue. The EFEs contain a term (the cosmological constant) that fully accounts for accelerated expansion.

10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass

What logical problem? I studied physics at the graduate level and have never heard of any logical problem. ?

13. The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement

AAAD is a matter of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In any case, it does NOT Falsify GRT as no information is propagated faster

than light.

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

See 13 (above). This statement also assumes that the action-at-a-distance by Jesus described in the Bible actually happened. It is not

"true and verifiable".

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

Gravitons are the quanta of gravity waves. See #1.

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

The ability to lead to other insights has never been a test of the validity of a scientific theory, and lack of consequent insight does not

falsify a theory.

26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the

theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.

Development of useful devices is a matter of engineering, and is not a test of a scientific theories validity.

27. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction.

This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.

The priniciple of isotropy does not falisfy Relativity. The theory itself accounts for, and predicts, the difference in observed inertia.

28. Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws

of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.

And Relativity also predicts that photons have non-zero momentum. Relativistic systems can have non-zero momentum even with no

rest mass, due to ''mass-energy equivalence''. Relativity correctly predicts the momentum of a massless particle as p = h*f/c = h/λ.

31. The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows

down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to

be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity

Incorrect, as this only takes Special Relativity into account. This is a common fallacy. It is the acceleration required to return the twin

that accounts for the difference in clocks and is explained/predicted by General Relativity. One must take both SRT and GRT into

account.

32. Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right,

theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.

Fields do not constitute an "aether". The EM field exists (and was explained/predicted by Maxwell long before Eistein).

34 (a). In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens.

How is such an account "true and verifiable"?

34(b). This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.

Something that is "likely" does not falsify a scientific theory.

35. Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the

properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.

This is not an argument against applied mathematics, not against Relativity per se.

37. Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding.

This does not falsify the theory.

~~csmcmillion

:'''Reply''': by starting with an ''ad hominem'' attack, you lost credibility from the get-go. A quick review of your points confirms it:

:1. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." It is when billions are spent on many years of looking. Surely you wouldn't think a lost item is in your backpack if you spent time looking for it there and could not find it.

:3. "Only in experiments that have yet to be confirmed." Experiments '''''are''''' confirmation in themselves.

:7. "the cosmological constant... fully accounts for accelerated expansion." Reliance on a cosmological constant has failed before.

:10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass. "What logical problem? I studied physics at the graduate level and have never heard of any logical problem?" Oh please. None of these counterexamples is candidly addressed in physics departments because these counterexamples cast doubt on a theory preferred for political reasons. Anyone in a physics department who expresses doubt about the theory of relativity would be thereby ending his own academic career.

:13. The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement. "AAAD is a matter of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In any case, it does NOT Falsify GRT as no information is propagated faster than light." Relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance (which cannot seriously be disputed in QM) whether a type of information is transmitted or not.

:14. The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51. "See 13 (above). This statement also assumes that the action-at-a-distance by Jesus described in the Bible actually happened. It is not 'true and verifiable.'" There are no [[Counterexamples to the Bible]], so this conflict is a serious one.

:15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching. "Gravitons are the quanta of gravity waves. See #1." And see my answer to #1.

:18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics. "The ability to lead to other insights has never been a test of the validity of a scientific theory, and lack of consequent insight does not falsify a theory." The failure of the theory to produce is strong evidence against its validity.

:26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. "Development of useful devices is a matter of engineering, and is not a test of a scientific theories validity." A theory that inhibits technological progress, rather than enhance it, is almost certainly wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I'll address your other responses as my time permits. For now:

"by starting with an ''ad hominem'' attack"

Stating the obvious is not an ad hominem attack. I didn't say the author was an "idiot". Anyone who honestly thinks that because "devices" have not been engineered based upon a scientific theory somehow ''falsifies'' that theory ''is'' truly clueless (maybe ignorant would have been a better word) of science and the scientific method. A correct scientific theory must explain previous observations and correctly predict those to come. No where is there a requirement that it lead to engineered "devices".

14. "The action-at-a-distance by Jesus"

I should have added: The AAAD by Jesus is (usually) considered a miracle - a suspension of natural law. So I'm not clear on how the suspension of natural law could be considered a counterexample to a natural law to begin with.

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

I should have asked a simple question on this one: Have you ever asked an astronomer, cosmologist or theoretical physicist if s/he has had insights from Relativity? Please - find ''one'' that hasn't had deep insight as a result.

"A theory that inhibits technological progress, rather than enhance it, is almost certainly wrong.--Andy Schlafly 00:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)"

So, adherence to a literal interpretation of the Bible, which hindered technical progress for more than a thousand years, indicates that the Bible is almost certainly wrong. Thank you '''so much''' for clearing that up. ~~csmcmillion

:Take a look at [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]. When you post more substantive comments, then I'll respond to them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:37, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I agree that "relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance", but not that AAAD "cannot seriously be disputed in QM". There is no QM experiment that show AAAD. There are interpretations of QM that seem to imply AAAD, and respected physicists who believe in those interpretations and hence in AAAD. But QM does not imply AAAD as there are also relativistic interpretations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:27, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:QM experiments have shown that a pair of spinning, entangled photons can be separated a great distance, and that the mere observation of the spin of one of those photons immediately removes the uncertainty about the spin of the other photon a far distance away. All attempts to deny that [[action-at-a-distance]] reality have failed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:42, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:: Yes, the photon experiment is correct. Some people do interpret the observation of one photon as affecting the other photon. But there is no proof of that. You could prove it if the observation transmitted information, but no one can do that. Other interpretations do not require AAAD. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:47, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Andy: Why did you delete RSchlafly's most recent comment? RSchlafly: I believe you are correct. A little research on my part shows numerous refutations to the assertions made on this page, going back a couple of years:

http://skullsinthestars.com/2010/08/09/right-wing-refutations-of-relativity-really-really-wrong/

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/6253

I'm beginning to see why people are telling me not to waste my time trying to contribute to this site.
:All you're doing is making your own "assertions without clarification". We've had these arguments before, and these arguments were created by people who refuse to listen to what we say or refuse to read any of the sources we provide. And it's tiresome. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:44, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:User:csmcmillion, it's not a discussion when someone won't use his own words to explain his views.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:49, 13 November 2011 (EST)

::And it's not a discussion when sysops repeatedly delete comments, as you just did. ~~csmcmillion
:::And what exactly did I delete? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:42, 13 November 2011 (EST)
Just wanted to add to this: When has <math>\Lambda</math> failed? It's a perfectly legitimate term in the EFE's, as csmcmillion has stated. The righthand side of it is (in <math>G=c=1</math> units) is <math>8 \pi T^{\alpha \beta }</math>. You need something on the left which is a measure of curvature, i.e., the Einstein tensor <math>G^{\alpha \beta}</math>. Why the Einstein tensor? Why not the Ricci tensor? Why not the scalar curvature times the metric? The reason is that the stress-energy tensor (T) has to have zero divergence: <math>\nabla_{\beta} T^{\alpha \beta} = 0 </math>. The Einstein tensor has zero divergence as well. But, we also have <math> \nabla_{\gamma} g^{\alpha \beta} = 0</math>. So we can safely add in <math>\Lambda g^{\alpha \beta}</math> to the left hand side of the EFE without violating local conservation of energy-momentum. Using this gives <math>G^{\alpha \beta}+\Lambda g^{\alpha \beta} = 8 \pi T^{\alpha \beta}. </math> [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:46, 15 November 2011 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The "The observed lack of curvature in overall space" is not an "unobserved" phenomenon. Accordingly, it has been reverted along with the others. Looking for something that should be there under a theory, but not finding it there as predicted, is a counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:50, 30 November 2011 (EST)

:[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], sorry, yes, I was being a bit overzealous on that one. However, I think the principle holds - many of the concepts listed are not counterexamples. Starting with number one: relativity predicts gravity waves and predicts that they will be extremely difficult to detect. Now I hear you say that's a pretty lousy kind of prediction - and you're right - but it still doesn't make it a counterexample. The same goes for the entry on gravitons (additionally, they're a prediction of quantum theory, not relativity, but that's for another phase of editing).
:It may be that further categorizing is necessary. For example, issues like the Twin Paradox and the Ehrenfest Paradox are not strictly unobserved phenomena either. Item 37, failure to solve the equations, is a problem for mathematics, not necessarily for relativity.
:Perhaps a simpler solution would be to rename the whole article, perhaps to 'Counterarguments to Relativity'. That way the article doesn't look silly by listing things that clearly aren't counterexamples, and also is open to inclusion of a broader range of criticisms of the theory. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:50, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:: I agree with QPR, as upon thinking about it, 'counterexamples' does not accurately describe the things on the list. And looking for something predicted and not finding it is only a counterexample/counterargument if it is predicted to be in a specific place, and when looking there, it isn't found. Hence, not finding gravity waves despite looking for them doesn't mean they don't exist. Many things were thought to be myths or non-existent until they were found, including giraffes. But I also disagree with QPR in that categorizing the list is unnecessary, and would result in needless discussions about where certain points belong, rather than more productive discussions. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:56, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::: I don't think that counterexamples is the best word either. My suggestion would be to leave the title as is, but to split the list into ''paradoxes'' and ''anomalies''. They maybe people would have a better idea what to expect from each item. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:43, 2 December 2011 (EST)

Response to the above: the list is of "counterexamples". These are examples that are counter to the theory. Other terms, like "paradox" or "anomaly", capture neither the concept of "example" nor of it being "counter" to the theory. The term "paradox" arises in philosophy, but this isn't philosophy. Relativity is a theory that pretends to be correct in every case, but it isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:24, 3 December 2011 (EST)

== Deleted example to releativity ==

Hello, I added a counter example to relativity that was removed, despite it being valid. My counter example was that the special theory of relativity predicts that mass is a form of energy and they are interchangeable. But if this were true the huge amount of energy stored in common matter would have been utilised by now in power stations and weaponry.

The problem is, it's been over 100 years since this theory was published and not one power station that utilises the interchange of mass and energy predicted by relativity has actually been built.

However, this counter example was removed because a member claimed that these do exist. Now this leaves us with a dichotomy. Do we...
A) Admit that these power stations exist (which they don't) and therefore acknowledge the special theory of relativity is accurate and true, or
B) We keep the counter example included that no power station that utilises special relativity exists, and therefore it is a sign that relativity is false.

I think we should vote for B on this issue. It would be like inventing the motor engine, but not building cars! --[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 12:36, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:Actually these power stations DO exist and have done for decades; they're called "nuclear reactors" and they generate heat by turning mass into energy. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 12:45, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::If these stations do exist, then how come Albert Einstein admitted of the inability to apply the predictions of his OWN theory? I quote "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable".

::Next you'll be telling me that we can do the physically impossible and generate electricity by fusing atoms to form heavier atoms too.

::Let's face it, special relativity has no practical application in providing energy. If it were, mass and energy would be seen interchanging all the time. F will ''always'' equal MA, mass can neither increase or decrease by being converted into energy; observations of non-zero mass particles accelerated to ''exactly'' the speed of light prove this.--[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 13:01, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:::The stations exist, hundreds of them, all over the world. Some of them even fit into ships and submarines. Nuclear fission reactors produce power by converting rest mass into electromagnetic and kinetic energy, exactly in accordance with e=mc2. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 13:06, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::::''I'' don't believe that. Do you ''know'' they exist for sure? Have you ''really'' ever been to one? ''I'm'' sure they employ some kind of ''a'' clever trick. Otherwise Newton, unchallenged as the most intelligent ''scientist'' of all time, would see his second law of motion proven wrong. The second law of motion is a law that is known to always hold true by centuries of accurate tests. These power stations can not exist, the laws of physics don't allow it!--[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 13:18, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:::::I don't care what you believe. Yes they exist, and yes I've been to one. If you tell me where you live I'll give you directions to the nearest one, and you can either visit or call their press officer. Either way they'll be happy to explain how they turn mass into energy and generate power with the heat that's released. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 13:23, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::::::These aren't my beliefs, these are scientific facts. Newton's laws have been established for centuries and have never been challenged. Yet if they are true, then nuclear power stations can't exist because that would require the M of F=MA to be a variable quantity directly related to A.

::::::As I put more energy into the acceleration of an object, the mass does not increase, it cannot increase. Why? Because mass and energy cannot be interchanged. If this were true, then no non-zero mass particle could ever be accelerated to the speed of light. Non-zero mass particles are accelerated to the speed of light every day at particle colliders worldwide.

::::::If what you say is true, then we would have to get rid of this entire page because it invalidates every counter example.--[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 13:43, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:::::::You're not listening, are you? Conversion of mass into energy, in accordance with e=mc2 is how nuclear reactors work. Your counterexample was removed because it's INVALID. What part of this don't you understand? Newton's Second Law is irrelevant to the point you're trying to make, by the way.

:::::::"Yet if they are true, then nuclear power stations can't exist" Epic fail. Nuclear power stations DO exist.

:::::::"If what you say is true, then we would have to get rid of this entire page because it invalidates every counter example" Why? Just because a theory is false overall, that doesn't mean that parts of it aren't true. Parts of Darwin's theory are true; living things DO inherit characteristics from their parents and those characteristics DO affect their chances of survival. Despite that, evolution is still false. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 13:48, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::::::::If it was removed because nuclear power stations exist, then surely it would invalidate every counter example too, right? If what you claim is correct and they do exist, then shouldn't this whole page be deleted?.
::::::::By the way, Newton's laws are entirely relevant here, the second law being incorrect (I know it is really) is fundamental to relativity --[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 13:58, 3 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::::WHY would it invalidate every counterexample here? There's a lot more to relativity than e=mc2. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 14:13, 3 December 2011 (EST)
::::::@GMilhouse: Newton's second law is not <math>F=ma</math>. It is <math> F=\dot p</math> (Newton's formulation in ''Principia Mathematica''!), where <math>p=mv</math> (non-relativistically) is momentum. This includes the possibility of varying mass - necessary for instance when modelling rocket flight. Plus, can you provide a reference to an experiment where a non-zero mass particle was accelerated to the speed of light? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 14:06, 3 December 2011 (EST)
:Maybe I should cut to the chase. Yes or no. Does the fact that nuclear reactors exist invalidate almost every possible counter example on this page, and every valid example merely represents an aspect of physics that the current theory does not yet accommodate? If so, then surely this entire page should be deleted. --[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 14:16, 3 December 2011 (EST)
::No. Now stop crying about your example being deleted and do something constructive. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 14:19, 3 December 2011 (EST)
:::Nuclear reactors existing validates that the current theory of relativity. I know that really.
:::Maybe I should come clean, I've been deceptive. While I think it is good to be able to present a conservative point of view freely, I don't like this page because it is just an unfair criticism of a theory that in reality has a very strong foundation and it has many real world applications. Energy generation being one.
:::We don't know everything about physics yet, that is granted. Theories are meant to be fairly challenged, that's the only way we'll increase our knowledge. This page does not present a fair challenge, it's promoting the notion that relativity is not a sound theory and has no application. I thought that if I could coax a senior member into admitting reactors exist. Then I would be able to make the point that this in fact invalidates most of the counter examples and the only valid ones are merely unanswered questions that can only be resolved by fairly challenging the theory and should probably be more correctly listed as "Unsolved issues with relativity", with the pre-acknowledgement of the facts by a senior member. I thought if I could do that, then I could finally get some serious consideration applied to this page.
:::Sorry if my actions have offended anyone. Maybe I didn't go about this the best possible way.--[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 14:39, 3 December 2011 (EST)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-12-03T19:18:30Z

GMilhouse: /* Deleted example to releativity */

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-12-03T19:17:23Z

GMilhouse:

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

==Path Independence and Photons==
Wait, so time is some sort of vector field such that when you integrate it you get time? And that vector field is conservative? I've never heard of such a thing... 
As well, you state: "Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum." Yes, if you plug in the formula for non-relativistic, Newtonian momentum, you get zero, but SR gives you the equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2. Plug m=0 in. You get E=pc. So, the momentum is nonzero. That's a very well-known result... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 12:06, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:So should I take the "counter example" down...? Not to be rude but can someone at least respond to me? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:54, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
::Take it down, then if someone reverts (which is likely) it'll provoke a short discussion that probably won't reach a consensus. Regardless, you're unlikely to succeed in keeping it changed. I'm not trying to discourage, go ahead and try changing it, I'm just letting you know what to expect. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:33, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:::These are interesting points worthy of further discussion. As to the first point, however, merely asking two questions is not persuasive to me.

:::As to the second point, I find the argument somewhat circular. Is the energy equation cited verified by any experiment, or is it merely definitional? If merely definitional, then it does not provide a way for calculating actual momentum.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:54, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Well answer them. The point I'm making is that there is no vector field such that when integrates it, one gets time. I had never heard of it until then. I am asking you to enlighten me.
 
::::And as a matter of fact there is! The equation is E=hf where E is the energy of the photon, f is the frequency of the photon, and h is just a proportionality constant (known as Planck's constant). And it has been experimentally verified. It explains the spectrum from blackbody radiation and it explains the photoelectric effect. And if I recall correctly, your camera uses the photoelectric effect. These things are quite well known... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 14:55, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::Oh, and I forgot to mention--the Compton effect is explained by photons. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:00, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::::Please address my more substantive point: has your equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2 been experimentally verified, or is it simply definitional?

:::::::First of all, will you please answer my question...? What is the vector field such that when one integrates over it, one gets time? And oops. Misread your question. And no, it's not "definitional," it's from the relativistic expressions of energy and momentum... (And yes, those have been experimentally verified--if I recall correctly, using those equations, you can predict what can happen (i.e. speeds) when elementary particles are created. But I'm not particle physicist) Once you have those, just do a little algebra and you get that equation. And I hope you're not going to deny basic algebra....
 
:::::::Again, all this is well known.... Out of curiosity have you ever actually studied relativity or this photon stuff? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 13:39, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::OK, I've removed the counter-example of photons...I think I've provided a satisfactory explanation to Schlafly (and he's not responding for some reason...) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:50, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Schlafly, I saw you re-added the "counter-example." Will you please respond to me? Are you seriously just going to keep it there and refuse to discuss this at all? Wow and you claim that we're not open-minded.... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:45, 9 November 2011 (EST)

::::::::::Andy, there is no "counter-example of photons." Photons are not mentioned in the list. But are you referring to this counterexample:

:::::::::::28.Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.

::::::::::Let's be clear about what the dispute is first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 11 November 2011 (EST)

:::::::::::Yeah, that's the one. Sorry. Poorly-worded. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:29, 14 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::::::Will someone please tell me why (a) SR/GR promotes (moral) relativism, (b) photons aren't legit even though I've just pointed that your argument was wrong (maybe that's a bit generous. To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, I can't even say it's wrong...) and (c) what is the vector field such that when one integrates over it, one gets time? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 10:26, 27 November 2011 (EST)

==FTL Neutrinos at LHC ==

It may be jumping the gun to put the finding from Friday as evidence against GR. The results have yet to be duplicated - duplicability is needed for a claim to have scientific merit - and have yet to be carefully peer reviewed. The results are significant at the 95% CI but that means there's a 1 in 20 chance they're actually inaccurate. Given how many measurements are made at the LHC some are going to be both statistically significant and incorrect. It may be more prudent to wait to see if it's a one off or measurement error. I propose waiting at least until other particle acceleration labs can attempt to duplicate the results to make any judgement; after all, that's what CERN is doing
--[[User:BillyWest|BillyWest]] 00:18, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:I disagree. The opposition to the results from CERN -- which confirm prior results from another laboratory which were not as precise -- is unreasonable. It's not necessary to continue to pretend that Relativity is true when there is so much evidence against it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:35, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::CERN itself hasn't even confirmed the results. The data was published a lot quicker than data usually is because if it is accurate, then it changes the majority of physics laws discovered in the past century. The theory of relativity is not the only theory/law which involves the speed of light, electromagnetism does as well. Because of this, CERN wanted other scientists to try and find a flaw in the experiment quickly so that if there is a flaw, it is found quickly, and if there isn't, then scientists can begin determining what needs to change in order to accomodate this. Once the data has been properly analysed, without prematurely jumping to conclusions, then it would be fair to say that the neutrinos traveled faster than the speed of light. But something to keep in mind: this is not the first experiment done with neutrinos, all of the prior ones having travelled slower than the speed of light. If you do an experiment 500 times, and each results has a 1/1000 chance of being inaccurate, there is a 40% chance that at least one result will be inaccurate. If they find an error in the experiment (such as a piece of the measuring equipment being broken, or poor calibration of equipment, or leftover neutrinos from previous experiments, or any other impacting error), then wouldn't it make conservapedia look silly for jumping to a conclusion too quickly? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The CERN experiment is not the only one suggesting faster-than-c travel. Moreover, there is no basis for doubting the news that something travels faster than c. Most of the objections in the media are based in an irrational clinging to Relativity. Hence the counterexample is being restored ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Looks like they've found the problem already: there was a flaw with the experiment.http://www.dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php This article basically says that they used GPS to measure the locations and the times. However, because the satellite used moves at a different speed to the Earth, relativity needs to be taken into account. Usually, relativity has no significant effect until speeds get nearish the speed of light. However, the neutrinos travelled 60 nanoseconds faster than light. Because it's nanoseconds, the speed difference of the Earth and the satellite is enough that relativity affects the experiment at the nanosecond level. Scientists have done calculations to determine how this changes the results (as because of the flaw, the results they got weren't actually accurate), and found that the neutrinos actually travelled for 64 seconds longer than they previously thought, making their speed very slightly less than the speed of light. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 18:02, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

: No, this explanation has not been accepted. There have been many other papers with other explanations. The jury is still out. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:33, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Paul Johnson, the renowned historian, explains the link -- and the significance of the link -- between relativity and moral relativism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:57, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
:Do you have a link for that? It seems pretty flimsy to me. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:10, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::Ah right, I found some stuff! It appears that Johnson acknowledged that there was no ACTUAL link between the two, but pointed out how many liberals CLAIM a link. That seems pretty close to what the article is saying, so my edit probably wasn't the best idea I've ever had, and as a bonus I've learned something interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain rather than just blocking me :-S --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:17, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Have you read Tribe's article applying the curvature of space to support liberal views?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, I haven't. Is it easy to find? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: You can find it here [http://blog1.darkbuzz.com/tribe-1989.htm] or a pdf here [http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/~wat4y/103_Harv._L._Rev._1,_.PDF][http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~daw/D_Realism/Tribe.pdf]. On a college campus, you might be able to get it here.[http://www.jstor.org/pss/1341407] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Relativity and Electromagnetism ==
It is often claimed that Relativity is proven by its ability to explain aspects of electromagnetism. But those aspects do not relate to physical mass, gravity or various frames of reference throughout the universe -- the basic claims of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: Lorentz used electromagnetic relativity to predict relativistic mass in 1899, and it was experimentally confirmed a couple of years later. Poincare used E=mc2 for radiation in 1900. So I think that electromagnetic aspects of relativity do relate to physical mass. They also relate to various frames of reference, as electromagnetic experiments were done at different times of the year to test different frames of reference in the Earth's orbit. Gravity and electromagnetism are separate forces, and I guess it is fair to say that relativistic aspects had to be tested separately. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Most of the counterexamples to Relativity relate to gravity; some relate to the claim that all (non-accelerating) frames of reference are the same everywhere in the universe. The essence of Relativity is its claims about gravity and space. Electromagnetism experiments have nothing to do with this, and do not confirm any of these "grand unified" assertions of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:12, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: You have to distinguish between general relativity, which is about gravity, and special relativity, which isn't.
::: Anyway, Newtonian mechanics is not consistent with Maxwell's equations while relativity (both special and general) is. Do you deny Maxwell's equations, Aschlafly? If you accept Newtonian mechanics, you have to. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: Also, it should be noted that Einstein's famous 1905 paper (which was very important in the history of relativity) is entitled ''On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies''. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:30, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Again, a big part of the objection to Relativity is its "grand unified" approach. The insistence on that view is simply not scientific, and is contrary to the data.

::::: There are different forces in nature. There really are, and they really are different. That's what the data show.

::::: Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light. None of that exists in electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: ''Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light'' -> No. Light travels the speed of light in special relativity. Any massless particle does as well.
:::::: ''None of that exists in electromagnetism'' -> A charged particle with a velocity less than the speed of light definitely falls under the domain of electromagnetism.
:::::: Again, Maxwell's equations and Newtonian mechanics are inconsistent. You can't have both. The fact that other forces exist is irrelevant. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:56, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Special relativity makes no predictions, and only assumptions, about the speed of light. Instead, special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light.
::::::: When the claim is made that Relativity explains electromagnetism, the claim is not referring to charged particles traveling less then the speed of light.
::::::: Your statement that Maxwell's equations and Newtownian mechanics are somehow inconsistent needs explanation. They describe completely different forces.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Special relativity predicts the speed of light is the same regardless of orientation of the observer, which is consistent with the Michelson–Morley experiment. It also predicts that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer, which is consistent with the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment.
:::::::: You said velocities less than the speed of light not exist in electromagnetism. This was clearly false.
:::::::: I already mentioned that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under Galilean transformation, yet are under Lorentz transformations. This is very well known. If you want the exact details see [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.165.5841&rep=rep1&type=pdf On the Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=19TCz0cxAFMC&pg=PA484&lpg=PA484&dq=%22maxwell's+equations%22+invariant+under+%22lorentz+transformation%22&source=bl&ots=gudaGknbwi&sig=9idd1t_o89t5RUSLcemoMq7hNjc&hl=en&ei=eq9SToXdHuTH0QHig62-Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CHQQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=%22maxwell's%20equations%22%20invariant%20under%20%22lorentz%20transformation%22&f=false Understanding Physics, Invariance of electromagnetism under Lorentz transformation]. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: Special relativity says that the speed of light is constant. Maxwell's theory says that same thing, as does the Michelson-Morley experiment. It can be said to be an assumption or a prediction, depending on what textbook you are reading. At any rate, it is testable, and has been confirmed in many ways (for light in a vacuum). It was tested in outer space before testing on Earth. Relativity certainly also makes predictions about charged particles traveling less then the speed of light. The biggest prediction is the formula known as the Lorentz force law. This was an important part of relativity as decribed by Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein. The Lorentz force law used to be considered part of Maxwell's equations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:49, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: These are interesting mathematical observations, having aesthetic value. They can suggest the existence of an intelligent designer.

::::::::: But the physical significance of these mathematical observations is scant or non-existence. Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light, and claims made by special relativity with respect to such motion are not verified by electromagnetism. Claims made by general relativity are not verified at all by electromagnetism.

::::::::: I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics. I'm not saying that Newtonian mechanics must be correct, but some criticisms of it do not withstand scrutiny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Yes, electromagnetism does involve particles moving close enough to the speed of light for relativistic effects to be important. Examples include the electron gun in an ordinary CRT TV set, electric motors, speakers, and just about any electronic device. These are not new. The earliest non-optical tests of special relativity were the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments] They started in 1901 based on Lorentz's relativity, and pre-date Einstein. They show that mass increases with velocity so that nothing goes faster than light. In Newtonian mechanics, the speed of light is not an obstacle. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:13, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::: ''"Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light."'' -> [[Particle accelerator]] use electromagnetic fields to move particles close to the speed of light.
::::::::::: ''"I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics."'' -> The observed constancy of speed of the speed of light (an electromagnet wave) does. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:16, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I have an open mind about this, and would like to learn more. I wasn't familiar with the Kaufmann-Bucherer-Neumann experiments but didn't get much out of the Wikipedia description of them in the above link. Is there a clearer, more objective explanation that doesn't end with a sweeping, unsupported claim of proof of Relativity?

:::::::::::: The two most prominent claims of proof of Relativity -- the perihelion advance of Mercury and the binary pulsar -- are now counterexamples and the most precise data are not being made available to the public. So something isn't adding up in favor of Relativity.

:::::::::::: The lack of scientific basis for Relativity leaves it defenseless against another unscientific theory: string theory. Before long it may become important to list counterexamples to string theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Can I start [[counterexamples to string theory]] now? Its a good excuse for me to learn! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:57, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Please do! Also, Max, did you see the answer to your question about how Relativity is used by [[liberals]] to advance their belief system? I can repost the links if you didn't see them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Great, I'll look into String Theory (I don't know much about it) and get on to writing something. Having a project to work on is a great incentive to learn new topics. please do post those links, thanks!

::::::::::::::::I see the links are posted just above this subheading, under "You can find it here"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Ah yes, now I see. I'll read those tonight. Thanks! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:46, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: The Mercury and binary pulsar observations were used to support the gravity theory, and relativity remains the most accurate explanation. Andy, you asked about electromagnetism, not gravity. There is no way to understand electromagnetism without relativity, as far as I know. The Kaufmann experiments were supposed to disprove relativity. More precise experiments were consistent with relativity, as with all the other electromagnetic experiments. Just turn on an old-style TV set with a tube. How do you think that those pixels get lit up? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:16, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: There is some overlap between the invariant equations for electromagnetism and for relativity. The electromagnetism invariant equations came first, so I think the better description would be that one cannot understand relativity without understanding electromagnetism, not vice versa. But what that has to do with gravity is far from clear. In fact, it probably has nothing to do with gravity. Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism, because no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism.

::::::::::::: It's not relativity that lit up the pixels on an old TV screen. Quantum mechanics has more to do with that than relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:32, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ''Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism'' -> Untrue. Quantum electrodynsmics (QED) combines special relativity, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. A Nobel Prize for its discovery was awarded to Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga in 1965.

:::::::::::::: ''no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism'' -> Also untrue. QED predictions are accurate within 12 significant digits, making it the most accurate theory we have. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:17, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: By my count, Nobel prizes were given for relativistic electromagnetism were given in 1902, 1907, 1933, 1945, 1965, 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1999. Prizes for relativistic gravity were given in 1978, 1983, and 1993. The list is here.[http://www.almaz.com/nobel/physics/physics.html] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

@Andy Schlafly: Relativity predicts that no particle with mass can go the speed of light or faster. How do you explain that no particle accelerator has been able to get a massive particle at or above the speed of light? How do you explain the results that the inertial mass increases with velocity, as relativity predicts? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:00, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:PArticle accelerators don't. CERN (the biggest one) gets them exceedingly close, but not above. It's something like 99.999% of C. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:59, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: Relativity assumes that, rather than predicts it. I think relavitist purists would actually say all that is needed is a maximum velocity, whether that is "c" or something else. Many would not be genuinely surprised if velocities slightly faster than ''c'' are ultimately attained, and ''c'' itself may be changing over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:36, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

: Historically, the constant speed of light was an empirical observation, and not just an assumption. Maxwell's theory predicted that electromagnetic waves traveled at the speed of light, and that was observed. It was one of the big reasons for concluding that light was an electromagnetic wave. Experiments like Michelson-Morley (1887) found a constant speed of light. Also, there were astronomical reasons for believing in a constant speed of light. Distances were measured in light-minutes or light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant. Yes, Einstein declared the constant speed of light to be postulate in 1905, but by then it was a well-accepted empirical fact. Going faster than ''c'' or finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics that it would be like finding a perpetual motion machine. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:27, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Empirical data suggest that the speed of light has changed over time, and as recently as 1/6th of the universe's lifetime. [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html]

:: You comments, like "distances were measured in ... light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant," is a political statement, not a scientific one. Likewise for stating that "finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics ...." Is this what university science has become - ignoring the data to preserve the reputation of some current and past professors?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The article you linked to claims that "The speed of light...may have been lower as recently as two billion years ago." How do you reconcile that time frame with a Young Earth Creationist model where the universe is only 6000 years old? You cant reject that study on the one hand because it directly contradicts the Bible but embrace it on the other when it supports the idea of a shifting c. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 18:45, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: The linked article says there may have been a change in the fine structure constant, α, not necessarily the speed of light, c. Also, it hardly seems like a variable α is currently well-established. It's just the result from one set of data. But even accepting that there has been a change in α and that this means a change in c, the amount seems minuscule. The article says that α "had increased by a few parts in 105 in the past 12 billion years", which would correspond to a similar change in c. Therefore, even if c is not exactly constant it would be very nearly constant and relativity would still be a great approximation. That's ignoring that there may be a mundane explanation for this apparent change.
:::: Also, as BrentH mentions above, if you accept these results you have to accept that the universe is billions of years old. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: I was explaining historically why the speed of light was thought to be constant. It was not just some unproved Einstein relativity assumption. There was solid experimental and theoretical evidence before Einstein. There is no evidence for a variable speed of light. That 2004 paper claiming alpha changed has been superseded with a more accurate study in 2007, with no variation. [http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/the-oklo-reactor-and-varying-physical-constants/][http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0701019] Even if alpha changed, it would not necessarily mean that ''c'' changed. I am not sure why any of this is political. We can measure the speed of light to about 10 decimal places. If the speed were not constant, then an experiment would be likely to detect it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I wish you, Andy and I could have a drunken dinner together some time. That would be an epic debate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:17, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, what do you make of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation syncrotron radiation]? Here you have effects which can't be explained without relativity and which are used in many fields of research, e.g. in medicine... 08:28, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Wikipedia]] has many dubious claims that relativity explains something ... as one might expect from a [[liberal]] website. This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L] It appears that this may be unresolved and I welcome more discussion about it. I don't see evidence that relativity played a role in discovering it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Nearly everything about charged particles requires relativity and quantum mechanics. There is no alternative way to understand charged particles, as far as I know. I do not even know what it would mean to reject relativity for this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:12, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Relativity is an unproductive belief system, disproved by more precise measurements in the tests that supposedly verified it. String theory is taking over university physics programs because Relativity is so obviously flawed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 27 August

-
::::::: [[String theory]] assumes that relativity is 100% correct. Physicists pursue string theory because they are sold on Einstein's dream of using relativistic ideas to unify physics, without having to pay attention to experiments. They are ''not'' pursuing string theory because they are persuaded by your list of relativity counterexamples. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:47, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
:::::::: String theory's motivation is to provide a way to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity, so it assumes general relativity is a good description of nature. In fact, string theory becomes general relativity in the low energy limit. In addition, string theories are Lorentz invariant. Whatever the merits of string theory, relativity is incorporated fundamentally to it, so if anything this example speaks to the strength of relativity. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:11, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
::::::::: Andy Schlafly: ''"This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L]"''-> It also says (right in the abstract) that relativity ''must'' be taken into account:

-
::::::::::"However, '''when ɣB ≅ 1014 Gauss, where ɣ is the electron Lorentz factor, Compton scattering becomes important'''. The result is a reduction in the synchrotron loss rate which '''agrees closely with quantum electrodynamics'''." [Emphasis added]

-
::::::::: Both Compton scattering and quantum electrodynamics make use of special relativity. If you take a look at the equations in the paper you can see that special relativity is used explicitly. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:32, 27 August 2011 (EDT)2011 (EDT)

This discussion is interesting, and I'm learning from it. I have an open mind about this. But it seems to me that term "relativity" is being used in comments above to mean anything from "invariance" (which, of course, predates relativity), electromagnetism (which, of course, predates relativity), and even quantum mechanics (which many say conflicts with relativity). The only thing that "relativity" does not seem to mean in many of the above comments is its description of gravity -- which is what is unique to relativity and what most associate it with.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: The word "relativity" was coined by Maxwell, and it became popular from Poincare calling the "principle of relativity" the idea that different inertial frames are indistinguishable. When I said that string theory assumes relativity, I meant primarily that it assumes Lorentz/Poincare invariance. The influence of relativity on physics has been primarily in electromagnetism, not gravity. The nonlinear gravity effects are barely detectable. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:45, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:: * Again, general relativity is about gravity. Special relativity is not.
:: * No one is saying "quantum mechanics" means "relativity". However, the article you linked to referenced quantum electrodynamics (a subset of quantum mechanics) which does incorporate special relativity. Moreover, while general relativity and quantum mechanics are difficult to reconcile, special relativity and quantum mechanics aren't and doing so has produced [[Quantum electrodynamics|the most accurate theory in physics]].
:: * No one is saying "invariance" means "relativity". For example, Galilean invariance contradicts relativity. However, a special type of invariance, Lorentz invariance, is fundamental to both special and general relativity (it holds locally in general relativity). String theory is Lorentz invariant.
:: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:38, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Actually, there were some people around 1910 who wanted to rename relativity theory as invariant theory. Einstein is sometimes said to have agreed with that opinion, but I am not sure he really said that. There is some disagreement about whether relativity is compatible with quantum mechanics. The two main problem areas are collapse of the wave function during an observation, and gravitational nonlinearities at the center of a black hole. But these are a little off the subject. The theories are completely compatible for nearly all considerations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it. Most of the counterexamples here relate to the claims about gravity and the curvature of space that are made by general relativity. Special relativity, according to the theory, is a "special case" of the general theory. If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me.

:::: The mathematical theory of general or special relativity permits no exceptions. So even a slight variation (outside of measurement error) between observation and prediction means the theory is wrong. It means the worldview embodied in relativity is wrong. And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::: ''"Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it."''
::::: We encountered phenomena that none of these people had before. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the Michelson–Morley experiment, gravitational lensing, etc. Changing your worldview in light of new evidence is quite a sensible thing to do.
::::: ''"If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me."''
::::: It's not so much that, but that one must be careful to separate the two.
::::: ''"And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed."''
::::: They haven't been ignored. The data has been analyzed and it agrees with relativity. Just here we've given you the examples of the Michelson–Morley experiment, the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments, Kennedy–Thorndike experiment, synchrotron radiation, etc. We've also answered here your alleged counterexamples to relativity and the problems with them. If you have any more I'd be happy to address them.
::::: I'm not sure what data you're talking about that hasn't being publicly disclosed. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Special relativity is not so much a special case, but rather the linearized version of the general theory. The special theory has been tested in many more different ways, and it could be true without the general theory being true. I really don't think that relativity requires any different view from Maxwell's. Relativity is consistent with what Maxwell said. I really don't see why you would say that relativity does not permit any exceptions any more than Maxwells theory does not permit any exceptions. What's the difference? Theories have formulas. If observations don't agree with the formulas, then something is wrong. Why is relativity any different from any other theory in the hard sciences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:41, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Relativity should not be treated any differently compared with any other theory in the hard sciences. But Relativity obviously is:

::::::*physics journals will not accept for publication anything that conflicts with the theory of relativity
::::::*the Nobel Prize will not be given to anyone who has criticized the theory of relativity
::::::*no science graduate student or science professor dare even criticize the above two forms of censorship.

::::::As to the data, the two leading supposed verifications of the theory are the binary pulsar (for which a Nobel Prize was given) and the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it. Yet additional data have not been made fully available to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::: I have to say I had no idea of this bias until reading Conservapedia. It sounds shocking. Can you tell me which physicists have been denied awards, or refused publication on this basis? It would be really useful in arguments I'm having off-site. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:54, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: ''"But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it."''
:::::::: Can you please provide a source for this claim? What data are you talking about? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: A "source"? No source is needed, or possible given the censorship by physics journals I just described.

::::::::: Wouldn't you be at least interested yourself in looking up what the precession for the Mercury perihelion is, and comparing it to what Relativity predicts? I think that would be the first step before one made up his mind, not something that must be raised by someone else.

::::::::: The Mercury perihelion precession is 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, plus/minus 0.1. General Relativity predicts 5599.98, plus/minus 0.04. The observed precession is clearly outside of prediction by more than the standard of error. But beginning in the early 1990s, probably because of this emerging divergence, physicists stopped publishing the data perhaps to avoid pinpointing the contradiction with even greater accuracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: So by your own admission general relativity is within 0.005% of the correct value?
:::::::::: Anyway, where are you getting your information for the precession rate? From what I gather the error is larger than 0.1 arc-seconds per century.
::::::::::Some values for the anomalous precession rate (i.e, deviation from what you expect from Newtonain gravity):
:::::::::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
:::::::::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
:::::::::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
:::::::::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
:::::::::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]
:::::::::: General relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04, while Newtonian gravity predicts 0. Clearly general relativity is superior here. It's within experimental error in three out of the four experiments above, and just barely out of it with the fourth. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:22, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: The theory of relativity is proven wrong by the data, '''''beyond measurement error'''''. If you're not going to address that directly, then I'm unlikely to respond further to your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I really don't know what to say. I just showed that for four experiments of the precession of Mercury's perihelion relativity was within experimental uncertainty in three of them and just barely out of it for one. This is better that Newtonian theory which was zero for four. Measuring outside experimental uncertainty ''once'' doesn't automatically make a theory wrong. They are many differences between a simple, clean model and a complex, messy reality that can account for this. Even just by statistics alone you'd expect a correct theory to be outside measurement error once in a while. It still stands that relativity is more accurate than any other theory.
:::::::::::: If you have any citations of experiments that show relativity's predictions fall outside experimental uncertainty I'll be happy to address them. However, just declaring that it's outside experimental uncertainty, but you don't have the data because a relativity cabal is keeping it secret is doesn't merit a response. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:54, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: The most recent -- and most precise -- Mercury perihelion precession data '''''demonstrate that the [[theory of relativity]] is wrong by more than the measurement error'''''. Case closed based on the data.

::::::::::::: [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site. If someone has more precise Mercury perihelion precession data than what has disproved the theory of relativity, then a discussion of that data is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Sigh... I just explained in detail why it wasn't "case closed". Being outside experimental error doesn't automatically make a theory wrong, especially when it isn't that far off. It could mean the theory is wrong or it could mean the theory is right, but by chance measured outside experimental uncertainty. By statistics we expect that to happen every now and then. '''''You can't just cherry pick the one experiment that fits your preconceptions and declare it case closed. You have to take all the other experimental data into account.''''' When you do that here (that is, you also look at the other three experiments) the results look in favor for relativity.

:::::::::::::: You can have the last word if you want. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:31, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: It is not true that the data demonstrate that the theory of relativity is wrong by more than the measurement error. What you have is a difference of opinion, and one scientist claiming that the combination of relativity and other assumptions and observations results in a discrepancy that exceeds the ''estimated'' measurement error. The problem could be with those other assumptions and observations, or with the estimate of the measurement error. As with the Pioneer anomaly, there are explanations that do not violate relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: Any and all attempts to reconcile the observed data with the theory of relativity are welcome. Instead, I not aware of the publication of observed data for this fundamental claim of the theory since 1992 (see above), despite improvements in technology and precision since then. Anyone think that it became impossible to observe the data after that time??? Notice what the data were showing leading up that point: increasing divergence (and contradiction) with the well-settled prediction made by the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:37, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Here is the [http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf Mercury Radar Ranging Data from 1987 to 1997]. The work was carried out by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under NASA. You are absolutely free to analyze the data in depth to see if the relativists are hiding anything. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:32, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Somehow I doubt the data above (going five years after the supposed suppression of data began) is going appease you. Well, you can go send NASA a letter and ask them for the most recent data about Mercury's orbit. They might give it to you if you ask nicely and they almost certainly have it, since [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/index.html they currently have a space probe orbiting Mercury] (I guess they didn't get the memo from the relativists telling everyone to ignore Mercury because it contradicted relativity). Anyway, once you get the data you'll have definitive proof that liberals have been suppressing important information about Mercury's orbit (or something). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:18, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: Looking back, I made a mistake. I said general relativity's prediction was outside the measurement uncertainty for the fourth experiment (Anderson et al., 1992). I misread it. GR prediciton: 42.98 ±0.04, Observation: 43.13 ± 0.14. They actually do overlap. So general relativity is four for four. My bad. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:41, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::: I took a look at the JPL link above but did not find any reference to the perihelion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::::: I'm pretty sure there's no reference to the perihelion because it's the raw data, without analysis. If the data was mapped to show Mercury's location, it would (presumably) show a perihelion. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

=== More counterexamples ===
I found another page with a long list of supposed counterexamples. It looks like nonsense to me, but you can check it out for yourself. He says, "Fossil records indicate the Earth’s gravity was far less during the time of the dinosaurs." He does have references of many of his alleged anomalies. [http://knol.google.com/k/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence-presented] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

=== Denial of [[Nobel Prize]] to anyone who criticizes relativity ===

:::::::: [[Robert Dicke]], the finest American physicist of the 20th century, criticized the theory of relativity and was then never given a Nobel Prize. In fact, in a pattern also used to punish [[Fred Hoyle]] for his criticism of the theory of evolution, a Nobel Prize was given for Dicke's insight to other scientists less deserving of the award than Dicke, within years of Dicke's criticism of the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: According to the [http://www.nap.edu/readingroom.php?book=biomems&page=rdicke.html National Academies Press] Dicke was given:
::::::::: ''"the National Medal of Science (1971), the Comstock Prize of the National Academy of Sciences (1973), and the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (1973). He was a member of the National Science Board from 1970 to 1976. Bob was appointed to the Princeton University Department of Physics in 1946, served as chair from 1967 to 1970, moved to emeritus in 1984''.
::::::::: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:11, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Right ... and no [[Nobel Prize]], despite being the finest American physicist of the 20th century. Note also that it was his criticism of relativity in the mid-1970s -- after the awards you cite -- that caused him to be punished by the Nobel Prize committee. No one in grad school or on university faculties dare criticize Relativity again, no matter what the data say. No relativist will even criticize the policy of excluding anyone who criticizes the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: I am sure the Nobel committee has its prejudices. Hoyle once wrote a letter to the London Times criticizing a Nobel physics prize. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/03/fred-hoyle-nobel-prize/print] So maybe they did not like him for that. By the time they gave the big bang prize in 1978, Gamow and others were dead. I would have rather given the prize to the theorists, but those are the biases of the folks in Sweden. I am not sure it has anything to do with the acceptability of relativity. There is a lot of excellent theoretical work that never got a prize, such as the work of Poincare and Minkowski on relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:56, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: You link to an interesting, in-depth article that gives other possible examples of Nobel Prize bias. But the article misses the timing on the insult to Fred Hoyle -- fall 1983 -- which was around the time that he was challenging a tenet of evolution (I'd like to obtain further details on the timing - his partner in the research apparently raised the criticism as early as 1980). Such a coincidence in timing for a prize that was given for 1957 work can hardly be ignored. Note that the article also says Fowler was "stunned" by the award's passing over Hoyle.

:::::::::::: The article also omits the insults to Teller and Wheeler, to Robert Dicke, and to Raymond Damadian (see explanation in [[Nobel Prize]]).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: I am not sure I understand your bias theory, but even supposing that some Swedes have some prejudices, how does this relate to the merits of relativity? You criticize the 1978 prize. But that was for discovery of the cosmic microwave radiation that was predicted by relativity theorists and confirmed by a couple of telephone company engineers who were just trying to measure their satellite reception interference. They did not even believe in the relativity explanation. So why did the Swedes give the prize to the Bell engineers instead of the relativists? Maybe you should start a page on Counterexamples to Swedish Wisdom. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:00, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: "Swedes" are not picking the Nobel Prize-winners. They just act on the recommendations of [[liberal]] professors who don't like criticism of the theories of evolution, relativity, or [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Really, the bias is not that complicated. It's no different from the bias in [[Academy Award]]s, [[Pulitzer Prize]]s, [[Rhodes Scholar]]s, or any other award system that is heavily influenced by leftists.

:::::::::::::: Once [[Fred Hoyle]] and [[Robert Dicke]] criticized liberal theories, they had to be punished. The greatest punishment is to award the Nobel Prize for their work '''''to someone less deserving'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:08, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

== Standard kilogrammes? ==
I'm not sure how good an argument this is. ONE out of a batch of 40 identical standard kilogrammes has diverged in weight from the others. Common sense says that there's something wrong with that one weight, which is after all stored in France. It's not likely that the answer has anything to do with relativity, which if correct would have caused an identical change in mass in all 40. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:06, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: I have a drawer full of socks. I cannot find a match for one of them. Can I blame relativity? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::Is it a French sock? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 08:14, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Maybe so. Or from some other country where "kilogram" is spelled "kilogramme". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::That would be everywhere except the USA. I'm English. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:I believe that it has something to do with the metals used are slightly radioactive and are emitting either alpha or beta particles causing a very slight decrease in weight. The answer doesn't have anything to do with relativity and is a well know issue. Scientists are currently trying to come up with a better way of standardizing mass. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:56, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::There's a difference between relativity and quantum mechanics (which explains the above observation). If you only took high school physics--you have about two hundred years of catching up to do on the field. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

==Ummmm...==

Physics has come a long way since Albert Einstein published his theories of relativity. Actually, there are quite a few hypothetical paradigms within modern physics that would allow a particle of sufficiently high energy to apparently travel faster than light. I'm not a physicist (as I've said on other pages, I'm a biologist), but I am peripherally familiar with a few of the better-supported ideas. I suggest you read up on M theory and string theory. At the risk of butchering the explanation (I am NOT a physicist), I will say that within the paradigm of M theory and string theory, observing high-energy particles moving slightly faster than light is not all that surprising. That said, the authors of the paper describing the "faster than light" neutrinos, admit up front that the numbers they got was probably the result of some sort of experimental error--the results need to be repeatable in order to be scientific. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

: Science can advance with one observation, and it's not necessary to wait until it is repeated before discussing and learning from it. How quickly (if ever) was the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] repeated?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:: The Michelson-Morley experiment was first done in 1887. It was repeated by them and by others many times in the next few years. Illingworth and Kennedy came up with a variant that was more sensitive and could test for certain exotic explanations. They did that very soon after the initial experiment. Dayton Miller also did such experiments and continued to do them even after Einstein's work was completed. Miller acknowledged the results of the experiments but remained a committed opponent to special relativity. One of Miller's experiments did actually turn up some interesting results but his later experiments and other work failed to replicate it and it seems to have been a statistical anomaly. Others continued to duplicate versions of the MM experiment because the data from it can be used to test aspects of special relativity and other ideas. So duplicated forms have continued right up to the present day although generally using carefully tuned lasers as the light sources which give much more precision. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Some experiments done following the MM experiment (not all listed, only some early ones and some recent ones): Morley-Miller 1902-1904 (published 1904), Miller 1921, Miller 1923-1924, Antonini et al 2005, Stanwix et al 2006, Eisele et al 2009, Herrmann et al 2009. Plus others between them, just listing some early ones and some recent ones. And it is usually necessary to wait until an experiment is repeated before accepting it to be accurate. A single observation, that can't be repeated, usually has an explanation within the current understanding of physics. For example, a network of ravines and gullies was observed in the 1870s on the surface of Mars, and there was wide speculation about their origin. An explanation suggested in the early 1900s wasn't proved until the 1960s, that the ravines and gullies were in actuality an optical illusion caused by streaks of dust blowing across the surface in the strong winds. Another example of a 'discovery' that later turned out to be false was the existence of Vulcan, a planet between Mercury and the Sun. A single observation, unconfirmed by repetition, does not indicate a discovery. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:22, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::: Yes, the M-M experiment was repeated many times. It had to be done at different times of the year, at different altitudes, with different materials, etc. Eg, maybe the length contraction might have been different for wood and brass.
::: There are physicists who have suggested faster than light particles, but string theory and M theory are Lorentz invariant and useless on the issue. The string theorists would definitely be surprised by anything faster than light. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:24, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::: Claimed results from a single experiment have been proven wrong before (e.g, the claims of producing [[cold fusion]] in 1989). It makes sense to see if an experiment is replicated before throwing out an extremely well tested theory. It's very suspicious that we haven't seen neutrinos going faster than the speed of light before this. Experimenters are only human beings and could easily have made a mistake or forget to include something in their calculations. The claimed velocity is only a tiny fraction lager than c and might easily be explained by not taking into account some systematic error.
:::: If Mr. Schlafly's other 36 "counterexamples" are so strong then I don't see why he so badly needs the example of an unreplicated experiment whose data is still in the process of being analyzed. (When Einstein was asked about the book '100 Authors Against Einstein' he responded: "If I were wrong, it would only have taken one".) --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 11:27, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::::: If the experiment is disproved by subsequent experiments, then that particular counterexample can be removed. But the insistence on clinging to the [[theory of relativity]] when the available evidence is to the contrary is unjustified. Einstein's quote is inapplicable to this issue: the context of Einstein's quote refers to a government attempt to discredit his theory. His quote does apply to government efforts to deny scientific evidence today, such as the attempt by the [[NCI]] to deny the [[abortion]]-[[breast cancer]] link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Gee, the experiment counts as a counterexample even before the facts are in. What a surprise....
:::::: I'm not sure if the German government was behind '100 Authors Against Einstein', but even if it were it's completely irrelevant. The folly wasn't that it was done by the government; it was that if relativity was wrong one good argument would suffice. The inclusion of this unconfirmed experimental result just shows how this list of "counterexamples" values quantity over quality. Rather than making a few strong arguments it's a list of 37 random tidbits. '''You're expecting to overturn one of science's best theories with something that can fit inside a Twitter post?''' The reasoning for many points' inclusion are not well explained and counterarguments are not addressed (e.g, Hawking radiation is called a "[c]ontrived explanation" with no justification whatsoever). I suspect the "conciseness" of the points is just a reflection of its author's short attention span. I'll report to the Worldwide Relativity Cabal that we have nothing to fear from... oops. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:46, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Thank you MatthewQ! Oh, and Mr. Schlafly, the evidence does not support a link between abortion and breast cancer. You may find good sources on the topic [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1733063/?tool=pmcentrez here], [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)15835-2/fulltext here], and [http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814 here]. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 08:11, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::: As for redoing the M-M experiment, the [[LIGO]] experiment can be seen as a $400M modern M-M experiment. While the M-M failed to detect the motion of the Earth, LIGO has failed to detect motion in other galaxies. You may be interested in this new paper reporting on an NSF grant to teach high school students about LIGO detecting gravity waves. This is just to be ready in case LIGO ever succeeds in detecting anything, I guess. [http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.3720] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 06:08, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

== A few sections that should be removed... ==

12: For this point to be right, things need to have started VERY VERY small, which is impossible if Creationism is right. This creates an inconsistency within Conservapedia and should be removed.
26: The first part is wrong due to GPSs. In order to be more accurate, they take into account relativity, and hence relativity has produced something useful. The rest of it is repeated in 18. Hence, as everything in 26 is either wrong or repeated, it should be removed.
28: Relativity does not require everything with 0 mass to have 0 momentum. It actually takes into account that light, despite having 0 mass, has momentum.
29: This is actually wrong. The age of each twin is independent of the path travel, it is dependent only on the acceleration they experience. Therefore, this point is wrong.
Any comments or disagreements? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 22:02, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:On point 12, physicists themselves admit that relativity contradicts quantum mechanics shortly after the Big Bang. So even relativists would (or should) concede the validity of this counterexample.

:On point 26, GPS's were not developed as a result of relativity. This has been discussed at length on this site in the past. No relativists were involved in the engineering of GPS's; any differences in timing on the satellites relative to ground are more easily corrected by synchronization rather than theoretical predictions.

:Will review the other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:45, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

::I fully agree with all this. Some of the stuff in this page literally left my head hurting pretty badly from facepalming so hard.

::And, Schlafly, how does this make relativity wrong? Newtonian physics is wrong at quantum levels too. Should we add a "Counterexamples to Newtonian Mechanics" page and put something like that in there too? Of course not--it's an excellent approximation for things on the everyday scale. Same thing with GR.

::No, they were not developed because of relativity, but they were developed taking relativity into account. The people who built it didn't know the specifics, but they knew the corrections from relativity were there and they took them into account. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:53, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

::::I concur. Rather, arguing "counterexamples" is a fine way to demonstrate the weaknesses, inconsistencies, or future directions of inquiry regarding any scientific paradigm. However, it is a logical fallacy to say that "these are the problems with hypothesis A, therefore hypothesis B ''must'' be true". For a position to be effectively argued, one must present empirical evidence in support of an alternative hypothesis. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 00:56, 12 November 2011 (EST)

:::::A bigger logical fallacy occurs when someone insists or thinks that an alternative hypothesis B must exist before disproving a hypothesis A.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:14, 12 November 2011 (EST)

:::::::Good point. However, when a hypothesis is not supported the scientific process usually then entails asking the question of why it was not supported, and then forming a new hypothesis that once again fits all of the available data. This is why scientific understanding of even the most hard and fast paradigms can change so dramatically from one generation to the next (or, occasionally, from one experiment to the next). The most exciting science gets done when a well-reasoned hypothesis is rejected--simply because it opens the door to so many new possibilities.--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 13:01, 14 November 2011 (EST)

== A couple more problems ==

These went up after I posted the other section so I didn't know what to do. If you would prefer I post it there, then sorry. I'm new to wikis so I don't know proper etiquette and perhaps a missed something in the guidelines :)

Anyway, first thing, you state: "It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world."

...Honestly, I am speechless about this. Again, this was taken down but now someone put it back up... You guys honestly think this statement is true? There is no connection between the two--the only thing they have in common is the name "relativity." What, you think that people's morals depend on their frame of reference and change by the relativistic <math> \gamma (\equiv 1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2})</math> factor or something?! I am truly shocked by this...What connection is there? Where is the equation that predicts this?

Secondly: "Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light." Nope. Things can't travel at the speed of light, according to SR. Relativity explicitly states that things cannot go faster than light. If you drop this, then of course there are going to be going to be inconsistencies with SR...And that thread only talks about things going at the speed of light. What's the problem with solenoids travelling near c? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 16:52, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
:Can someone please tell me what the link between moral relativism and GR/SR is...? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:04, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::Because <s>God</s> <s>psychotic rambling homophobic momma's boy</s> Andy Schlafly said so. You have to turn off your <s>indoctrinated</s> educated mind... --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:36, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

== At first glance ==

There are so many problems with this page I don't know where to start. Whomever wrote it is obviously clueless about science and its

methods. A few of the problems include:

1. Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found.

The lack of experimental confirmation ''so far'' of gravity waves does NOT falsify the theory. Absence of evidence is not evidence of

absence.

3. Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of

Relativity.

Only in experiments that have yet to be confirmed.

7. The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds relativity

Untrue. The EFEs contain a term (the cosmological constant) that fully accounts for accelerated expansion.

10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass

What logical problem? I studied physics at the graduate level and have never heard of any logical problem. ?

13. The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement

AAAD is a matter of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In any case, it does NOT Falsify GRT as no information is propagated faster

than light.

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

See 13 (above). This statement also assumes that the action-at-a-distance by Jesus described in the Bible actually happened. It is not

"true and verifiable".

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

Gravitons are the quanta of gravity waves. See #1.

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

The ability to lead to other insights has never been a test of the validity of a scientific theory, and lack of consequent insight does not

falsify a theory.

26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the

theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.

Development of useful devices is a matter of engineering, and is not a test of a scientific theories validity.

27. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction.

This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.

The priniciple of isotropy does not falisfy Relativity. The theory itself accounts for, and predicts, the difference in observed inertia.

28. Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws

of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.

And Relativity also predicts that photons have non-zero momentum. Relativistic systems can have non-zero momentum even with no

rest mass, due to ''mass-energy equivalence''. Relativity correctly predicts the momentum of a massless particle as p = h*f/c = h/λ.

31. The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows

down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to

be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity

Incorrect, as this only takes Special Relativity into account. This is a common fallacy. It is the acceleration required to return the twin

that accounts for the difference in clocks and is explained/predicted by General Relativity. One must take both SRT and GRT into

account.

32. Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right,

theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.

Fields do not constitute an "aether". The EM field exists (and was explained/predicted by Maxwell long before Eistein).

34 (a). In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens.

How is such an account "true and verifiable"?

34(b). This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.

Something that is "likely" does not falsify a scientific theory.

35. Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the

properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.

This is not an argument against applied mathematics, not against Relativity per se.

37. Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding.

This does not falsify the theory.

~~csmcmillion

:'''Reply''': by starting with an ''ad hominem'' attack, you lost credibility from the get-go. A quick review of your points confirms it:

:1. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." It is when billions are spent on many years of looking. Surely you wouldn't think a lost item is in your backpack if you spent time looking for it there and could not find it.

:3. "Only in experiments that have yet to be confirmed." Experiments '''''are''''' confirmation in themselves.

:7. "the cosmological constant... fully accounts for accelerated expansion." Reliance on a cosmological constant has failed before.

:10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass. "What logical problem? I studied physics at the graduate level and have never heard of any logical problem?" Oh please. None of these counterexamples is candidly addressed in physics departments because these counterexamples cast doubt on a theory preferred for political reasons. Anyone in a physics department who expresses doubt about the theory of relativity would be thereby ending his own academic career.

:13. The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement. "AAAD is a matter of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In any case, it does NOT Falsify GRT as no information is propagated faster than light." Relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance (which cannot seriously be disputed in QM) whether a type of information is transmitted or not.

:14. The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51. "See 13 (above). This statement also assumes that the action-at-a-distance by Jesus described in the Bible actually happened. It is not 'true and verifiable.'" There are no [[Counterexamples to the Bible]], so this conflict is a serious one.

:15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching. "Gravitons are the quanta of gravity waves. See #1." And see my answer to #1.

:18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics. "The ability to lead to other insights has never been a test of the validity of a scientific theory, and lack of consequent insight does not falsify a theory." The failure of the theory to produce is strong evidence against its validity.

:26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. "Development of useful devices is a matter of engineering, and is not a test of a scientific theories validity." A theory that inhibits technological progress, rather than enhance it, is almost certainly wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I'll address your other responses as my time permits. For now:

"by starting with an ''ad hominem'' attack"

Stating the obvious is not an ad hominem attack. I didn't say the author was an "idiot". Anyone who honestly thinks that because "devices" have not been engineered based upon a scientific theory somehow ''falsifies'' that theory ''is'' truly clueless (maybe ignorant would have been a better word) of science and the scientific method. A correct scientific theory must explain previous observations and correctly predict those to come. No where is there a requirement that it lead to engineered "devices".

14. "The action-at-a-distance by Jesus"

I should have added: The AAAD by Jesus is (usually) considered a miracle - a suspension of natural law. So I'm not clear on how the suspension of natural law could be considered a counterexample to a natural law to begin with.

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

I should have asked a simple question on this one: Have you ever asked an astronomer, cosmologist or theoretical physicist if s/he has had insights from Relativity? Please - find ''one'' that hasn't had deep insight as a result.

"A theory that inhibits technological progress, rather than enhance it, is almost certainly wrong.--Andy Schlafly 00:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)"

So, adherence to a literal interpretation of the Bible, which hindered technical progress for more than a thousand years, indicates that the Bible is almost certainly wrong. Thank you '''so much''' for clearing that up. ~~csmcmillion

:Take a look at [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]. When you post more substantive comments, then I'll respond to them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:37, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I agree that "relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance", but not that AAAD "cannot seriously be disputed in QM". There is no QM experiment that show AAAD. There are interpretations of QM that seem to imply AAAD, and respected physicists who believe in those interpretations and hence in AAAD. But QM does not imply AAAD as there are also relativistic interpretations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:27, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:QM experiments have shown that a pair of spinning, entangled photons can be separated a great distance, and that the mere observation of the spin of one of those photons immediately removes the uncertainty about the spin of the other photon a far distance away. All attempts to deny that [[action-at-a-distance]] reality have failed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:42, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:: Yes, the photon experiment is correct. Some people do interpret the observation of one photon as affecting the other photon. But there is no proof of that. You could prove it if the observation transmitted information, but no one can do that. Other interpretations do not require AAAD. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:47, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Andy: Why did you delete RSchlafly's most recent comment? RSchlafly: I believe you are correct. A little research on my part shows numerous refutations to the assertions made on this page, going back a couple of years:

http://skullsinthestars.com/2010/08/09/right-wing-refutations-of-relativity-really-really-wrong/

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/6253

I'm beginning to see why people are telling me not to waste my time trying to contribute to this site.
:All you're doing is making your own "assertions without clarification". We've had these arguments before, and these arguments were created by people who refuse to listen to what we say or refuse to read any of the sources we provide. And it's tiresome. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:44, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:User:csmcmillion, it's not a discussion when someone won't use his own words to explain his views.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:49, 13 November 2011 (EST)

::And it's not a discussion when sysops repeatedly delete comments, as you just did. ~~csmcmillion
:::And what exactly did I delete? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:42, 13 November 2011 (EST)
Just wanted to add to this: When has <math>\Lambda</math> failed? It's a perfectly legitimate term in the EFE's, as csmcmillion has stated. The righthand side of it is (in <math>G=c=1</math> units) is <math>8 \pi T^{\alpha \beta }</math>. You need something on the left which is a measure of curvature, i.e., the Einstein tensor <math>G^{\alpha \beta}</math>. Why the Einstein tensor? Why not the Ricci tensor? Why not the scalar curvature times the metric? The reason is that the stress-energy tensor (T) has to have zero divergence: <math>\nabla_{\beta} T^{\alpha \beta} = 0 </math>. The Einstein tensor has zero divergence as well. But, we also have <math> \nabla_{\gamma} g^{\alpha \beta} = 0</math>. So we can safely add in <math>\Lambda g^{\alpha \beta}</math> to the left hand side of the EFE without violating local conservation of energy-momentum. Using this gives <math>G^{\alpha \beta}+\Lambda g^{\alpha \beta} = 8 \pi T^{\alpha \beta}. </math> [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:46, 15 November 2011 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The "The observed lack of curvature in overall space" is not an "unobserved" phenomenon. Accordingly, it has been reverted along with the others. Looking for something that should be there under a theory, but not finding it there as predicted, is a counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:50, 30 November 2011 (EST)

:[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], sorry, yes, I was being a bit overzealous on that one. However, I think the principle holds - many of the concepts listed are not counterexamples. Starting with number one: relativity predicts gravity waves and predicts that they will be extremely difficult to detect. Now I hear you say that's a pretty lousy kind of prediction - and you're right - but it still doesn't make it a counterexample. The same goes for the entry on gravitons (additionally, they're a prediction of quantum theory, not relativity, but that's for another phase of editing).
:It may be that further categorizing is necessary. For example, issues like the Twin Paradox and the Ehrenfest Paradox are not strictly unobserved phenomena either. Item 37, failure to solve the equations, is a problem for mathematics, not necessarily for relativity.
:Perhaps a simpler solution would be to rename the whole article, perhaps to 'Counterarguments to Relativity'. That way the article doesn't look silly by listing things that clearly aren't counterexamples, and also is open to inclusion of a broader range of criticisms of the theory. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:50, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:: I agree with QPR, as upon thinking about it, 'counterexamples' does not accurately describe the things on the list. And looking for something predicted and not finding it is only a counterexample/counterargument if it is predicted to be in a specific place, and when looking there, it isn't found. Hence, not finding gravity waves despite looking for them doesn't mean they don't exist. Many things were thought to be myths or non-existent until they were found, including giraffes. But I also disagree with QPR in that categorizing the list is unnecessary, and would result in needless discussions about where certain points belong, rather than more productive discussions. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:56, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::: I don't think that counterexamples is the best word either. My suggestion would be to leave the title as is, but to split the list into ''paradoxes'' and ''anomalies''. They maybe people would have a better idea what to expect from each item. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:43, 2 December 2011 (EST)

Response to the above: the list is of "counterexamples". These are examples that are counter to the theory. Other terms, like "paradox" or "anomaly", capture neither the concept of "example" nor of it being "counter" to the theory. The term "paradox" arises in philosophy, but this isn't philosophy. Relativity is a theory that pretends to be correct in every case, but it isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:24, 3 December 2011 (EST)

== Deleted example to releativity ==

Hello, I added a counter example to relativity that was removed, despite it being valid. My counter example was that the special theory of relativity predicts that mass is a form of energy and they are interchangeable. But if this were true the huge amount of energy stored in common matter would have been utilised by now in power stations and weaponry.

The problem is, it's been over 100 years since this theory was published and not one power station that utilises the interchange of mass and energy predicted by relativity has actually been built.

However, this counter example was removed because a member claimed that these do exist. Now this leaves us with a dichotomy. Do we...
A) Admit that these power stations exist (which they don't) and therefore acknowledge the special theory of relativity is accurate and true, or
B) We keep the counter example included that no power station that utilises special relativity exists, and therefore it is a sign that relativity is false.

I think we should vote for B on this issue. It would be like inventing the motor engine, but not building cars! --[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 12:36, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:Actually these power stations DO exist and have done for decades; they're called "nuclear reactors" and they generate heat by turning mass into energy. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 12:45, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::If these stations do exist, then how come Albert Einstein admitted of the inability to apply the predictions of his OWN theory? I quote "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable".

::Next you'll be telling me that we can do the physically impossible and generate electricity by fusing atoms to form heavier atoms too.

::Let's face it, special relativity has no practical application in providing energy. If it were, mass and energy would be seen interchanging all the time. F will ''always'' equal MA, mass can neither increase or decrease by being converted into energy; observations of non-zero mass particles accelerated to ''exactly'' the speed of light prove this.--[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 13:01, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:::The stations exist, hundreds of them, all over the world. Some of them even fit into ships and submarines. Nuclear fission reactors produce power by converting rest mass into electromagnetic and kinetic energy, exactly in accordance with e=mc2. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 13:06, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::::''I'' don't believe that. Do you ''know'' they exist for sure? Have you ''really'' ever been to one? ''I'm'' sure they employ some kind of ''a'' clever trick. Otherwise Newton, unchallenged as the most intelligent ''scientist'' of all time, would see his second law of motion proven wrong. The second law of motion is a law that is known to always hold true by centuries of accurate tests. These power stations can not exist, the laws of physics don't allow it!--[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 13:18, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:::::I don't care what you believe. Yes they exist, and yes I've been to one. If you tell me where you live I'll give you directions to the nearest one, and you can either visit or call their press officer. Either way they'll be happy to explain how they turn mass into energy and generate power with the heat that's released. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 13:23, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::::::These aren't my beliefs, these are scientific facts. Newton's laws have been established for centuries and have never been challenged. Yet if they are true, then nuclear power stations can't exist because that would require the M of F=MA to be a variable quantity directly related to A.

::::::As I put more energy into the acceleration of an object, the mass does not increase, it cannot increase. Why? Because mass and energy cannot be interchanged. If this were true, then no non-zero mass particle could ever be accelerated to the speed of light. Non-zero mass particles are accelerated to the speed of light every day at particle colliders worldwide.

::::::If what you say is true, then we would have to get rid of this entire page because it invalidates every counter example.--[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 13:43, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:::::::You're not listening, are you? Conversion of mass into energy, in accordance with e=mc2 is how nuclear reactors work. Your counterexample was removed because it's INVALID. What part of this don't you understand? Newton's Second Law is irrelevant to the point you're trying to make, by the way.

:::::::"Yet if they are true, then nuclear power stations can't exist" Epic fail. Nuclear power stations DO exist.

:::::::"If what you say is true, then we would have to get rid of this entire page because it invalidates every counter example" Why? Just because a theory is false overall, that doesn't mean that parts of it aren't true. Parts of Darwin's theory are true; living things DO inherit characteristics from their parents and those characteristics DO affect their chances of survival. Despite that, evolution is still false. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 13:48, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::::::::If it was removed because nuclear power stations exist, then surely it would invalidate every counter example too, right? If what you claim is correct and they do exist, then shouldn't this whole page be deleted?.
::::::::By the way, Newton's laws are entirely relevant here, the second law being incorrect (I know it is really) is fundamental to relativity --[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 13:58, 3 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::::WHY would it invalidate every counterexample here? There's a lot more to relativity than e=mc2. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 14:13, 3 December 2011 (EST)
::::::@GMilhouse: Newton's second law is not <math>F=ma</math>. It is <math> F=\dot p</math> (Newton's formulation in ''Principia Mathematica''!), where <math>p=mv</math> (non-relativistically) is momentum. This includes the possibility of varying mass - necessary for instance when modelling rocket flight. Plus, can you provide a reference to an experiment where a non-zero mass particle was accelerated to the speed of light? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 14:06, 3 December 2011 (EST)
:Maybe I should cut to the chase. Yes or no. Does the fact that nuclear reactors exist invalidate every possible counter example on this page, and every valid example merely represents an aspect of physics that the current theory does not yet accommodate? If so, then surely this entire page should be deleted. --[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 14:16, 3 December 2011 (EST)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-12-03T19:16:39Z

GMilhouse: /* Deleted example to releativity */

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

==Path Independence and Photons==
Wait, so time is some sort of vector field such that when you integrate it you get time? And that vector field is conservative? I've never heard of such a thing... 
As well, you state: "Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum." Yes, if you plug in the formula for non-relativistic, Newtonian momentum, you get zero, but SR gives you the equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2. Plug m=0 in. You get E=pc. So, the momentum is nonzero. That's a very well-known result... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 12:06, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:So should I take the "counter example" down...? Not to be rude but can someone at least respond to me? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:54, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
::Take it down, then if someone reverts (which is likely) it'll provoke a short discussion that probably won't reach a consensus. Regardless, you're unlikely to succeed in keeping it changed. I'm not trying to discourage, go ahead and try changing it, I'm just letting you know what to expect. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:33, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:::These are interesting points worthy of further discussion. As to the first point, however, merely asking two questions is not persuasive to me.

:::As to the second point, I find the argument somewhat circular. Is the energy equation cited verified by any experiment, or is it merely definitional? If merely definitional, then it does not provide a way for calculating actual momentum.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:54, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Well answer them. The point I'm making is that there is no vector field such that when integrates it, one gets time. I had never heard of it until then. I am asking you to enlighten me.
 
::::And as a matter of fact there is! The equation is E=hf where E is the energy of the photon, f is the frequency of the photon, and h is just a proportionality constant (known as Planck's constant). And it has been experimentally verified. It explains the spectrum from blackbody radiation and it explains the photoelectric effect. And if I recall correctly, your camera uses the photoelectric effect. These things are quite well known... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 14:55, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::Oh, and I forgot to mention--the Compton effect is explained by photons. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:00, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::::Please address my more substantive point: has your equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2 been experimentally verified, or is it simply definitional?

:::::::First of all, will you please answer my question...? What is the vector field such that when one integrates over it, one gets time? And oops. Misread your question. And no, it's not "definitional," it's from the relativistic expressions of energy and momentum... (And yes, those have been experimentally verified--if I recall correctly, using those equations, you can predict what can happen (i.e. speeds) when elementary particles are created. But I'm not particle physicist) Once you have those, just do a little algebra and you get that equation. And I hope you're not going to deny basic algebra....
 
:::::::Again, all this is well known.... Out of curiosity have you ever actually studied relativity or this photon stuff? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 13:39, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::OK, I've removed the counter-example of photons...I think I've provided a satisfactory explanation to Schlafly (and he's not responding for some reason...) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:50, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Schlafly, I saw you re-added the "counter-example." Will you please respond to me? Are you seriously just going to keep it there and refuse to discuss this at all? Wow and you claim that we're not open-minded.... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:45, 9 November 2011 (EST)

::::::::::Andy, there is no "counter-example of photons." Photons are not mentioned in the list. But are you referring to this counterexample:

:::::::::::28.Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.

::::::::::Let's be clear about what the dispute is first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 11 November 2011 (EST)

:::::::::::Yeah, that's the one. Sorry. Poorly-worded. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:29, 14 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::::::Will someone please tell me why (a) SR/GR promotes (moral) relativism, (b) photons aren't legit even though I've just pointed that your argument was wrong (maybe that's a bit generous. To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, I can't even say it's wrong...) and (c) what is the vector field such that when one integrates over it, one gets time? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 10:26, 27 November 2011 (EST)

==FTL Neutrinos at LHC ==

It may be jumping the gun to put the finding from Friday as evidence against GR. The results have yet to be duplicated - duplicability is needed for a claim to have scientific merit - and have yet to be carefully peer reviewed. The results are significant at the 95% CI but that means there's a 1 in 20 chance they're actually inaccurate. Given how many measurements are made at the LHC some are going to be both statistically significant and incorrect. It may be more prudent to wait to see if it's a one off or measurement error. I propose waiting at least until other particle acceleration labs can attempt to duplicate the results to make any judgement; after all, that's what CERN is doing
--[[User:BillyWest|BillyWest]] 00:18, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:I disagree. The opposition to the results from CERN -- which confirm prior results from another laboratory which were not as precise -- is unreasonable. It's not necessary to continue to pretend that Relativity is true when there is so much evidence against it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:35, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::CERN itself hasn't even confirmed the results. The data was published a lot quicker than data usually is because if it is accurate, then it changes the majority of physics laws discovered in the past century. The theory of relativity is not the only theory/law which involves the speed of light, electromagnetism does as well. Because of this, CERN wanted other scientists to try and find a flaw in the experiment quickly so that if there is a flaw, it is found quickly, and if there isn't, then scientists can begin determining what needs to change in order to accomodate this. Once the data has been properly analysed, without prematurely jumping to conclusions, then it would be fair to say that the neutrinos traveled faster than the speed of light. But something to keep in mind: this is not the first experiment done with neutrinos, all of the prior ones having travelled slower than the speed of light. If you do an experiment 500 times, and each results has a 1/1000 chance of being inaccurate, there is a 40% chance that at least one result will be inaccurate. If they find an error in the experiment (such as a piece of the measuring equipment being broken, or poor calibration of equipment, or leftover neutrinos from previous experiments, or any other impacting error), then wouldn't it make conservapedia look silly for jumping to a conclusion too quickly? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The CERN experiment is not the only one suggesting faster-than-c travel. Moreover, there is no basis for doubting the news that something travels faster than c. Most of the objections in the media are based in an irrational clinging to Relativity. Hence the counterexample is being restored ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Looks like they've found the problem already: there was a flaw with the experiment.http://www.dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php This article basically says that they used GPS to measure the locations and the times. However, because the satellite used moves at a different speed to the Earth, relativity needs to be taken into account. Usually, relativity has no significant effect until speeds get nearish the speed of light. However, the neutrinos travelled 60 nanoseconds faster than light. Because it's nanoseconds, the speed difference of the Earth and the satellite is enough that relativity affects the experiment at the nanosecond level. Scientists have done calculations to determine how this changes the results (as because of the flaw, the results they got weren't actually accurate), and found that the neutrinos actually travelled for 64 seconds longer than they previously thought, making their speed very slightly less than the speed of light. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 18:02, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

: No, this explanation has not been accepted. There have been many other papers with other explanations. The jury is still out. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:33, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Paul Johnson, the renowned historian, explains the link -- and the significance of the link -- between relativity and moral relativism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:57, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
:Do you have a link for that? It seems pretty flimsy to me. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:10, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::Ah right, I found some stuff! It appears that Johnson acknowledged that there was no ACTUAL link between the two, but pointed out how many liberals CLAIM a link. That seems pretty close to what the article is saying, so my edit probably wasn't the best idea I've ever had, and as a bonus I've learned something interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain rather than just blocking me :-S --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:17, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Have you read Tribe's article applying the curvature of space to support liberal views?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, I haven't. Is it easy to find? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: You can find it here [http://blog1.darkbuzz.com/tribe-1989.htm] or a pdf here [http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/~wat4y/103_Harv._L._Rev._1,_.PDF][http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~daw/D_Realism/Tribe.pdf]. On a college campus, you might be able to get it here.[http://www.jstor.org/pss/1341407] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Relativity and Electromagnetism ==
It is often claimed that Relativity is proven by its ability to explain aspects of electromagnetism. But those aspects do not relate to physical mass, gravity or various frames of reference throughout the universe -- the basic claims of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: Lorentz used electromagnetic relativity to predict relativistic mass in 1899, and it was experimentally confirmed a couple of years later. Poincare used E=mc2 for radiation in 1900. So I think that electromagnetic aspects of relativity do relate to physical mass. They also relate to various frames of reference, as electromagnetic experiments were done at different times of the year to test different frames of reference in the Earth's orbit. Gravity and electromagnetism are separate forces, and I guess it is fair to say that relativistic aspects had to be tested separately. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Most of the counterexamples to Relativity relate to gravity; some relate to the claim that all (non-accelerating) frames of reference are the same everywhere in the universe. The essence of Relativity is its claims about gravity and space. Electromagnetism experiments have nothing to do with this, and do not confirm any of these "grand unified" assertions of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:12, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: You have to distinguish between general relativity, which is about gravity, and special relativity, which isn't.
::: Anyway, Newtonian mechanics is not consistent with Maxwell's equations while relativity (both special and general) is. Do you deny Maxwell's equations, Aschlafly? If you accept Newtonian mechanics, you have to. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: Also, it should be noted that Einstein's famous 1905 paper (which was very important in the history of relativity) is entitled ''On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies''. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:30, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Again, a big part of the objection to Relativity is its "grand unified" approach. The insistence on that view is simply not scientific, and is contrary to the data.

::::: There are different forces in nature. There really are, and they really are different. That's what the data show.

::::: Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light. None of that exists in electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: ''Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light'' -> No. Light travels the speed of light in special relativity. Any massless particle does as well.
:::::: ''None of that exists in electromagnetism'' -> A charged particle with a velocity less than the speed of light definitely falls under the domain of electromagnetism.
:::::: Again, Maxwell's equations and Newtonian mechanics are inconsistent. You can't have both. The fact that other forces exist is irrelevant. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:56, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Special relativity makes no predictions, and only assumptions, about the speed of light. Instead, special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light.
::::::: When the claim is made that Relativity explains electromagnetism, the claim is not referring to charged particles traveling less then the speed of light.
::::::: Your statement that Maxwell's equations and Newtownian mechanics are somehow inconsistent needs explanation. They describe completely different forces.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Special relativity predicts the speed of light is the same regardless of orientation of the observer, which is consistent with the Michelson–Morley experiment. It also predicts that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer, which is consistent with the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment.
:::::::: You said velocities less than the speed of light not exist in electromagnetism. This was clearly false.
:::::::: I already mentioned that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under Galilean transformation, yet are under Lorentz transformations. This is very well known. If you want the exact details see [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.165.5841&rep=rep1&type=pdf On the Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=19TCz0cxAFMC&pg=PA484&lpg=PA484&dq=%22maxwell's+equations%22+invariant+under+%22lorentz+transformation%22&source=bl&ots=gudaGknbwi&sig=9idd1t_o89t5RUSLcemoMq7hNjc&hl=en&ei=eq9SToXdHuTH0QHig62-Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CHQQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=%22maxwell's%20equations%22%20invariant%20under%20%22lorentz%20transformation%22&f=false Understanding Physics, Invariance of electromagnetism under Lorentz transformation]. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: Special relativity says that the speed of light is constant. Maxwell's theory says that same thing, as does the Michelson-Morley experiment. It can be said to be an assumption or a prediction, depending on what textbook you are reading. At any rate, it is testable, and has been confirmed in many ways (for light in a vacuum). It was tested in outer space before testing on Earth. Relativity certainly also makes predictions about charged particles traveling less then the speed of light. The biggest prediction is the formula known as the Lorentz force law. This was an important part of relativity as decribed by Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein. The Lorentz force law used to be considered part of Maxwell's equations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:49, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: These are interesting mathematical observations, having aesthetic value. They can suggest the existence of an intelligent designer.

::::::::: But the physical significance of these mathematical observations is scant or non-existence. Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light, and claims made by special relativity with respect to such motion are not verified by electromagnetism. Claims made by general relativity are not verified at all by electromagnetism.

::::::::: I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics. I'm not saying that Newtonian mechanics must be correct, but some criticisms of it do not withstand scrutiny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Yes, electromagnetism does involve particles moving close enough to the speed of light for relativistic effects to be important. Examples include the electron gun in an ordinary CRT TV set, electric motors, speakers, and just about any electronic device. These are not new. The earliest non-optical tests of special relativity were the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments] They started in 1901 based on Lorentz's relativity, and pre-date Einstein. They show that mass increases with velocity so that nothing goes faster than light. In Newtonian mechanics, the speed of light is not an obstacle. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:13, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::: ''"Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light."'' -> [[Particle accelerator]] use electromagnetic fields to move particles close to the speed of light.
::::::::::: ''"I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics."'' -> The observed constancy of speed of the speed of light (an electromagnet wave) does. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:16, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I have an open mind about this, and would like to learn more. I wasn't familiar with the Kaufmann-Bucherer-Neumann experiments but didn't get much out of the Wikipedia description of them in the above link. Is there a clearer, more objective explanation that doesn't end with a sweeping, unsupported claim of proof of Relativity?

:::::::::::: The two most prominent claims of proof of Relativity -- the perihelion advance of Mercury and the binary pulsar -- are now counterexamples and the most precise data are not being made available to the public. So something isn't adding up in favor of Relativity.

:::::::::::: The lack of scientific basis for Relativity leaves it defenseless against another unscientific theory: string theory. Before long it may become important to list counterexamples to string theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Can I start [[counterexamples to string theory]] now? Its a good excuse for me to learn! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:57, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Please do! Also, Max, did you see the answer to your question about how Relativity is used by [[liberals]] to advance their belief system? I can repost the links if you didn't see them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Great, I'll look into String Theory (I don't know much about it) and get on to writing something. Having a project to work on is a great incentive to learn new topics. please do post those links, thanks!

::::::::::::::::I see the links are posted just above this subheading, under "You can find it here"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Ah yes, now I see. I'll read those tonight. Thanks! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:46, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: The Mercury and binary pulsar observations were used to support the gravity theory, and relativity remains the most accurate explanation. Andy, you asked about electromagnetism, not gravity. There is no way to understand electromagnetism without relativity, as far as I know. The Kaufmann experiments were supposed to disprove relativity. More precise experiments were consistent with relativity, as with all the other electromagnetic experiments. Just turn on an old-style TV set with a tube. How do you think that those pixels get lit up? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:16, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: There is some overlap between the invariant equations for electromagnetism and for relativity. The electromagnetism invariant equations came first, so I think the better description would be that one cannot understand relativity without understanding electromagnetism, not vice versa. But what that has to do with gravity is far from clear. In fact, it probably has nothing to do with gravity. Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism, because no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism.

::::::::::::: It's not relativity that lit up the pixels on an old TV screen. Quantum mechanics has more to do with that than relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:32, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ''Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism'' -> Untrue. Quantum electrodynsmics (QED) combines special relativity, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. A Nobel Prize for its discovery was awarded to Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga in 1965.

:::::::::::::: ''no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism'' -> Also untrue. QED predictions are accurate within 12 significant digits, making it the most accurate theory we have. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:17, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: By my count, Nobel prizes were given for relativistic electromagnetism were given in 1902, 1907, 1933, 1945, 1965, 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1999. Prizes for relativistic gravity were given in 1978, 1983, and 1993. The list is here.[http://www.almaz.com/nobel/physics/physics.html] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

@Andy Schlafly: Relativity predicts that no particle with mass can go the speed of light or faster. How do you explain that no particle accelerator has been able to get a massive particle at or above the speed of light? How do you explain the results that the inertial mass increases with velocity, as relativity predicts? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:00, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:PArticle accelerators don't. CERN (the biggest one) gets them exceedingly close, but not above. It's something like 99.999% of C. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:59, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: Relativity assumes that, rather than predicts it. I think relavitist purists would actually say all that is needed is a maximum velocity, whether that is "c" or something else. Many would not be genuinely surprised if velocities slightly faster than ''c'' are ultimately attained, and ''c'' itself may be changing over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:36, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

: Historically, the constant speed of light was an empirical observation, and not just an assumption. Maxwell's theory predicted that electromagnetic waves traveled at the speed of light, and that was observed. It was one of the big reasons for concluding that light was an electromagnetic wave. Experiments like Michelson-Morley (1887) found a constant speed of light. Also, there were astronomical reasons for believing in a constant speed of light. Distances were measured in light-minutes or light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant. Yes, Einstein declared the constant speed of light to be postulate in 1905, but by then it was a well-accepted empirical fact. Going faster than ''c'' or finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics that it would be like finding a perpetual motion machine. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:27, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Empirical data suggest that the speed of light has changed over time, and as recently as 1/6th of the universe's lifetime. [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html]

:: You comments, like "distances were measured in ... light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant," is a political statement, not a scientific one. Likewise for stating that "finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics ...." Is this what university science has become - ignoring the data to preserve the reputation of some current and past professors?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The article you linked to claims that "The speed of light...may have been lower as recently as two billion years ago." How do you reconcile that time frame with a Young Earth Creationist model where the universe is only 6000 years old? You cant reject that study on the one hand because it directly contradicts the Bible but embrace it on the other when it supports the idea of a shifting c. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 18:45, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: The linked article says there may have been a change in the fine structure constant, α, not necessarily the speed of light, c. Also, it hardly seems like a variable α is currently well-established. It's just the result from one set of data. But even accepting that there has been a change in α and that this means a change in c, the amount seems minuscule. The article says that α "had increased by a few parts in 105 in the past 12 billion years", which would correspond to a similar change in c. Therefore, even if c is not exactly constant it would be very nearly constant and relativity would still be a great approximation. That's ignoring that there may be a mundane explanation for this apparent change.
:::: Also, as BrentH mentions above, if you accept these results you have to accept that the universe is billions of years old. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: I was explaining historically why the speed of light was thought to be constant. It was not just some unproved Einstein relativity assumption. There was solid experimental and theoretical evidence before Einstein. There is no evidence for a variable speed of light. That 2004 paper claiming alpha changed has been superseded with a more accurate study in 2007, with no variation. [http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/the-oklo-reactor-and-varying-physical-constants/][http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0701019] Even if alpha changed, it would not necessarily mean that ''c'' changed. I am not sure why any of this is political. We can measure the speed of light to about 10 decimal places. If the speed were not constant, then an experiment would be likely to detect it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I wish you, Andy and I could have a drunken dinner together some time. That would be an epic debate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:17, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, what do you make of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation syncrotron radiation]? Here you have effects which can't be explained without relativity and which are used in many fields of research, e.g. in medicine... 08:28, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Wikipedia]] has many dubious claims that relativity explains something ... as one might expect from a [[liberal]] website. This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L] It appears that this may be unresolved and I welcome more discussion about it. I don't see evidence that relativity played a role in discovering it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Nearly everything about charged particles requires relativity and quantum mechanics. There is no alternative way to understand charged particles, as far as I know. I do not even know what it would mean to reject relativity for this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:12, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Relativity is an unproductive belief system, disproved by more precise measurements in the tests that supposedly verified it. String theory is taking over university physics programs because Relativity is so obviously flawed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 27 August

-
::::::: [[String theory]] assumes that relativity is 100% correct. Physicists pursue string theory because they are sold on Einstein's dream of using relativistic ideas to unify physics, without having to pay attention to experiments. They are ''not'' pursuing string theory because they are persuaded by your list of relativity counterexamples. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:47, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
:::::::: String theory's motivation is to provide a way to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity, so it assumes general relativity is a good description of nature. In fact, string theory becomes general relativity in the low energy limit. In addition, string theories are Lorentz invariant. Whatever the merits of string theory, relativity is incorporated fundamentally to it, so if anything this example speaks to the strength of relativity. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:11, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
::::::::: Andy Schlafly: ''"This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L]"''-> It also says (right in the abstract) that relativity ''must'' be taken into account:

-
::::::::::"However, '''when ɣB ≅ 1014 Gauss, where ɣ is the electron Lorentz factor, Compton scattering becomes important'''. The result is a reduction in the synchrotron loss rate which '''agrees closely with quantum electrodynamics'''." [Emphasis added]

-
::::::::: Both Compton scattering and quantum electrodynamics make use of special relativity. If you take a look at the equations in the paper you can see that special relativity is used explicitly. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:32, 27 August 2011 (EDT)2011 (EDT)

This discussion is interesting, and I'm learning from it. I have an open mind about this. But it seems to me that term "relativity" is being used in comments above to mean anything from "invariance" (which, of course, predates relativity), electromagnetism (which, of course, predates relativity), and even quantum mechanics (which many say conflicts with relativity). The only thing that "relativity" does not seem to mean in many of the above comments is its description of gravity -- which is what is unique to relativity and what most associate it with.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: The word "relativity" was coined by Maxwell, and it became popular from Poincare calling the "principle of relativity" the idea that different inertial frames are indistinguishable. When I said that string theory assumes relativity, I meant primarily that it assumes Lorentz/Poincare invariance. The influence of relativity on physics has been primarily in electromagnetism, not gravity. The nonlinear gravity effects are barely detectable. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:45, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:: * Again, general relativity is about gravity. Special relativity is not.
:: * No one is saying "quantum mechanics" means "relativity". However, the article you linked to referenced quantum electrodynamics (a subset of quantum mechanics) which does incorporate special relativity. Moreover, while general relativity and quantum mechanics are difficult to reconcile, special relativity and quantum mechanics aren't and doing so has produced [[Quantum electrodynamics|the most accurate theory in physics]].
:: * No one is saying "invariance" means "relativity". For example, Galilean invariance contradicts relativity. However, a special type of invariance, Lorentz invariance, is fundamental to both special and general relativity (it holds locally in general relativity). String theory is Lorentz invariant.
:: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:38, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Actually, there were some people around 1910 who wanted to rename relativity theory as invariant theory. Einstein is sometimes said to have agreed with that opinion, but I am not sure he really said that. There is some disagreement about whether relativity is compatible with quantum mechanics. The two main problem areas are collapse of the wave function during an observation, and gravitational nonlinearities at the center of a black hole. But these are a little off the subject. The theories are completely compatible for nearly all considerations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it. Most of the counterexamples here relate to the claims about gravity and the curvature of space that are made by general relativity. Special relativity, according to the theory, is a "special case" of the general theory. If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me.

:::: The mathematical theory of general or special relativity permits no exceptions. So even a slight variation (outside of measurement error) between observation and prediction means the theory is wrong. It means the worldview embodied in relativity is wrong. And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::: ''"Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it."''
::::: We encountered phenomena that none of these people had before. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the Michelson–Morley experiment, gravitational lensing, etc. Changing your worldview in light of new evidence is quite a sensible thing to do.
::::: ''"If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me."''
::::: It's not so much that, but that one must be careful to separate the two.
::::: ''"And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed."''
::::: They haven't been ignored. The data has been analyzed and it agrees with relativity. Just here we've given you the examples of the Michelson–Morley experiment, the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments, Kennedy–Thorndike experiment, synchrotron radiation, etc. We've also answered here your alleged counterexamples to relativity and the problems with them. If you have any more I'd be happy to address them.
::::: I'm not sure what data you're talking about that hasn't being publicly disclosed. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Special relativity is not so much a special case, but rather the linearized version of the general theory. The special theory has been tested in many more different ways, and it could be true without the general theory being true. I really don't think that relativity requires any different view from Maxwell's. Relativity is consistent with what Maxwell said. I really don't see why you would say that relativity does not permit any exceptions any more than Maxwells theory does not permit any exceptions. What's the difference? Theories have formulas. If observations don't agree with the formulas, then something is wrong. Why is relativity any different from any other theory in the hard sciences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:41, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Relativity should not be treated any differently compared with any other theory in the hard sciences. But Relativity obviously is:

::::::*physics journals will not accept for publication anything that conflicts with the theory of relativity
::::::*the Nobel Prize will not be given to anyone who has criticized the theory of relativity
::::::*no science graduate student or science professor dare even criticize the above two forms of censorship.

::::::As to the data, the two leading supposed verifications of the theory are the binary pulsar (for which a Nobel Prize was given) and the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it. Yet additional data have not been made fully available to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::: I have to say I had no idea of this bias until reading Conservapedia. It sounds shocking. Can you tell me which physicists have been denied awards, or refused publication on this basis? It would be really useful in arguments I'm having off-site. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:54, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: ''"But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it."''
:::::::: Can you please provide a source for this claim? What data are you talking about? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: A "source"? No source is needed, or possible given the censorship by physics journals I just described.

::::::::: Wouldn't you be at least interested yourself in looking up what the precession for the Mercury perihelion is, and comparing it to what Relativity predicts? I think that would be the first step before one made up his mind, not something that must be raised by someone else.

::::::::: The Mercury perihelion precession is 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, plus/minus 0.1. General Relativity predicts 5599.98, plus/minus 0.04. The observed precession is clearly outside of prediction by more than the standard of error. But beginning in the early 1990s, probably because of this emerging divergence, physicists stopped publishing the data perhaps to avoid pinpointing the contradiction with even greater accuracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: So by your own admission general relativity is within 0.005% of the correct value?
:::::::::: Anyway, where are you getting your information for the precession rate? From what I gather the error is larger than 0.1 arc-seconds per century.
::::::::::Some values for the anomalous precession rate (i.e, deviation from what you expect from Newtonain gravity):
:::::::::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
:::::::::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
:::::::::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
:::::::::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
:::::::::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]
:::::::::: General relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04, while Newtonian gravity predicts 0. Clearly general relativity is superior here. It's within experimental error in three out of the four experiments above, and just barely out of it with the fourth. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:22, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: The theory of relativity is proven wrong by the data, '''''beyond measurement error'''''. If you're not going to address that directly, then I'm unlikely to respond further to your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I really don't know what to say. I just showed that for four experiments of the precession of Mercury's perihelion relativity was within experimental uncertainty in three of them and just barely out of it for one. This is better that Newtonian theory which was zero for four. Measuring outside experimental uncertainty ''once'' doesn't automatically make a theory wrong. They are many differences between a simple, clean model and a complex, messy reality that can account for this. Even just by statistics alone you'd expect a correct theory to be outside measurement error once in a while. It still stands that relativity is more accurate than any other theory.
:::::::::::: If you have any citations of experiments that show relativity's predictions fall outside experimental uncertainty I'll be happy to address them. However, just declaring that it's outside experimental uncertainty, but you don't have the data because a relativity cabal is keeping it secret is doesn't merit a response. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:54, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: The most recent -- and most precise -- Mercury perihelion precession data '''''demonstrate that the [[theory of relativity]] is wrong by more than the measurement error'''''. Case closed based on the data.

::::::::::::: [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site. If someone has more precise Mercury perihelion precession data than what has disproved the theory of relativity, then a discussion of that data is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Sigh... I just explained in detail why it wasn't "case closed". Being outside experimental error doesn't automatically make a theory wrong, especially when it isn't that far off. It could mean the theory is wrong or it could mean the theory is right, but by chance measured outside experimental uncertainty. By statistics we expect that to happen every now and then. '''''You can't just cherry pick the one experiment that fits your preconceptions and declare it case closed. You have to take all the other experimental data into account.''''' When you do that here (that is, you also look at the other three experiments) the results look in favor for relativity.

:::::::::::::: You can have the last word if you want. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:31, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: It is not true that the data demonstrate that the theory of relativity is wrong by more than the measurement error. What you have is a difference of opinion, and one scientist claiming that the combination of relativity and other assumptions and observations results in a discrepancy that exceeds the ''estimated'' measurement error. The problem could be with those other assumptions and observations, or with the estimate of the measurement error. As with the Pioneer anomaly, there are explanations that do not violate relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: Any and all attempts to reconcile the observed data with the theory of relativity are welcome. Instead, I not aware of the publication of observed data for this fundamental claim of the theory since 1992 (see above), despite improvements in technology and precision since then. Anyone think that it became impossible to observe the data after that time??? Notice what the data were showing leading up that point: increasing divergence (and contradiction) with the well-settled prediction made by the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:37, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Here is the [http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf Mercury Radar Ranging Data from 1987 to 1997]. The work was carried out by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under NASA. You are absolutely free to analyze the data in depth to see if the relativists are hiding anything. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:32, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Somehow I doubt the data above (going five years after the supposed suppression of data began) is going appease you. Well, you can go send NASA a letter and ask them for the most recent data about Mercury's orbit. They might give it to you if you ask nicely and they almost certainly have it, since [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/index.html they currently have a space probe orbiting Mercury] (I guess they didn't get the memo from the relativists telling everyone to ignore Mercury because it contradicted relativity). Anyway, once you get the data you'll have definitive proof that liberals have been suppressing important information about Mercury's orbit (or something). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:18, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: Looking back, I made a mistake. I said general relativity's prediction was outside the measurement uncertainty for the fourth experiment (Anderson et al., 1992). I misread it. GR prediciton: 42.98 ±0.04, Observation: 43.13 ± 0.14. They actually do overlap. So general relativity is four for four. My bad. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:41, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::: I took a look at the JPL link above but did not find any reference to the perihelion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::::: I'm pretty sure there's no reference to the perihelion because it's the raw data, without analysis. If the data was mapped to show Mercury's location, it would (presumably) show a perihelion. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

=== More counterexamples ===
I found another page with a long list of supposed counterexamples. It looks like nonsense to me, but you can check it out for yourself. He says, "Fossil records indicate the Earth’s gravity was far less during the time of the dinosaurs." He does have references of many of his alleged anomalies. [http://knol.google.com/k/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence-presented] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

=== Denial of [[Nobel Prize]] to anyone who criticizes relativity ===

:::::::: [[Robert Dicke]], the finest American physicist of the 20th century, criticized the theory of relativity and was then never given a Nobel Prize. In fact, in a pattern also used to punish [[Fred Hoyle]] for his criticism of the theory of evolution, a Nobel Prize was given for Dicke's insight to other scientists less deserving of the award than Dicke, within years of Dicke's criticism of the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: According to the [http://www.nap.edu/readingroom.php?book=biomems&page=rdicke.html National Academies Press] Dicke was given:
::::::::: ''"the National Medal of Science (1971), the Comstock Prize of the National Academy of Sciences (1973), and the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (1973). He was a member of the National Science Board from 1970 to 1976. Bob was appointed to the Princeton University Department of Physics in 1946, served as chair from 1967 to 1970, moved to emeritus in 1984''.
::::::::: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:11, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Right ... and no [[Nobel Prize]], despite being the finest American physicist of the 20th century. Note also that it was his criticism of relativity in the mid-1970s -- after the awards you cite -- that caused him to be punished by the Nobel Prize committee. No one in grad school or on university faculties dare criticize Relativity again, no matter what the data say. No relativist will even criticize the policy of excluding anyone who criticizes the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: I am sure the Nobel committee has its prejudices. Hoyle once wrote a letter to the London Times criticizing a Nobel physics prize. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/03/fred-hoyle-nobel-prize/print] So maybe they did not like him for that. By the time they gave the big bang prize in 1978, Gamow and others were dead. I would have rather given the prize to the theorists, but those are the biases of the folks in Sweden. I am not sure it has anything to do with the acceptability of relativity. There is a lot of excellent theoretical work that never got a prize, such as the work of Poincare and Minkowski on relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:56, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: You link to an interesting, in-depth article that gives other possible examples of Nobel Prize bias. But the article misses the timing on the insult to Fred Hoyle -- fall 1983 -- which was around the time that he was challenging a tenet of evolution (I'd like to obtain further details on the timing - his partner in the research apparently raised the criticism as early as 1980). Such a coincidence in timing for a prize that was given for 1957 work can hardly be ignored. Note that the article also says Fowler was "stunned" by the award's passing over Hoyle.

:::::::::::: The article also omits the insults to Teller and Wheeler, to Robert Dicke, and to Raymond Damadian (see explanation in [[Nobel Prize]]).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: I am not sure I understand your bias theory, but even supposing that some Swedes have some prejudices, how does this relate to the merits of relativity? You criticize the 1978 prize. But that was for discovery of the cosmic microwave radiation that was predicted by relativity theorists and confirmed by a couple of telephone company engineers who were just trying to measure their satellite reception interference. They did not even believe in the relativity explanation. So why did the Swedes give the prize to the Bell engineers instead of the relativists? Maybe you should start a page on Counterexamples to Swedish Wisdom. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:00, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: "Swedes" are not picking the Nobel Prize-winners. They just act on the recommendations of [[liberal]] professors who don't like criticism of the theories of evolution, relativity, or [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Really, the bias is not that complicated. It's no different from the bias in [[Academy Award]]s, [[Pulitzer Prize]]s, [[Rhodes Scholar]]s, or any other award system that is heavily influenced by leftists.

:::::::::::::: Once [[Fred Hoyle]] and [[Robert Dicke]] criticized liberal theories, they had to be punished. The greatest punishment is to award the Nobel Prize for their work '''''to someone less deserving'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:08, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

== Standard kilogrammes? ==
I'm not sure how good an argument this is. ONE out of a batch of 40 identical standard kilogrammes has diverged in weight from the others. Common sense says that there's something wrong with that one weight, which is after all stored in France. It's not likely that the answer has anything to do with relativity, which if correct would have caused an identical change in mass in all 40. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:06, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: I have a drawer full of socks. I cannot find a match for one of them. Can I blame relativity? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::Is it a French sock? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 08:14, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Maybe so. Or from some other country where "kilogram" is spelled "kilogramme". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::That would be everywhere except the USA. I'm English. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:I believe that it has something to do with the metals used are slightly radioactive and are emitting either alpha or beta particles causing a very slight decrease in weight. The answer doesn't have anything to do with relativity and is a well know issue. Scientists are currently trying to come up with a better way of standardizing mass. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:56, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::There's a difference between relativity and quantum mechanics (which explains the above observation). If you only took high school physics--you have about two hundred years of catching up to do on the field. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

==Ummmm...==

Physics has come a long way since Albert Einstein published his theories of relativity. Actually, there are quite a few hypothetical paradigms within modern physics that would allow a particle of sufficiently high energy to apparently travel faster than light. I'm not a physicist (as I've said on other pages, I'm a biologist), but I am peripherally familiar with a few of the better-supported ideas. I suggest you read up on M theory and string theory. At the risk of butchering the explanation (I am NOT a physicist), I will say that within the paradigm of M theory and string theory, observing high-energy particles moving slightly faster than light is not all that surprising. That said, the authors of the paper describing the "faster than light" neutrinos, admit up front that the numbers they got was probably the result of some sort of experimental error--the results need to be repeatable in order to be scientific. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

: Science can advance with one observation, and it's not necessary to wait until it is repeated before discussing and learning from it. How quickly (if ever) was the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] repeated?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:: The Michelson-Morley experiment was first done in 1887. It was repeated by them and by others many times in the next few years. Illingworth and Kennedy came up with a variant that was more sensitive and could test for certain exotic explanations. They did that very soon after the initial experiment. Dayton Miller also did such experiments and continued to do them even after Einstein's work was completed. Miller acknowledged the results of the experiments but remained a committed opponent to special relativity. One of Miller's experiments did actually turn up some interesting results but his later experiments and other work failed to replicate it and it seems to have been a statistical anomaly. Others continued to duplicate versions of the MM experiment because the data from it can be used to test aspects of special relativity and other ideas. So duplicated forms have continued right up to the present day although generally using carefully tuned lasers as the light sources which give much more precision. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Some experiments done following the MM experiment (not all listed, only some early ones and some recent ones): Morley-Miller 1902-1904 (published 1904), Miller 1921, Miller 1923-1924, Antonini et al 2005, Stanwix et al 2006, Eisele et al 2009, Herrmann et al 2009. Plus others between them, just listing some early ones and some recent ones. And it is usually necessary to wait until an experiment is repeated before accepting it to be accurate. A single observation, that can't be repeated, usually has an explanation within the current understanding of physics. For example, a network of ravines and gullies was observed in the 1870s on the surface of Mars, and there was wide speculation about their origin. An explanation suggested in the early 1900s wasn't proved until the 1960s, that the ravines and gullies were in actuality an optical illusion caused by streaks of dust blowing across the surface in the strong winds. Another example of a 'discovery' that later turned out to be false was the existence of Vulcan, a planet between Mercury and the Sun. A single observation, unconfirmed by repetition, does not indicate a discovery. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:22, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::: Yes, the M-M experiment was repeated many times. It had to be done at different times of the year, at different altitudes, with different materials, etc. Eg, maybe the length contraction might have been different for wood and brass.
::: There are physicists who have suggested faster than light particles, but string theory and M theory are Lorentz invariant and useless on the issue. The string theorists would definitely be surprised by anything faster than light. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:24, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::: Claimed results from a single experiment have been proven wrong before (e.g, the claims of producing [[cold fusion]] in 1989). It makes sense to see if an experiment is replicated before throwing out an extremely well tested theory. It's very suspicious that we haven't seen neutrinos going faster than the speed of light before this. Experimenters are only human beings and could easily have made a mistake or forget to include something in their calculations. The claimed velocity is only a tiny fraction lager than c and might easily be explained by not taking into account some systematic error.
:::: If Mr. Schlafly's other 36 "counterexamples" are so strong then I don't see why he so badly needs the example of an unreplicated experiment whose data is still in the process of being analyzed. (When Einstein was asked about the book '100 Authors Against Einstein' he responded: "If I were wrong, it would only have taken one".) --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 11:27, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::::: If the experiment is disproved by subsequent experiments, then that particular counterexample can be removed. But the insistence on clinging to the [[theory of relativity]] when the available evidence is to the contrary is unjustified. Einstein's quote is inapplicable to this issue: the context of Einstein's quote refers to a government attempt to discredit his theory. His quote does apply to government efforts to deny scientific evidence today, such as the attempt by the [[NCI]] to deny the [[abortion]]-[[breast cancer]] link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Gee, the experiment counts as a counterexample even before the facts are in. What a surprise....
:::::: I'm not sure if the German government was behind '100 Authors Against Einstein', but even if it were it's completely irrelevant. The folly wasn't that it was done by the government; it was that if relativity was wrong one good argument would suffice. The inclusion of this unconfirmed experimental result just shows how this list of "counterexamples" values quantity over quality. Rather than making a few strong arguments it's a list of 37 random tidbits. '''You're expecting to overturn one of science's best theories with something that can fit inside a Twitter post?''' The reasoning for many points' inclusion are not well explained and counterarguments are not addressed (e.g, Hawking radiation is called a "[c]ontrived explanation" with no justification whatsoever). I suspect the "conciseness" of the points is just a reflection of its author's short attention span. I'll report to the Worldwide Relativity Cabal that we have nothing to fear from... oops. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:46, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Thank you MatthewQ! Oh, and Mr. Schlafly, the evidence does not support a link between abortion and breast cancer. You may find good sources on the topic [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1733063/?tool=pmcentrez here], [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)15835-2/fulltext here], and [http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814 here]. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 08:11, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::: As for redoing the M-M experiment, the [[LIGO]] experiment can be seen as a $400M modern M-M experiment. While the M-M failed to detect the motion of the Earth, LIGO has failed to detect motion in other galaxies. You may be interested in this new paper reporting on an NSF grant to teach high school students about LIGO detecting gravity waves. This is just to be ready in case LIGO ever succeeds in detecting anything, I guess. [http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.3720] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 06:08, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

== A few sections that should be removed... ==

12: For this point to be right, things need to have started VERY VERY small, which is impossible if Creationism is right. This creates an inconsistency within Conservapedia and should be removed.
26: The first part is wrong due to GPSs. In order to be more accurate, they take into account relativity, and hence relativity has produced something useful. The rest of it is repeated in 18. Hence, as everything in 26 is either wrong or repeated, it should be removed.
28: Relativity does not require everything with 0 mass to have 0 momentum. It actually takes into account that light, despite having 0 mass, has momentum.
29: This is actually wrong. The age of each twin is independent of the path travel, it is dependent only on the acceleration they experience. Therefore, this point is wrong.
Any comments or disagreements? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 22:02, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:On point 12, physicists themselves admit that relativity contradicts quantum mechanics shortly after the Big Bang. So even relativists would (or should) concede the validity of this counterexample.

:On point 26, GPS's were not developed as a result of relativity. This has been discussed at length on this site in the past. No relativists were involved in the engineering of GPS's; any differences in timing on the satellites relative to ground are more easily corrected by synchronization rather than theoretical predictions.

:Will review the other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:45, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

::I fully agree with all this. Some of the stuff in this page literally left my head hurting pretty badly from facepalming so hard.

::And, Schlafly, how does this make relativity wrong? Newtonian physics is wrong at quantum levels too. Should we add a "Counterexamples to Newtonian Mechanics" page and put something like that in there too? Of course not--it's an excellent approximation for things on the everyday scale. Same thing with GR.

::No, they were not developed because of relativity, but they were developed taking relativity into account. The people who built it didn't know the specifics, but they knew the corrections from relativity were there and they took them into account. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:53, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

::::I concur. Rather, arguing "counterexamples" is a fine way to demonstrate the weaknesses, inconsistencies, or future directions of inquiry regarding any scientific paradigm. However, it is a logical fallacy to say that "these are the problems with hypothesis A, therefore hypothesis B ''must'' be true". For a position to be effectively argued, one must present empirical evidence in support of an alternative hypothesis. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 00:56, 12 November 2011 (EST)

:::::A bigger logical fallacy occurs when someone insists or thinks that an alternative hypothesis B must exist before disproving a hypothesis A.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:14, 12 November 2011 (EST)

:::::::Good point. However, when a hypothesis is not supported the scientific process usually then entails asking the question of why it was not supported, and then forming a new hypothesis that once again fits all of the available data. This is why scientific understanding of even the most hard and fast paradigms can change so dramatically from one generation to the next (or, occasionally, from one experiment to the next). The most exciting science gets done when a well-reasoned hypothesis is rejected--simply because it opens the door to so many new possibilities.--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 13:01, 14 November 2011 (EST)

== A couple more problems ==

These went up after I posted the other section so I didn't know what to do. If you would prefer I post it there, then sorry. I'm new to wikis so I don't know proper etiquette and perhaps a missed something in the guidelines :)

Anyway, first thing, you state: "It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world."

...Honestly, I am speechless about this. Again, this was taken down but now someone put it back up... You guys honestly think this statement is true? There is no connection between the two--the only thing they have in common is the name "relativity." What, you think that people's morals depend on their frame of reference and change by the relativistic <math> \gamma (\equiv 1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2})</math> factor or something?! I am truly shocked by this...What connection is there? Where is the equation that predicts this?

Secondly: "Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light." Nope. Things can't travel at the speed of light, according to SR. Relativity explicitly states that things cannot go faster than light. If you drop this, then of course there are going to be going to be inconsistencies with SR...And that thread only talks about things going at the speed of light. What's the problem with solenoids travelling near c? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 16:52, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
:Can someone please tell me what the link between moral relativism and GR/SR is...? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:04, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::Because <s>God</s> <s>psychotic rambling homophobic momma's boy</s> Andy Schlafly said so. You have to turn off your <s>indoctrinated</s> educated mind... --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:36, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

== At first glance ==

There are so many problems with this page I don't know where to start. Whomever wrote it is obviously clueless about science and its

methods. A few of the problems include:

1. Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found.

The lack of experimental confirmation ''so far'' of gravity waves does NOT falsify the theory. Absence of evidence is not evidence of

absence.

3. Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of

Relativity.

Only in experiments that have yet to be confirmed.

7. The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds relativity

Untrue. The EFEs contain a term (the cosmological constant) that fully accounts for accelerated expansion.

10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass

What logical problem? I studied physics at the graduate level and have never heard of any logical problem. ?

13. The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement

AAAD is a matter of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In any case, it does NOT Falsify GRT as no information is propagated faster

than light.

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

See 13 (above). This statement also assumes that the action-at-a-distance by Jesus described in the Bible actually happened. It is not

"true and verifiable".

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

Gravitons are the quanta of gravity waves. See #1.

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

The ability to lead to other insights has never been a test of the validity of a scientific theory, and lack of consequent insight does not

falsify a theory.

26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the

theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.

Development of useful devices is a matter of engineering, and is not a test of a scientific theories validity.

27. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction.

This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.

The priniciple of isotropy does not falisfy Relativity. The theory itself accounts for, and predicts, the difference in observed inertia.

28. Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws

of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.

And Relativity also predicts that photons have non-zero momentum. Relativistic systems can have non-zero momentum even with no

rest mass, due to ''mass-energy equivalence''. Relativity correctly predicts the momentum of a massless particle as p = h*f/c = h/λ.

31. The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows

down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to

be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity

Incorrect, as this only takes Special Relativity into account. This is a common fallacy. It is the acceleration required to return the twin

that accounts for the difference in clocks and is explained/predicted by General Relativity. One must take both SRT and GRT into

account.

32. Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right,

theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.

Fields do not constitute an "aether". The EM field exists (and was explained/predicted by Maxwell long before Eistein).

34 (a). In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens.

How is such an account "true and verifiable"?

34(b). This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.

Something that is "likely" does not falsify a scientific theory.

35. Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the

properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.

This is not an argument against applied mathematics, not against Relativity per se.

37. Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding.

This does not falsify the theory.

~~csmcmillion

:'''Reply''': by starting with an ''ad hominem'' attack, you lost credibility from the get-go. A quick review of your points confirms it:

:1. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." It is when billions are spent on many years of looking. Surely you wouldn't think a lost item is in your backpack if you spent time looking for it there and could not find it.

:3. "Only in experiments that have yet to be confirmed." Experiments '''''are''''' confirmation in themselves.

:7. "the cosmological constant... fully accounts for accelerated expansion." Reliance on a cosmological constant has failed before.

:10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass. "What logical problem? I studied physics at the graduate level and have never heard of any logical problem?" Oh please. None of these counterexamples is candidly addressed in physics departments because these counterexamples cast doubt on a theory preferred for political reasons. Anyone in a physics department who expresses doubt about the theory of relativity would be thereby ending his own academic career.

:13. The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement. "AAAD is a matter of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In any case, it does NOT Falsify GRT as no information is propagated faster than light." Relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance (which cannot seriously be disputed in QM) whether a type of information is transmitted or not.

:14. The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51. "See 13 (above). This statement also assumes that the action-at-a-distance by Jesus described in the Bible actually happened. It is not 'true and verifiable.'" There are no [[Counterexamples to the Bible]], so this conflict is a serious one.

:15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching. "Gravitons are the quanta of gravity waves. See #1." And see my answer to #1.

:18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics. "The ability to lead to other insights has never been a test of the validity of a scientific theory, and lack of consequent insight does not falsify a theory." The failure of the theory to produce is strong evidence against its validity.

:26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. "Development of useful devices is a matter of engineering, and is not a test of a scientific theories validity." A theory that inhibits technological progress, rather than enhance it, is almost certainly wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I'll address your other responses as my time permits. For now:

"by starting with an ''ad hominem'' attack"

Stating the obvious is not an ad hominem attack. I didn't say the author was an "idiot". Anyone who honestly thinks that because "devices" have not been engineered based upon a scientific theory somehow ''falsifies'' that theory ''is'' truly clueless (maybe ignorant would have been a better word) of science and the scientific method. A correct scientific theory must explain previous observations and correctly predict those to come. No where is there a requirement that it lead to engineered "devices".

14. "The action-at-a-distance by Jesus"

I should have added: The AAAD by Jesus is (usually) considered a miracle - a suspension of natural law. So I'm not clear on how the suspension of natural law could be considered a counterexample to a natural law to begin with.

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

I should have asked a simple question on this one: Have you ever asked an astronomer, cosmologist or theoretical physicist if s/he has had insights from Relativity? Please - find ''one'' that hasn't had deep insight as a result.

"A theory that inhibits technological progress, rather than enhance it, is almost certainly wrong.--Andy Schlafly 00:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)"

So, adherence to a literal interpretation of the Bible, which hindered technical progress for more than a thousand years, indicates that the Bible is almost certainly wrong. Thank you '''so much''' for clearing that up. ~~csmcmillion

:Take a look at [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]. When you post more substantive comments, then I'll respond to them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:37, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I agree that "relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance", but not that AAAD "cannot seriously be disputed in QM". There is no QM experiment that show AAAD. There are interpretations of QM that seem to imply AAAD, and respected physicists who believe in those interpretations and hence in AAAD. But QM does not imply AAAD as there are also relativistic interpretations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:27, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:QM experiments have shown that a pair of spinning, entangled photons can be separated a great distance, and that the mere observation of the spin of one of those photons immediately removes the uncertainty about the spin of the other photon a far distance away. All attempts to deny that [[action-at-a-distance]] reality have failed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:42, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:: Yes, the photon experiment is correct. Some people do interpret the observation of one photon as affecting the other photon. But there is no proof of that. You could prove it if the observation transmitted information, but no one can do that. Other interpretations do not require AAAD. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:47, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Andy: Why did you delete RSchlafly's most recent comment? RSchlafly: I believe you are correct. A little research on my part shows numerous refutations to the assertions made on this page, going back a couple of years:

http://skullsinthestars.com/2010/08/09/right-wing-refutations-of-relativity-really-really-wrong/

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/6253

I'm beginning to see why people are telling me not to waste my time trying to contribute to this site.
:All you're doing is making your own "assertions without clarification". We've had these arguments before, and these arguments were created by people who refuse to listen to what we say or refuse to read any of the sources we provide. And it's tiresome. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:44, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:User:csmcmillion, it's not a discussion when someone won't use his own words to explain his views.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:49, 13 November 2011 (EST)

::And it's not a discussion when sysops repeatedly delete comments, as you just did. ~~csmcmillion
:::And what exactly did I delete? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:42, 13 November 2011 (EST)
Just wanted to add to this: When has <math>\Lambda</math> failed? It's a perfectly legitimate term in the EFE's, as csmcmillion has stated. The righthand side of it is (in <math>G=c=1</math> units) is <math>8 \pi T^{\alpha \beta }</math>. You need something on the left which is a measure of curvature, i.e., the Einstein tensor <math>G^{\alpha \beta}</math>. Why the Einstein tensor? Why not the Ricci tensor? Why not the scalar curvature times the metric? The reason is that the stress-energy tensor (T) has to have zero divergence: <math>\nabla_{\beta} T^{\alpha \beta} = 0 </math>. The Einstein tensor has zero divergence as well. But, we also have <math> \nabla_{\gamma} g^{\alpha \beta} = 0</math>. So we can safely add in <math>\Lambda g^{\alpha \beta}</math> to the left hand side of the EFE without violating local conservation of energy-momentum. Using this gives <math>G^{\alpha \beta}+\Lambda g^{\alpha \beta} = 8 \pi T^{\alpha \beta}. </math> [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:46, 15 November 2011 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The "The observed lack of curvature in overall space" is not an "unobserved" phenomenon. Accordingly, it has been reverted along with the others. Looking for something that should be there under a theory, but not finding it there as predicted, is a counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:50, 30 November 2011 (EST)

:[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], sorry, yes, I was being a bit overzealous on that one. However, I think the principle holds - many of the concepts listed are not counterexamples. Starting with number one: relativity predicts gravity waves and predicts that they will be extremely difficult to detect. Now I hear you say that's a pretty lousy kind of prediction - and you're right - but it still doesn't make it a counterexample. The same goes for the entry on gravitons (additionally, they're a prediction of quantum theory, not relativity, but that's for another phase of editing).
:It may be that further categorizing is necessary. For example, issues like the Twin Paradox and the Ehrenfest Paradox are not strictly unobserved phenomena either. Item 37, failure to solve the equations, is a problem for mathematics, not necessarily for relativity.
:Perhaps a simpler solution would be to rename the whole article, perhaps to 'Counterarguments to Relativity'. That way the article doesn't look silly by listing things that clearly aren't counterexamples, and also is open to inclusion of a broader range of criticisms of the theory. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:50, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:: I agree with QPR, as upon thinking about it, 'counterexamples' does not accurately describe the things on the list. And looking for something predicted and not finding it is only a counterexample/counterargument if it is predicted to be in a specific place, and when looking there, it isn't found. Hence, not finding gravity waves despite looking for them doesn't mean they don't exist. Many things were thought to be myths or non-existent until they were found, including giraffes. But I also disagree with QPR in that categorizing the list is unnecessary, and would result in needless discussions about where certain points belong, rather than more productive discussions. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:56, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::: I don't think that counterexamples is the best word either. My suggestion would be to leave the title as is, but to split the list into ''paradoxes'' and ''anomalies''. They maybe people would have a better idea what to expect from each item. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:43, 2 December 2011 (EST)

Response to the above: the list is of "counterexamples". These are examples that are counter to the theory. Other terms, like "paradox" or "anomaly", capture neither the concept of "example" nor of it being "counter" to the theory. The term "paradox" arises in philosophy, but this isn't philosophy. Relativity is a theory that pretends to be correct in every case, but it isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:24, 3 December 2011 (EST)

== Deleted example to releativity ==

Hello, I added a counter example to relativity that was removed, despite it being valid. My counter example was that the special theory of relativity predicts that mass is a form of energy and they are interchangeable. But if this were true the huge amount of energy stored in common matter would have been utilised by now in power stations and weaponry.

The problem is, it's been over 100 years since this theory was published and not one power station that utilises the interchange of mass and energy predicted by relativity has actually been built.

However, this counter example was removed because a member claimed that these do exist. Now this leaves us with a dichotomy. Do we...
A) Admit that these power stations exist (which they don't) and therefore acknowledge the special theory of relativity is accurate and true, or
B) We keep the counter example included that no power station that utilises special relativity exists, and therefore it is a sign that relativity is false.

I think we should vote for B on this issue. It would be like inventing the motor engine, but not building cars! --[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 12:36, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:Actually these power stations DO exist and have done for decades; they're called "nuclear reactors" and they generate heat by turning mass into energy. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 12:45, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::If these stations do exist, then how come Albert Einstein admitted of the inability to apply the predictions of his OWN theory? I quote "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable".

::Next you'll be telling me that we can do the physically impossible and generate electricity by fusing atoms to form heavier atoms too.

::Let's face it, special relativity has no practical application in providing energy. If it were, mass and energy would be seen interchanging all the time. F will ''always'' equal MA, mass can neither increase or decrease by being converted into energy; observations of non-zero mass particles accelerated to ''exactly'' the speed of light prove this.--[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 13:01, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:::The stations exist, hundreds of them, all over the world. Some of them even fit into ships and submarines. Nuclear fission reactors produce power by converting rest mass into electromagnetic and kinetic energy, exactly in accordance with e=mc2. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 13:06, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::::''I'' don't believe that. Do you ''know'' they exist for sure? Have you ''really'' ever been to one? ''I'm'' sure they employ some kind of ''a'' clever trick. Otherwise Newton, unchallenged as the most intelligent ''scientist'' of all time, would see his second law of motion proven wrong. The second law of motion is a law that is known to always hold true by centuries of accurate tests. These power stations can not exist, the laws of physics don't allow it!--[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 13:18, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:::::I don't care what you believe. Yes they exist, and yes I've been to one. If you tell me where you live I'll give you directions to the nearest one, and you can either visit or call their press officer. Either way they'll be happy to explain how they turn mass into energy and generate power with the heat that's released. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 13:23, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::::::These aren't my beliefs, these are scientific facts. Newton's laws have been established for centuries and have never been challenged. Yet if they are true, then nuclear power stations can't exist because that would require the M of F=MA to be a variable quantity directly related to A.

::::::As I put more energy into the acceleration of an object, the mass does not increase, it cannot increase. Why? Because mass and energy cannot be interchanged. If this were true, then no non-zero mass particle could ever be accelerated to the speed of light. Non-zero mass particles are accelerated to the speed of light every day at particle colliders worldwide.

::::::If what you say is true, then we would have to get rid of this entire page because it invalidates every counter example.--[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 13:43, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:::::::You're not listening, are you? Conversion of mass into energy, in accordance with e=mc2 is how nuclear reactors work. Your counterexample was removed because it's INVALID. What part of this don't you understand? Newton's Second Law is irrelevant to the point you're trying to make, by the way.

:::::::"Yet if they are true, then nuclear power stations can't exist" Epic fail. Nuclear power stations DO exist.

:::::::"If what you say is true, then we would have to get rid of this entire page because it invalidates every counter example" Why? Just because a theory is false overall, that doesn't mean that parts of it aren't true. Parts of Darwin's theory are true; living things DO inherit characteristics from their parents and those characteristics DO affect their chances of survival. Despite that, evolution is still false. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 13:48, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::::::::If it was removed because nuclear power stations exist, then surely it would invalidate every counter example too, right? If what you claim is correct and they do exist, then shouldn't this whole page be deleted?.
::::::::By the way, Newton's laws are entirely relevant here, the second law being incorrect (I know it is really) is fundamental to relativity --[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 13:58, 3 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::::WHY would it invalidate every counterexample here? There's a lot more to relativity than e=mc2. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 14:13, 3 December 2011 (EST)
::::::@GMilhouse: Newton's second law is not <math>F=ma</math>. It is <math> F=\dot p</math> (Newton's formulation in ''Principia Mathematica''!), where <math>p=mv</math> (non-relativistically) is momentum. This includes the possibility of varying mass - necessary for instance when modelling rocket flight. Plus, can you provide a reference to an experiment where a non-zero mass particle was accelerated to the speed of light? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 14:06, 3 December 2011 (EST)
:Maybe I should cut to the chase. Yes or no. Does the fact that nuclear reactors exist invalidate every possible counter example on this page, and every valid example merely represents a physics that the current theory does not yet accommodate? If so, then surely this entire page should be deleted. --[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 14:16, 3 December 2011 (EST)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-12-03T19:01:41Z

GMilhouse: /* Deleted example to releativity */

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-12-03T18:58:55Z

GMilhouse: /* Deleted example to releativity */

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

==Path Independence and Photons==
Wait, so time is some sort of vector field such that when you integrate it you get time? And that vector field is conservative? I've never heard of such a thing... 
As well, you state: "Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum." Yes, if you plug in the formula for non-relativistic, Newtonian momentum, you get zero, but SR gives you the equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2. Plug m=0 in. You get E=pc. So, the momentum is nonzero. That's a very well-known result... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 12:06, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:So should I take the "counter example" down...? Not to be rude but can someone at least respond to me? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:54, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
::Take it down, then if someone reverts (which is likely) it'll provoke a short discussion that probably won't reach a consensus. Regardless, you're unlikely to succeed in keeping it changed. I'm not trying to discourage, go ahead and try changing it, I'm just letting you know what to expect. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:33, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:::These are interesting points worthy of further discussion. As to the first point, however, merely asking two questions is not persuasive to me.

:::As to the second point, I find the argument somewhat circular. Is the energy equation cited verified by any experiment, or is it merely definitional? If merely definitional, then it does not provide a way for calculating actual momentum.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:54, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Well answer them. The point I'm making is that there is no vector field such that when integrates it, one gets time. I had never heard of it until then. I am asking you to enlighten me.
 
::::And as a matter of fact there is! The equation is E=hf where E is the energy of the photon, f is the frequency of the photon, and h is just a proportionality constant (known as Planck's constant). And it has been experimentally verified. It explains the spectrum from blackbody radiation and it explains the photoelectric effect. And if I recall correctly, your camera uses the photoelectric effect. These things are quite well known... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 14:55, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::Oh, and I forgot to mention--the Compton effect is explained by photons. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:00, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::::Please address my more substantive point: has your equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2 been experimentally verified, or is it simply definitional?

:::::::First of all, will you please answer my question...? What is the vector field such that when one integrates over it, one gets time? And oops. Misread your question. And no, it's not "definitional," it's from the relativistic expressions of energy and momentum... (And yes, those have been experimentally verified--if I recall correctly, using those equations, you can predict what can happen (i.e. speeds) when elementary particles are created. But I'm not particle physicist) Once you have those, just do a little algebra and you get that equation. And I hope you're not going to deny basic algebra....
 
:::::::Again, all this is well known.... Out of curiosity have you ever actually studied relativity or this photon stuff? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 13:39, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::OK, I've removed the counter-example of photons...I think I've provided a satisfactory explanation to Schlafly (and he's not responding for some reason...) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:50, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Schlafly, I saw you re-added the "counter-example." Will you please respond to me? Are you seriously just going to keep it there and refuse to discuss this at all? Wow and you claim that we're not open-minded.... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:45, 9 November 2011 (EST)

::::::::::Andy, there is no "counter-example of photons." Photons are not mentioned in the list. But are you referring to this counterexample:

:::::::::::28.Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.

::::::::::Let's be clear about what the dispute is first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 11 November 2011 (EST)

:::::::::::Yeah, that's the one. Sorry. Poorly-worded. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:29, 14 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::::::Will someone please tell me why (a) SR/GR promotes (moral) relativism, (b) photons aren't legit even though I've just pointed that your argument was wrong (maybe that's a bit generous. To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, I can't even say it's wrong...) and (c) what is the vector field such that when one integrates over it, one gets time? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 10:26, 27 November 2011 (EST)

==FTL Neutrinos at LHC ==

It may be jumping the gun to put the finding from Friday as evidence against GR. The results have yet to be duplicated - duplicability is needed for a claim to have scientific merit - and have yet to be carefully peer reviewed. The results are significant at the 95% CI but that means there's a 1 in 20 chance they're actually inaccurate. Given how many measurements are made at the LHC some are going to be both statistically significant and incorrect. It may be more prudent to wait to see if it's a one off or measurement error. I propose waiting at least until other particle acceleration labs can attempt to duplicate the results to make any judgement; after all, that's what CERN is doing
--[[User:BillyWest|BillyWest]] 00:18, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:I disagree. The opposition to the results from CERN -- which confirm prior results from another laboratory which were not as precise -- is unreasonable. It's not necessary to continue to pretend that Relativity is true when there is so much evidence against it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:35, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::CERN itself hasn't even confirmed the results. The data was published a lot quicker than data usually is because if it is accurate, then it changes the majority of physics laws discovered in the past century. The theory of relativity is not the only theory/law which involves the speed of light, electromagnetism does as well. Because of this, CERN wanted other scientists to try and find a flaw in the experiment quickly so that if there is a flaw, it is found quickly, and if there isn't, then scientists can begin determining what needs to change in order to accomodate this. Once the data has been properly analysed, without prematurely jumping to conclusions, then it would be fair to say that the neutrinos traveled faster than the speed of light. But something to keep in mind: this is not the first experiment done with neutrinos, all of the prior ones having travelled slower than the speed of light. If you do an experiment 500 times, and each results has a 1/1000 chance of being inaccurate, there is a 40% chance that at least one result will be inaccurate. If they find an error in the experiment (such as a piece of the measuring equipment being broken, or poor calibration of equipment, or leftover neutrinos from previous experiments, or any other impacting error), then wouldn't it make conservapedia look silly for jumping to a conclusion too quickly? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The CERN experiment is not the only one suggesting faster-than-c travel. Moreover, there is no basis for doubting the news that something travels faster than c. Most of the objections in the media are based in an irrational clinging to Relativity. Hence the counterexample is being restored ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Looks like they've found the problem already: there was a flaw with the experiment.http://www.dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php This article basically says that they used GPS to measure the locations and the times. However, because the satellite used moves at a different speed to the Earth, relativity needs to be taken into account. Usually, relativity has no significant effect until speeds get nearish the speed of light. However, the neutrinos travelled 60 nanoseconds faster than light. Because it's nanoseconds, the speed difference of the Earth and the satellite is enough that relativity affects the experiment at the nanosecond level. Scientists have done calculations to determine how this changes the results (as because of the flaw, the results they got weren't actually accurate), and found that the neutrinos actually travelled for 64 seconds longer than they previously thought, making their speed very slightly less than the speed of light. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 18:02, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

: No, this explanation has not been accepted. There have been many other papers with other explanations. The jury is still out. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:33, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Paul Johnson, the renowned historian, explains the link -- and the significance of the link -- between relativity and moral relativism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:57, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
:Do you have a link for that? It seems pretty flimsy to me. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:10, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::Ah right, I found some stuff! It appears that Johnson acknowledged that there was no ACTUAL link between the two, but pointed out how many liberals CLAIM a link. That seems pretty close to what the article is saying, so my edit probably wasn't the best idea I've ever had, and as a bonus I've learned something interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain rather than just blocking me :-S --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:17, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Have you read Tribe's article applying the curvature of space to support liberal views?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, I haven't. Is it easy to find? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: You can find it here [http://blog1.darkbuzz.com/tribe-1989.htm] or a pdf here [http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/~wat4y/103_Harv._L._Rev._1,_.PDF][http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~daw/D_Realism/Tribe.pdf]. On a college campus, you might be able to get it here.[http://www.jstor.org/pss/1341407] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Relativity and Electromagnetism ==
It is often claimed that Relativity is proven by its ability to explain aspects of electromagnetism. But those aspects do not relate to physical mass, gravity or various frames of reference throughout the universe -- the basic claims of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: Lorentz used electromagnetic relativity to predict relativistic mass in 1899, and it was experimentally confirmed a couple of years later. Poincare used E=mc2 for radiation in 1900. So I think that electromagnetic aspects of relativity do relate to physical mass. They also relate to various frames of reference, as electromagnetic experiments were done at different times of the year to test different frames of reference in the Earth's orbit. Gravity and electromagnetism are separate forces, and I guess it is fair to say that relativistic aspects had to be tested separately. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Most of the counterexamples to Relativity relate to gravity; some relate to the claim that all (non-accelerating) frames of reference are the same everywhere in the universe. The essence of Relativity is its claims about gravity and space. Electromagnetism experiments have nothing to do with this, and do not confirm any of these "grand unified" assertions of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:12, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: You have to distinguish between general relativity, which is about gravity, and special relativity, which isn't.
::: Anyway, Newtonian mechanics is not consistent with Maxwell's equations while relativity (both special and general) is. Do you deny Maxwell's equations, Aschlafly? If you accept Newtonian mechanics, you have to. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: Also, it should be noted that Einstein's famous 1905 paper (which was very important in the history of relativity) is entitled ''On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies''. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:30, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Again, a big part of the objection to Relativity is its "grand unified" approach. The insistence on that view is simply not scientific, and is contrary to the data.

::::: There are different forces in nature. There really are, and they really are different. That's what the data show.

::::: Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light. None of that exists in electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: ''Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light'' -> No. Light travels the speed of light in special relativity. Any massless particle does as well.
:::::: ''None of that exists in electromagnetism'' -> A charged particle with a velocity less than the speed of light definitely falls under the domain of electromagnetism.
:::::: Again, Maxwell's equations and Newtonian mechanics are inconsistent. You can't have both. The fact that other forces exist is irrelevant. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:56, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Special relativity makes no predictions, and only assumptions, about the speed of light. Instead, special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light.
::::::: When the claim is made that Relativity explains electromagnetism, the claim is not referring to charged particles traveling less then the speed of light.
::::::: Your statement that Maxwell's equations and Newtownian mechanics are somehow inconsistent needs explanation. They describe completely different forces.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Special relativity predicts the speed of light is the same regardless of orientation of the observer, which is consistent with the Michelson–Morley experiment. It also predicts that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer, which is consistent with the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment.
:::::::: You said velocities less than the speed of light not exist in electromagnetism. This was clearly false.
:::::::: I already mentioned that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under Galilean transformation, yet are under Lorentz transformations. This is very well known. If you want the exact details see [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.165.5841&rep=rep1&type=pdf On the Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=19TCz0cxAFMC&pg=PA484&lpg=PA484&dq=%22maxwell's+equations%22+invariant+under+%22lorentz+transformation%22&source=bl&ots=gudaGknbwi&sig=9idd1t_o89t5RUSLcemoMq7hNjc&hl=en&ei=eq9SToXdHuTH0QHig62-Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CHQQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=%22maxwell's%20equations%22%20invariant%20under%20%22lorentz%20transformation%22&f=false Understanding Physics, Invariance of electromagnetism under Lorentz transformation]. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: Special relativity says that the speed of light is constant. Maxwell's theory says that same thing, as does the Michelson-Morley experiment. It can be said to be an assumption or a prediction, depending on what textbook you are reading. At any rate, it is testable, and has been confirmed in many ways (for light in a vacuum). It was tested in outer space before testing on Earth. Relativity certainly also makes predictions about charged particles traveling less then the speed of light. The biggest prediction is the formula known as the Lorentz force law. This was an important part of relativity as decribed by Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein. The Lorentz force law used to be considered part of Maxwell's equations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:49, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: These are interesting mathematical observations, having aesthetic value. They can suggest the existence of an intelligent designer.

::::::::: But the physical significance of these mathematical observations is scant or non-existence. Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light, and claims made by special relativity with respect to such motion are not verified by electromagnetism. Claims made by general relativity are not verified at all by electromagnetism.

::::::::: I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics. I'm not saying that Newtonian mechanics must be correct, but some criticisms of it do not withstand scrutiny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Yes, electromagnetism does involve particles moving close enough to the speed of light for relativistic effects to be important. Examples include the electron gun in an ordinary CRT TV set, electric motors, speakers, and just about any electronic device. These are not new. The earliest non-optical tests of special relativity were the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments] They started in 1901 based on Lorentz's relativity, and pre-date Einstein. They show that mass increases with velocity so that nothing goes faster than light. In Newtonian mechanics, the speed of light is not an obstacle. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:13, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::: ''"Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light."'' -> [[Particle accelerator]] use electromagnetic fields to move particles close to the speed of light.
::::::::::: ''"I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics."'' -> The observed constancy of speed of the speed of light (an electromagnet wave) does. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:16, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I have an open mind about this, and would like to learn more. I wasn't familiar with the Kaufmann-Bucherer-Neumann experiments but didn't get much out of the Wikipedia description of them in the above link. Is there a clearer, more objective explanation that doesn't end with a sweeping, unsupported claim of proof of Relativity?

:::::::::::: The two most prominent claims of proof of Relativity -- the perihelion advance of Mercury and the binary pulsar -- are now counterexamples and the most precise data are not being made available to the public. So something isn't adding up in favor of Relativity.

:::::::::::: The lack of scientific basis for Relativity leaves it defenseless against another unscientific theory: string theory. Before long it may become important to list counterexamples to string theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Can I start [[counterexamples to string theory]] now? Its a good excuse for me to learn! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:57, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Please do! Also, Max, did you see the answer to your question about how Relativity is used by [[liberals]] to advance their belief system? I can repost the links if you didn't see them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Great, I'll look into String Theory (I don't know much about it) and get on to writing something. Having a project to work on is a great incentive to learn new topics. please do post those links, thanks!

::::::::::::::::I see the links are posted just above this subheading, under "You can find it here"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Ah yes, now I see. I'll read those tonight. Thanks! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:46, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: The Mercury and binary pulsar observations were used to support the gravity theory, and relativity remains the most accurate explanation. Andy, you asked about electromagnetism, not gravity. There is no way to understand electromagnetism without relativity, as far as I know. The Kaufmann experiments were supposed to disprove relativity. More precise experiments were consistent with relativity, as with all the other electromagnetic experiments. Just turn on an old-style TV set with a tube. How do you think that those pixels get lit up? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:16, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: There is some overlap between the invariant equations for electromagnetism and for relativity. The electromagnetism invariant equations came first, so I think the better description would be that one cannot understand relativity without understanding electromagnetism, not vice versa. But what that has to do with gravity is far from clear. In fact, it probably has nothing to do with gravity. Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism, because no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism.

::::::::::::: It's not relativity that lit up the pixels on an old TV screen. Quantum mechanics has more to do with that than relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:32, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ''Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism'' -> Untrue. Quantum electrodynsmics (QED) combines special relativity, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. A Nobel Prize for its discovery was awarded to Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga in 1965.

:::::::::::::: ''no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism'' -> Also untrue. QED predictions are accurate within 12 significant digits, making it the most accurate theory we have. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:17, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: By my count, Nobel prizes were given for relativistic electromagnetism were given in 1902, 1907, 1933, 1945, 1965, 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1999. Prizes for relativistic gravity were given in 1978, 1983, and 1993. The list is here.[http://www.almaz.com/nobel/physics/physics.html] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

@Andy Schlafly: Relativity predicts that no particle with mass can go the speed of light or faster. How do you explain that no particle accelerator has been able to get a massive particle at or above the speed of light? How do you explain the results that the inertial mass increases with velocity, as relativity predicts? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:00, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:PArticle accelerators don't. CERN (the biggest one) gets them exceedingly close, but not above. It's something like 99.999% of C. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:59, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: Relativity assumes that, rather than predicts it. I think relavitist purists would actually say all that is needed is a maximum velocity, whether that is "c" or something else. Many would not be genuinely surprised if velocities slightly faster than ''c'' are ultimately attained, and ''c'' itself may be changing over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:36, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

: Historically, the constant speed of light was an empirical observation, and not just an assumption. Maxwell's theory predicted that electromagnetic waves traveled at the speed of light, and that was observed. It was one of the big reasons for concluding that light was an electromagnetic wave. Experiments like Michelson-Morley (1887) found a constant speed of light. Also, there were astronomical reasons for believing in a constant speed of light. Distances were measured in light-minutes or light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant. Yes, Einstein declared the constant speed of light to be postulate in 1905, but by then it was a well-accepted empirical fact. Going faster than ''c'' or finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics that it would be like finding a perpetual motion machine. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:27, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Empirical data suggest that the speed of light has changed over time, and as recently as 1/6th of the universe's lifetime. [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html]

:: You comments, like "distances were measured in ... light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant," is a political statement, not a scientific one. Likewise for stating that "finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics ...." Is this what university science has become - ignoring the data to preserve the reputation of some current and past professors?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The article you linked to claims that "The speed of light...may have been lower as recently as two billion years ago." How do you reconcile that time frame with a Young Earth Creationist model where the universe is only 6000 years old? You cant reject that study on the one hand because it directly contradicts the Bible but embrace it on the other when it supports the idea of a shifting c. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 18:45, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: The linked article says there may have been a change in the fine structure constant, α, not necessarily the speed of light, c. Also, it hardly seems like a variable α is currently well-established. It's just the result from one set of data. But even accepting that there has been a change in α and that this means a change in c, the amount seems minuscule. The article says that α "had increased by a few parts in 105 in the past 12 billion years", which would correspond to a similar change in c. Therefore, even if c is not exactly constant it would be very nearly constant and relativity would still be a great approximation. That's ignoring that there may be a mundane explanation for this apparent change.
:::: Also, as BrentH mentions above, if you accept these results you have to accept that the universe is billions of years old. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: I was explaining historically why the speed of light was thought to be constant. It was not just some unproved Einstein relativity assumption. There was solid experimental and theoretical evidence before Einstein. There is no evidence for a variable speed of light. That 2004 paper claiming alpha changed has been superseded with a more accurate study in 2007, with no variation. [http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/the-oklo-reactor-and-varying-physical-constants/][http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0701019] Even if alpha changed, it would not necessarily mean that ''c'' changed. I am not sure why any of this is political. We can measure the speed of light to about 10 decimal places. If the speed were not constant, then an experiment would be likely to detect it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I wish you, Andy and I could have a drunken dinner together some time. That would be an epic debate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:17, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, what do you make of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation syncrotron radiation]? Here you have effects which can't be explained without relativity and which are used in many fields of research, e.g. in medicine... 08:28, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Wikipedia]] has many dubious claims that relativity explains something ... as one might expect from a [[liberal]] website. This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L] It appears that this may be unresolved and I welcome more discussion about it. I don't see evidence that relativity played a role in discovering it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Nearly everything about charged particles requires relativity and quantum mechanics. There is no alternative way to understand charged particles, as far as I know. I do not even know what it would mean to reject relativity for this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:12, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Relativity is an unproductive belief system, disproved by more precise measurements in the tests that supposedly verified it. String theory is taking over university physics programs because Relativity is so obviously flawed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 27 August

-
::::::: [[String theory]] assumes that relativity is 100% correct. Physicists pursue string theory because they are sold on Einstein's dream of using relativistic ideas to unify physics, without having to pay attention to experiments. They are ''not'' pursuing string theory because they are persuaded by your list of relativity counterexamples. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:47, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
:::::::: String theory's motivation is to provide a way to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity, so it assumes general relativity is a good description of nature. In fact, string theory becomes general relativity in the low energy limit. In addition, string theories are Lorentz invariant. Whatever the merits of string theory, relativity is incorporated fundamentally to it, so if anything this example speaks to the strength of relativity. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:11, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
::::::::: Andy Schlafly: ''"This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L]"''-> It also says (right in the abstract) that relativity ''must'' be taken into account:

-
::::::::::"However, '''when ɣB ≅ 1014 Gauss, where ɣ is the electron Lorentz factor, Compton scattering becomes important'''. The result is a reduction in the synchrotron loss rate which '''agrees closely with quantum electrodynamics'''." [Emphasis added]

-
::::::::: Both Compton scattering and quantum electrodynamics make use of special relativity. If you take a look at the equations in the paper you can see that special relativity is used explicitly. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:32, 27 August 2011 (EDT)2011 (EDT)

This discussion is interesting, and I'm learning from it. I have an open mind about this. But it seems to me that term "relativity" is being used in comments above to mean anything from "invariance" (which, of course, predates relativity), electromagnetism (which, of course, predates relativity), and even quantum mechanics (which many say conflicts with relativity). The only thing that "relativity" does not seem to mean in many of the above comments is its description of gravity -- which is what is unique to relativity and what most associate it with.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: The word "relativity" was coined by Maxwell, and it became popular from Poincare calling the "principle of relativity" the idea that different inertial frames are indistinguishable. When I said that string theory assumes relativity, I meant primarily that it assumes Lorentz/Poincare invariance. The influence of relativity on physics has been primarily in electromagnetism, not gravity. The nonlinear gravity effects are barely detectable. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:45, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:: * Again, general relativity is about gravity. Special relativity is not.
:: * No one is saying "quantum mechanics" means "relativity". However, the article you linked to referenced quantum electrodynamics (a subset of quantum mechanics) which does incorporate special relativity. Moreover, while general relativity and quantum mechanics are difficult to reconcile, special relativity and quantum mechanics aren't and doing so has produced [[Quantum electrodynamics|the most accurate theory in physics]].
:: * No one is saying "invariance" means "relativity". For example, Galilean invariance contradicts relativity. However, a special type of invariance, Lorentz invariance, is fundamental to both special and general relativity (it holds locally in general relativity). String theory is Lorentz invariant.
:: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:38, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Actually, there were some people around 1910 who wanted to rename relativity theory as invariant theory. Einstein is sometimes said to have agreed with that opinion, but I am not sure he really said that. There is some disagreement about whether relativity is compatible with quantum mechanics. The two main problem areas are collapse of the wave function during an observation, and gravitational nonlinearities at the center of a black hole. But these are a little off the subject. The theories are completely compatible for nearly all considerations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it. Most of the counterexamples here relate to the claims about gravity and the curvature of space that are made by general relativity. Special relativity, according to the theory, is a "special case" of the general theory. If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me.

:::: The mathematical theory of general or special relativity permits no exceptions. So even a slight variation (outside of measurement error) between observation and prediction means the theory is wrong. It means the worldview embodied in relativity is wrong. And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::: ''"Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it."''
::::: We encountered phenomena that none of these people had before. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the Michelson–Morley experiment, gravitational lensing, etc. Changing your worldview in light of new evidence is quite a sensible thing to do.
::::: ''"If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me."''
::::: It's not so much that, but that one must be careful to separate the two.
::::: ''"And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed."''
::::: They haven't been ignored. The data has been analyzed and it agrees with relativity. Just here we've given you the examples of the Michelson–Morley experiment, the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments, Kennedy–Thorndike experiment, synchrotron radiation, etc. We've also answered here your alleged counterexamples to relativity and the problems with them. If you have any more I'd be happy to address them.
::::: I'm not sure what data you're talking about that hasn't being publicly disclosed. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Special relativity is not so much a special case, but rather the linearized version of the general theory. The special theory has been tested in many more different ways, and it could be true without the general theory being true. I really don't think that relativity requires any different view from Maxwell's. Relativity is consistent with what Maxwell said. I really don't see why you would say that relativity does not permit any exceptions any more than Maxwells theory does not permit any exceptions. What's the difference? Theories have formulas. If observations don't agree with the formulas, then something is wrong. Why is relativity any different from any other theory in the hard sciences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:41, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Relativity should not be treated any differently compared with any other theory in the hard sciences. But Relativity obviously is:

::::::*physics journals will not accept for publication anything that conflicts with the theory of relativity
::::::*the Nobel Prize will not be given to anyone who has criticized the theory of relativity
::::::*no science graduate student or science professor dare even criticize the above two forms of censorship.

::::::As to the data, the two leading supposed verifications of the theory are the binary pulsar (for which a Nobel Prize was given) and the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it. Yet additional data have not been made fully available to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::: I have to say I had no idea of this bias until reading Conservapedia. It sounds shocking. Can you tell me which physicists have been denied awards, or refused publication on this basis? It would be really useful in arguments I'm having off-site. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:54, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: ''"But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it."''
:::::::: Can you please provide a source for this claim? What data are you talking about? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: A "source"? No source is needed, or possible given the censorship by physics journals I just described.

::::::::: Wouldn't you be at least interested yourself in looking up what the precession for the Mercury perihelion is, and comparing it to what Relativity predicts? I think that would be the first step before one made up his mind, not something that must be raised by someone else.

::::::::: The Mercury perihelion precession is 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, plus/minus 0.1. General Relativity predicts 5599.98, plus/minus 0.04. The observed precession is clearly outside of prediction by more than the standard of error. But beginning in the early 1990s, probably because of this emerging divergence, physicists stopped publishing the data perhaps to avoid pinpointing the contradiction with even greater accuracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: So by your own admission general relativity is within 0.005% of the correct value?
:::::::::: Anyway, where are you getting your information for the precession rate? From what I gather the error is larger than 0.1 arc-seconds per century.
::::::::::Some values for the anomalous precession rate (i.e, deviation from what you expect from Newtonain gravity):
:::::::::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
:::::::::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
:::::::::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
:::::::::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
:::::::::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]
:::::::::: General relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04, while Newtonian gravity predicts 0. Clearly general relativity is superior here. It's within experimental error in three out of the four experiments above, and just barely out of it with the fourth. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:22, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: The theory of relativity is proven wrong by the data, '''''beyond measurement error'''''. If you're not going to address that directly, then I'm unlikely to respond further to your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I really don't know what to say. I just showed that for four experiments of the precession of Mercury's perihelion relativity was within experimental uncertainty in three of them and just barely out of it for one. This is better that Newtonian theory which was zero for four. Measuring outside experimental uncertainty ''once'' doesn't automatically make a theory wrong. They are many differences between a simple, clean model and a complex, messy reality that can account for this. Even just by statistics alone you'd expect a correct theory to be outside measurement error once in a while. It still stands that relativity is more accurate than any other theory.
:::::::::::: If you have any citations of experiments that show relativity's predictions fall outside experimental uncertainty I'll be happy to address them. However, just declaring that it's outside experimental uncertainty, but you don't have the data because a relativity cabal is keeping it secret is doesn't merit a response. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:54, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: The most recent -- and most precise -- Mercury perihelion precession data '''''demonstrate that the [[theory of relativity]] is wrong by more than the measurement error'''''. Case closed based on the data.

::::::::::::: [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site. If someone has more precise Mercury perihelion precession data than what has disproved the theory of relativity, then a discussion of that data is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Sigh... I just explained in detail why it wasn't "case closed". Being outside experimental error doesn't automatically make a theory wrong, especially when it isn't that far off. It could mean the theory is wrong or it could mean the theory is right, but by chance measured outside experimental uncertainty. By statistics we expect that to happen every now and then. '''''You can't just cherry pick the one experiment that fits your preconceptions and declare it case closed. You have to take all the other experimental data into account.''''' When you do that here (that is, you also look at the other three experiments) the results look in favor for relativity.

:::::::::::::: You can have the last word if you want. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:31, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: It is not true that the data demonstrate that the theory of relativity is wrong by more than the measurement error. What you have is a difference of opinion, and one scientist claiming that the combination of relativity and other assumptions and observations results in a discrepancy that exceeds the ''estimated'' measurement error. The problem could be with those other assumptions and observations, or with the estimate of the measurement error. As with the Pioneer anomaly, there are explanations that do not violate relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: Any and all attempts to reconcile the observed data with the theory of relativity are welcome. Instead, I not aware of the publication of observed data for this fundamental claim of the theory since 1992 (see above), despite improvements in technology and precision since then. Anyone think that it became impossible to observe the data after that time??? Notice what the data were showing leading up that point: increasing divergence (and contradiction) with the well-settled prediction made by the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:37, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Here is the [http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf Mercury Radar Ranging Data from 1987 to 1997]. The work was carried out by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under NASA. You are absolutely free to analyze the data in depth to see if the relativists are hiding anything. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:32, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Somehow I doubt the data above (going five years after the supposed suppression of data began) is going appease you. Well, you can go send NASA a letter and ask them for the most recent data about Mercury's orbit. They might give it to you if you ask nicely and they almost certainly have it, since [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/index.html they currently have a space probe orbiting Mercury] (I guess they didn't get the memo from the relativists telling everyone to ignore Mercury because it contradicted relativity). Anyway, once you get the data you'll have definitive proof that liberals have been suppressing important information about Mercury's orbit (or something). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:18, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: Looking back, I made a mistake. I said general relativity's prediction was outside the measurement uncertainty for the fourth experiment (Anderson et al., 1992). I misread it. GR prediciton: 42.98 ±0.04, Observation: 43.13 ± 0.14. They actually do overlap. So general relativity is four for four. My bad. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:41, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::: I took a look at the JPL link above but did not find any reference to the perihelion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::::: I'm pretty sure there's no reference to the perihelion because it's the raw data, without analysis. If the data was mapped to show Mercury's location, it would (presumably) show a perihelion. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

=== More counterexamples ===
I found another page with a long list of supposed counterexamples. It looks like nonsense to me, but you can check it out for yourself. He says, "Fossil records indicate the Earth’s gravity was far less during the time of the dinosaurs." He does have references of many of his alleged anomalies. [http://knol.google.com/k/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence-presented] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

=== Denial of [[Nobel Prize]] to anyone who criticizes relativity ===

:::::::: [[Robert Dicke]], the finest American physicist of the 20th century, criticized the theory of relativity and was then never given a Nobel Prize. In fact, in a pattern also used to punish [[Fred Hoyle]] for his criticism of the theory of evolution, a Nobel Prize was given for Dicke's insight to other scientists less deserving of the award than Dicke, within years of Dicke's criticism of the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: According to the [http://www.nap.edu/readingroom.php?book=biomems&page=rdicke.html National Academies Press] Dicke was given:
::::::::: ''"the National Medal of Science (1971), the Comstock Prize of the National Academy of Sciences (1973), and the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (1973). He was a member of the National Science Board from 1970 to 1976. Bob was appointed to the Princeton University Department of Physics in 1946, served as chair from 1967 to 1970, moved to emeritus in 1984''.
::::::::: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:11, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Right ... and no [[Nobel Prize]], despite being the finest American physicist of the 20th century. Note also that it was his criticism of relativity in the mid-1970s -- after the awards you cite -- that caused him to be punished by the Nobel Prize committee. No one in grad school or on university faculties dare criticize Relativity again, no matter what the data say. No relativist will even criticize the policy of excluding anyone who criticizes the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: I am sure the Nobel committee has its prejudices. Hoyle once wrote a letter to the London Times criticizing a Nobel physics prize. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/03/fred-hoyle-nobel-prize/print] So maybe they did not like him for that. By the time they gave the big bang prize in 1978, Gamow and others were dead. I would have rather given the prize to the theorists, but those are the biases of the folks in Sweden. I am not sure it has anything to do with the acceptability of relativity. There is a lot of excellent theoretical work that never got a prize, such as the work of Poincare and Minkowski on relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:56, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: You link to an interesting, in-depth article that gives other possible examples of Nobel Prize bias. But the article misses the timing on the insult to Fred Hoyle -- fall 1983 -- which was around the time that he was challenging a tenet of evolution (I'd like to obtain further details on the timing - his partner in the research apparently raised the criticism as early as 1980). Such a coincidence in timing for a prize that was given for 1957 work can hardly be ignored. Note that the article also says Fowler was "stunned" by the award's passing over Hoyle.

:::::::::::: The article also omits the insults to Teller and Wheeler, to Robert Dicke, and to Raymond Damadian (see explanation in [[Nobel Prize]]).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: I am not sure I understand your bias theory, but even supposing that some Swedes have some prejudices, how does this relate to the merits of relativity? You criticize the 1978 prize. But that was for discovery of the cosmic microwave radiation that was predicted by relativity theorists and confirmed by a couple of telephone company engineers who were just trying to measure their satellite reception interference. They did not even believe in the relativity explanation. So why did the Swedes give the prize to the Bell engineers instead of the relativists? Maybe you should start a page on Counterexamples to Swedish Wisdom. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:00, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: "Swedes" are not picking the Nobel Prize-winners. They just act on the recommendations of [[liberal]] professors who don't like criticism of the theories of evolution, relativity, or [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Really, the bias is not that complicated. It's no different from the bias in [[Academy Award]]s, [[Pulitzer Prize]]s, [[Rhodes Scholar]]s, or any other award system that is heavily influenced by leftists.

:::::::::::::: Once [[Fred Hoyle]] and [[Robert Dicke]] criticized liberal theories, they had to be punished. The greatest punishment is to award the Nobel Prize for their work '''''to someone less deserving'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:08, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

== Standard kilogrammes? ==
I'm not sure how good an argument this is. ONE out of a batch of 40 identical standard kilogrammes has diverged in weight from the others. Common sense says that there's something wrong with that one weight, which is after all stored in France. It's not likely that the answer has anything to do with relativity, which if correct would have caused an identical change in mass in all 40. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:06, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: I have a drawer full of socks. I cannot find a match for one of them. Can I blame relativity? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::Is it a French sock? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 08:14, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Maybe so. Or from some other country where "kilogram" is spelled "kilogramme". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::That would be everywhere except the USA. I'm English. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:I believe that it has something to do with the metals used are slightly radioactive and are emitting either alpha or beta particles causing a very slight decrease in weight. The answer doesn't have anything to do with relativity and is a well know issue. Scientists are currently trying to come up with a better way of standardizing mass. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:56, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::There's a difference between relativity and quantum mechanics (which explains the above observation). If you only took high school physics--you have about two hundred years of catching up to do on the field. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

==Ummmm...==

Physics has come a long way since Albert Einstein published his theories of relativity. Actually, there are quite a few hypothetical paradigms within modern physics that would allow a particle of sufficiently high energy to apparently travel faster than light. I'm not a physicist (as I've said on other pages, I'm a biologist), but I am peripherally familiar with a few of the better-supported ideas. I suggest you read up on M theory and string theory. At the risk of butchering the explanation (I am NOT a physicist), I will say that within the paradigm of M theory and string theory, observing high-energy particles moving slightly faster than light is not all that surprising. That said, the authors of the paper describing the "faster than light" neutrinos, admit up front that the numbers they got was probably the result of some sort of experimental error--the results need to be repeatable in order to be scientific. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

: Science can advance with one observation, and it's not necessary to wait until it is repeated before discussing and learning from it. How quickly (if ever) was the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] repeated?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:: The Michelson-Morley experiment was first done in 1887. It was repeated by them and by others many times in the next few years. Illingworth and Kennedy came up with a variant that was more sensitive and could test for certain exotic explanations. They did that very soon after the initial experiment. Dayton Miller also did such experiments and continued to do them even after Einstein's work was completed. Miller acknowledged the results of the experiments but remained a committed opponent to special relativity. One of Miller's experiments did actually turn up some interesting results but his later experiments and other work failed to replicate it and it seems to have been a statistical anomaly. Others continued to duplicate versions of the MM experiment because the data from it can be used to test aspects of special relativity and other ideas. So duplicated forms have continued right up to the present day although generally using carefully tuned lasers as the light sources which give much more precision. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Some experiments done following the MM experiment (not all listed, only some early ones and some recent ones): Morley-Miller 1902-1904 (published 1904), Miller 1921, Miller 1923-1924, Antonini et al 2005, Stanwix et al 2006, Eisele et al 2009, Herrmann et al 2009. Plus others between them, just listing some early ones and some recent ones. And it is usually necessary to wait until an experiment is repeated before accepting it to be accurate. A single observation, that can't be repeated, usually has an explanation within the current understanding of physics. For example, a network of ravines and gullies was observed in the 1870s on the surface of Mars, and there was wide speculation about their origin. An explanation suggested in the early 1900s wasn't proved until the 1960s, that the ravines and gullies were in actuality an optical illusion caused by streaks of dust blowing across the surface in the strong winds. Another example of a 'discovery' that later turned out to be false was the existence of Vulcan, a planet between Mercury and the Sun. A single observation, unconfirmed by repetition, does not indicate a discovery. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:22, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::: Yes, the M-M experiment was repeated many times. It had to be done at different times of the year, at different altitudes, with different materials, etc. Eg, maybe the length contraction might have been different for wood and brass.
::: There are physicists who have suggested faster than light particles, but string theory and M theory are Lorentz invariant and useless on the issue. The string theorists would definitely be surprised by anything faster than light. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:24, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::: Claimed results from a single experiment have been proven wrong before (e.g, the claims of producing [[cold fusion]] in 1989). It makes sense to see if an experiment is replicated before throwing out an extremely well tested theory. It's very suspicious that we haven't seen neutrinos going faster than the speed of light before this. Experimenters are only human beings and could easily have made a mistake or forget to include something in their calculations. The claimed velocity is only a tiny fraction lager than c and might easily be explained by not taking into account some systematic error.
:::: If Mr. Schlafly's other 36 "counterexamples" are so strong then I don't see why he so badly needs the example of an unreplicated experiment whose data is still in the process of being analyzed. (When Einstein was asked about the book '100 Authors Against Einstein' he responded: "If I were wrong, it would only have taken one".) --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 11:27, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::::: If the experiment is disproved by subsequent experiments, then that particular counterexample can be removed. But the insistence on clinging to the [[theory of relativity]] when the available evidence is to the contrary is unjustified. Einstein's quote is inapplicable to this issue: the context of Einstein's quote refers to a government attempt to discredit his theory. His quote does apply to government efforts to deny scientific evidence today, such as the attempt by the [[NCI]] to deny the [[abortion]]-[[breast cancer]] link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Gee, the experiment counts as a counterexample even before the facts are in. What a surprise....
:::::: I'm not sure if the German government was behind '100 Authors Against Einstein', but even if it were it's completely irrelevant. The folly wasn't that it was done by the government; it was that if relativity was wrong one good argument would suffice. The inclusion of this unconfirmed experimental result just shows how this list of "counterexamples" values quantity over quality. Rather than making a few strong arguments it's a list of 37 random tidbits. '''You're expecting to overturn one of science's best theories with something that can fit inside a Twitter post?''' The reasoning for many points' inclusion are not well explained and counterarguments are not addressed (e.g, Hawking radiation is called a "[c]ontrived explanation" with no justification whatsoever). I suspect the "conciseness" of the points is just a reflection of its author's short attention span. I'll report to the Worldwide Relativity Cabal that we have nothing to fear from... oops. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:46, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Thank you MatthewQ! Oh, and Mr. Schlafly, the evidence does not support a link between abortion and breast cancer. You may find good sources on the topic [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1733063/?tool=pmcentrez here], [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)15835-2/fulltext here], and [http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814 here]. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 08:11, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::: As for redoing the M-M experiment, the [[LIGO]] experiment can be seen as a $400M modern M-M experiment. While the M-M failed to detect the motion of the Earth, LIGO has failed to detect motion in other galaxies. You may be interested in this new paper reporting on an NSF grant to teach high school students about LIGO detecting gravity waves. This is just to be ready in case LIGO ever succeeds in detecting anything, I guess. [http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.3720] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 06:08, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

== A few sections that should be removed... ==

12: For this point to be right, things need to have started VERY VERY small, which is impossible if Creationism is right. This creates an inconsistency within Conservapedia and should be removed.
26: The first part is wrong due to GPSs. In order to be more accurate, they take into account relativity, and hence relativity has produced something useful. The rest of it is repeated in 18. Hence, as everything in 26 is either wrong or repeated, it should be removed.
28: Relativity does not require everything with 0 mass to have 0 momentum. It actually takes into account that light, despite having 0 mass, has momentum.
29: This is actually wrong. The age of each twin is independent of the path travel, it is dependent only on the acceleration they experience. Therefore, this point is wrong.
Any comments or disagreements? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 22:02, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:On point 12, physicists themselves admit that relativity contradicts quantum mechanics shortly after the Big Bang. So even relativists would (or should) concede the validity of this counterexample.

:On point 26, GPS's were not developed as a result of relativity. This has been discussed at length on this site in the past. No relativists were involved in the engineering of GPS's; any differences in timing on the satellites relative to ground are more easily corrected by synchronization rather than theoretical predictions.

:Will review the other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:45, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

::I fully agree with all this. Some of the stuff in this page literally left my head hurting pretty badly from facepalming so hard.

::And, Schlafly, how does this make relativity wrong? Newtonian physics is wrong at quantum levels too. Should we add a "Counterexamples to Newtonian Mechanics" page and put something like that in there too? Of course not--it's an excellent approximation for things on the everyday scale. Same thing with GR.

::No, they were not developed because of relativity, but they were developed taking relativity into account. The people who built it didn't know the specifics, but they knew the corrections from relativity were there and they took them into account. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:53, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

::::I concur. Rather, arguing "counterexamples" is a fine way to demonstrate the weaknesses, inconsistencies, or future directions of inquiry regarding any scientific paradigm. However, it is a logical fallacy to say that "these are the problems with hypothesis A, therefore hypothesis B ''must'' be true". For a position to be effectively argued, one must present empirical evidence in support of an alternative hypothesis. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 00:56, 12 November 2011 (EST)

:::::A bigger logical fallacy occurs when someone insists or thinks that an alternative hypothesis B must exist before disproving a hypothesis A.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:14, 12 November 2011 (EST)

:::::::Good point. However, when a hypothesis is not supported the scientific process usually then entails asking the question of why it was not supported, and then forming a new hypothesis that once again fits all of the available data. This is why scientific understanding of even the most hard and fast paradigms can change so dramatically from one generation to the next (or, occasionally, from one experiment to the next). The most exciting science gets done when a well-reasoned hypothesis is rejected--simply because it opens the door to so many new possibilities.--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 13:01, 14 November 2011 (EST)

== A couple more problems ==

These went up after I posted the other section so I didn't know what to do. If you would prefer I post it there, then sorry. I'm new to wikis so I don't know proper etiquette and perhaps a missed something in the guidelines :)

Anyway, first thing, you state: "It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world."

...Honestly, I am speechless about this. Again, this was taken down but now someone put it back up... You guys honestly think this statement is true? There is no connection between the two--the only thing they have in common is the name "relativity." What, you think that people's morals depend on their frame of reference and change by the relativistic <math> \gamma (\equiv 1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2})</math> factor or something?! I am truly shocked by this...What connection is there? Where is the equation that predicts this?

Secondly: "Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light." Nope. Things can't travel at the speed of light, according to SR. Relativity explicitly states that things cannot go faster than light. If you drop this, then of course there are going to be going to be inconsistencies with SR...And that thread only talks about things going at the speed of light. What's the problem with solenoids travelling near c? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 16:52, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
:Can someone please tell me what the link between moral relativism and GR/SR is...? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:04, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::Because <s>God</s> <s>psychotic rambling homophobic momma's boy</s> Andy Schlafly said so. You have to turn off your <s>indoctrinated</s> educated mind... --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:36, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

== At first glance ==

There are so many problems with this page I don't know where to start. Whomever wrote it is obviously clueless about science and its

methods. A few of the problems include:

1. Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found.

The lack of experimental confirmation ''so far'' of gravity waves does NOT falsify the theory. Absence of evidence is not evidence of

absence.

3. Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of

Relativity.

Only in experiments that have yet to be confirmed.

7. The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds relativity

Untrue. The EFEs contain a term (the cosmological constant) that fully accounts for accelerated expansion.

10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass

What logical problem? I studied physics at the graduate level and have never heard of any logical problem. ?

13. The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement

AAAD is a matter of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In any case, it does NOT Falsify GRT as no information is propagated faster

than light.

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

See 13 (above). This statement also assumes that the action-at-a-distance by Jesus described in the Bible actually happened. It is not

"true and verifiable".

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

Gravitons are the quanta of gravity waves. See #1.

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

The ability to lead to other insights has never been a test of the validity of a scientific theory, and lack of consequent insight does not

falsify a theory.

26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the

theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.

Development of useful devices is a matter of engineering, and is not a test of a scientific theories validity.

27. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction.

This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.

The priniciple of isotropy does not falisfy Relativity. The theory itself accounts for, and predicts, the difference in observed inertia.

28. Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws

of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.

And Relativity also predicts that photons have non-zero momentum. Relativistic systems can have non-zero momentum even with no

rest mass, due to ''mass-energy equivalence''. Relativity correctly predicts the momentum of a massless particle as p = h*f/c = h/λ.

31. The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows

down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to

be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity

Incorrect, as this only takes Special Relativity into account. This is a common fallacy. It is the acceleration required to return the twin

that accounts for the difference in clocks and is explained/predicted by General Relativity. One must take both SRT and GRT into

account.

32. Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right,

theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.

Fields do not constitute an "aether". The EM field exists (and was explained/predicted by Maxwell long before Eistein).

34 (a). In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens.

How is such an account "true and verifiable"?

34(b). This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.

Something that is "likely" does not falsify a scientific theory.

35. Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the

properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.

This is not an argument against applied mathematics, not against Relativity per se.

37. Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding.

This does not falsify the theory.

~~csmcmillion

:'''Reply''': by starting with an ''ad hominem'' attack, you lost credibility from the get-go. A quick review of your points confirms it:

:1. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." It is when billions are spent on many years of looking. Surely you wouldn't think a lost item is in your backpack if you spent time looking for it there and could not find it.

:3. "Only in experiments that have yet to be confirmed." Experiments '''''are''''' confirmation in themselves.

:7. "the cosmological constant... fully accounts for accelerated expansion." Reliance on a cosmological constant has failed before.

:10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass. "What logical problem? I studied physics at the graduate level and have never heard of any logical problem?" Oh please. None of these counterexamples is candidly addressed in physics departments because these counterexamples cast doubt on a theory preferred for political reasons. Anyone in a physics department who expresses doubt about the theory of relativity would be thereby ending his own academic career.

:13. The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement. "AAAD is a matter of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In any case, it does NOT Falsify GRT as no information is propagated faster than light." Relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance (which cannot seriously be disputed in QM) whether a type of information is transmitted or not.

:14. The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51. "See 13 (above). This statement also assumes that the action-at-a-distance by Jesus described in the Bible actually happened. It is not 'true and verifiable.'" There are no [[Counterexamples to the Bible]], so this conflict is a serious one.

:15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching. "Gravitons are the quanta of gravity waves. See #1." And see my answer to #1.

:18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics. "The ability to lead to other insights has never been a test of the validity of a scientific theory, and lack of consequent insight does not falsify a theory." The failure of the theory to produce is strong evidence against its validity.

:26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. "Development of useful devices is a matter of engineering, and is not a test of a scientific theories validity." A theory that inhibits technological progress, rather than enhance it, is almost certainly wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I'll address your other responses as my time permits. For now:

"by starting with an ''ad hominem'' attack"

Stating the obvious is not an ad hominem attack. I didn't say the author was an "idiot". Anyone who honestly thinks that because "devices" have not been engineered based upon a scientific theory somehow ''falsifies'' that theory ''is'' truly clueless (maybe ignorant would have been a better word) of science and the scientific method. A correct scientific theory must explain previous observations and correctly predict those to come. No where is there a requirement that it lead to engineered "devices".

14. "The action-at-a-distance by Jesus"

I should have added: The AAAD by Jesus is (usually) considered a miracle - a suspension of natural law. So I'm not clear on how the suspension of natural law could be considered a counterexample to a natural law to begin with.

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

I should have asked a simple question on this one: Have you ever asked an astronomer, cosmologist or theoretical physicist if s/he has had insights from Relativity? Please - find ''one'' that hasn't had deep insight as a result.

"A theory that inhibits technological progress, rather than enhance it, is almost certainly wrong.--Andy Schlafly 00:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)"

So, adherence to a literal interpretation of the Bible, which hindered technical progress for more than a thousand years, indicates that the Bible is almost certainly wrong. Thank you '''so much''' for clearing that up. ~~csmcmillion

:Take a look at [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]. When you post more substantive comments, then I'll respond to them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:37, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I agree that "relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance", but not that AAAD "cannot seriously be disputed in QM". There is no QM experiment that show AAAD. There are interpretations of QM that seem to imply AAAD, and respected physicists who believe in those interpretations and hence in AAAD. But QM does not imply AAAD as there are also relativistic interpretations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:27, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:QM experiments have shown that a pair of spinning, entangled photons can be separated a great distance, and that the mere observation of the spin of one of those photons immediately removes the uncertainty about the spin of the other photon a far distance away. All attempts to deny that [[action-at-a-distance]] reality have failed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:42, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:: Yes, the photon experiment is correct. Some people do interpret the observation of one photon as affecting the other photon. But there is no proof of that. You could prove it if the observation transmitted information, but no one can do that. Other interpretations do not require AAAD. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:47, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Andy: Why did you delete RSchlafly's most recent comment? RSchlafly: I believe you are correct. A little research on my part shows numerous refutations to the assertions made on this page, going back a couple of years:

http://skullsinthestars.com/2010/08/09/right-wing-refutations-of-relativity-really-really-wrong/

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/6253

I'm beginning to see why people are telling me not to waste my time trying to contribute to this site.
:All you're doing is making your own "assertions without clarification". We've had these arguments before, and these arguments were created by people who refuse to listen to what we say or refuse to read any of the sources we provide. And it's tiresome. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:44, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:User:csmcmillion, it's not a discussion when someone won't use his own words to explain his views.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:49, 13 November 2011 (EST)

::And it's not a discussion when sysops repeatedly delete comments, as you just did. ~~csmcmillion
:::And what exactly did I delete? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:42, 13 November 2011 (EST)
Just wanted to add to this: When has <math>\Lambda</math> failed? It's a perfectly legitimate term in the EFE's, as csmcmillion has stated. The righthand side of it is (in <math>G=c=1</math> units) is <math>8 \pi T^{\alpha \beta }</math>. You need something on the left which is a measure of curvature, i.e., the Einstein tensor <math>G^{\alpha \beta}</math>. Why the Einstein tensor? Why not the Ricci tensor? Why not the scalar curvature times the metric? The reason is that the stress-energy tensor (T) has to have zero divergence: <math>\nabla_{\beta} T^{\alpha \beta} = 0 </math>. The Einstein tensor has zero divergence as well. But, we also have <math> \nabla_{\gamma} g^{\alpha \beta} = 0</math>. So we can safely add in <math>\Lambda g^{\alpha \beta}</math> to the left hand side of the EFE without violating local conservation of energy-momentum. Using this gives <math>G^{\alpha \beta}+\Lambda g^{\alpha \beta} = 8 \pi T^{\alpha \beta}. </math> [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:46, 15 November 2011 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The "The observed lack of curvature in overall space" is not an "unobserved" phenomenon. Accordingly, it has been reverted along with the others. Looking for something that should be there under a theory, but not finding it there as predicted, is a counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:50, 30 November 2011 (EST)

:[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], sorry, yes, I was being a bit overzealous on that one. However, I think the principle holds - many of the concepts listed are not counterexamples. Starting with number one: relativity predicts gravity waves and predicts that they will be extremely difficult to detect. Now I hear you say that's a pretty lousy kind of prediction - and you're right - but it still doesn't make it a counterexample. The same goes for the entry on gravitons (additionally, they're a prediction of quantum theory, not relativity, but that's for another phase of editing).
:It may be that further categorizing is necessary. For example, issues like the Twin Paradox and the Ehrenfest Paradox are not strictly unobserved phenomena either. Item 37, failure to solve the equations, is a problem for mathematics, not necessarily for relativity.
:Perhaps a simpler solution would be to rename the whole article, perhaps to 'Counterarguments to Relativity'. That way the article doesn't look silly by listing things that clearly aren't counterexamples, and also is open to inclusion of a broader range of criticisms of the theory. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:50, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:: I agree with QPR, as upon thinking about it, 'counterexamples' does not accurately describe the things on the list. And looking for something predicted and not finding it is only a counterexample/counterargument if it is predicted to be in a specific place, and when looking there, it isn't found. Hence, not finding gravity waves despite looking for them doesn't mean they don't exist. Many things were thought to be myths or non-existent until they were found, including giraffes. But I also disagree with QPR in that categorizing the list is unnecessary, and would result in needless discussions about where certain points belong, rather than more productive discussions. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:56, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::: I don't think that counterexamples is the best word either. My suggestion would be to leave the title as is, but to split the list into ''paradoxes'' and ''anomalies''. They maybe people would have a better idea what to expect from each item. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:43, 2 December 2011 (EST)

Response to the above: the list is of "counterexamples". These are examples that are counter to the theory. Other terms, like "paradox" or "anomaly", capture neither the concept of "example" nor of it being "counter" to the theory. The term "paradox" arises in philosophy, but this isn't philosophy. Relativity is a theory that pretends to be correct in every case, but it isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:24, 3 December 2011 (EST)

== Deleted example to releativity ==

Hello, I added a counter example to relativity that was removed, despite it being valid. My counter example was that the special theory of relativity predicts that mass is a form of energy and they are interchangeable. But if this were true the huge amount of energy stored in common matter would have been utilised by now in power stations and weaponry.

The problem is, it's been over 100 years since this theory was published and not one power station that utilises the interchange of mass and energy predicted by relativity has actually been built.

However, this counter example was removed because a member claimed that these do exist. Now this leaves us with a dichotomy. Do we...
A) Admit that these power stations exist (which they don't) and therefore acknowledge the special theory of relativity is accurate and true, or
B) We keep the counter example included that no power station that utilises special relativity exists, and therefore it is a sign that relativity is false.

I think we should vote for B on this issue. It would be like inventing the motor engine, but not building cars! --[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 12:36, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:Actually these power stations DO exist and have done for decades; they're called "nuclear reactors" and they generate heat by turning mass into energy. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 12:45, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::If these stations do exist, then how come Albert Einstein admitted of the inability to apply the predictions of his OWN theory? I quote "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable".

::Next you'll be telling me that we can do the physically impossible and generate electricity by fusing atoms to form heavier atoms too.

::Let's face it, special relativity has no practical application in providing energy. If it were, mass and energy would be seen interchanging all the time. F will ''always'' equal MA, mass can neither increase or decrease by being converted into energy; observations of non-zero mass particles accelerated to ''exactly'' the speed of light prove this.--[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 13:01, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:::The stations exist, hundreds of them, all over the world. Some of them even fit into ships and submarines. Nuclear fission reactors produce power by converting rest mass into electromagnetic and kinetic energy, exactly in accordance with e=mc2. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 13:06, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::::''I'' don't believe that. Do you ''know'' they exist for sure? Have you ''really'' ever been to one? ''I'm'' sure they employ some kind of ''a'' clever trick. Otherwise Newton, unchallenged as the most intelligent ''scientist'' of all time, would see his second law of motion proven wrong. The second law of motion is a law that is known to always hold true by centuries of accurate tests. These power stations can not exist, the laws of physics don't allow it!--[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 13:18, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:::::I don't care what you believe. Yes they exist, and yes I've been to one. If you tell me where you live I'll give you directions to the nearest one, and you can either visit or call their press officer. Either way they'll be happy to explain how they turn mass into energy and generate power with the heat that's released. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 13:23, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::::::These aren't my beliefs, these are scientific facts. Newton's laws have been established for centuries and have never been challenged. Yet if they are true, then nuclear power stations can't exist because that would require the M of F=MA to be a variable quantity directly related to A.

::::::As I put more energy into the acceleration of an object, the mass does not increase, it cannot increase. Why? Because mass and energy cannot be interchanged. If this were true, then no non-zero mass particle could ever be accelerated to the speed of light. Non-zero mass particles are accelerated to the speed of light every day at particle colliders worldwide.

::::::If what you say is true, then we would have to get rid of this entire page because it invalidates every counter example.--[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 13:43, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:::::::You're not listening, are you? Conversion of mass into energy, in accordance with e=mc2 is how nuclear reactors work. Your counterexample was removed because it's INVALID. What part of this don't you understand? Newton's Second Law is irrelevant to the point you're trying to make, by the way.

:::::::"Yet if they are true, then nuclear power stations can't exist" Epic fail. Nuclear power stations DO exist.

:::::::"If what you say is true, then we would have to get rid of this entire page because it invalidates every counter example" Why? Just because a theory is false overall, that doesn't mean that parts of it aren't true. Parts of Darwin's theory are true; living things DO inherit characteristics from their parents and those characteristics DO affect their chances of survival. Despite that, evolution is still false. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 13:48, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::::::::If it was removed because nuclear power stations exist, then surely it would invalidate every counter example too, right? If what you claim is correct and they do exist, then shouldn't this whole page be deleted?.--[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 13:58, 3 December 2011 (EST)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-12-03T18:58:33Z

GMilhouse: /* Deleted example to releativity */

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-12-03T18:43:16Z

GMilhouse: /* Deleted example to releativity */

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-12-03T18:42:45Z

GMilhouse: /* Deleted example to releativity */

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-12-03T18:41:49Z

GMilhouse: /* Deleted example to releativity */

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-12-03T18:41:08Z

GMilhouse: /* Deleted example to releativity */

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

==Path Independence and Photons==
Wait, so time is some sort of vector field such that when you integrate it you get time? And that vector field is conservative? I've never heard of such a thing... 
As well, you state: "Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum." Yes, if you plug in the formula for non-relativistic, Newtonian momentum, you get zero, but SR gives you the equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2. Plug m=0 in. You get E=pc. So, the momentum is nonzero. That's a very well-known result... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 12:06, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:So should I take the "counter example" down...? Not to be rude but can someone at least respond to me? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:54, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
::Take it down, then if someone reverts (which is likely) it'll provoke a short discussion that probably won't reach a consensus. Regardless, you're unlikely to succeed in keeping it changed. I'm not trying to discourage, go ahead and try changing it, I'm just letting you know what to expect. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:33, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:::These are interesting points worthy of further discussion. As to the first point, however, merely asking two questions is not persuasive to me.

:::As to the second point, I find the argument somewhat circular. Is the energy equation cited verified by any experiment, or is it merely definitional? If merely definitional, then it does not provide a way for calculating actual momentum.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:54, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Well answer them. The point I'm making is that there is no vector field such that when integrates it, one gets time. I had never heard of it until then. I am asking you to enlighten me.
 
::::And as a matter of fact there is! The equation is E=hf where E is the energy of the photon, f is the frequency of the photon, and h is just a proportionality constant (known as Planck's constant). And it has been experimentally verified. It explains the spectrum from blackbody radiation and it explains the photoelectric effect. And if I recall correctly, your camera uses the photoelectric effect. These things are quite well known... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 14:55, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::Oh, and I forgot to mention--the Compton effect is explained by photons. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:00, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::::Please address my more substantive point: has your equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2 been experimentally verified, or is it simply definitional?

:::::::First of all, will you please answer my question...? What is the vector field such that when one integrates over it, one gets time? And oops. Misread your question. And no, it's not "definitional," it's from the relativistic expressions of energy and momentum... (And yes, those have been experimentally verified--if I recall correctly, using those equations, you can predict what can happen (i.e. speeds) when elementary particles are created. But I'm not particle physicist) Once you have those, just do a little algebra and you get that equation. And I hope you're not going to deny basic algebra....
 
:::::::Again, all this is well known.... Out of curiosity have you ever actually studied relativity or this photon stuff? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 13:39, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::OK, I've removed the counter-example of photons...I think I've provided a satisfactory explanation to Schlafly (and he's not responding for some reason...) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:50, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Schlafly, I saw you re-added the "counter-example." Will you please respond to me? Are you seriously just going to keep it there and refuse to discuss this at all? Wow and you claim that we're not open-minded.... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:45, 9 November 2011 (EST)

::::::::::Andy, there is no "counter-example of photons." Photons are not mentioned in the list. But are you referring to this counterexample:

:::::::::::28.Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.

::::::::::Let's be clear about what the dispute is first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 11 November 2011 (EST)

:::::::::::Yeah, that's the one. Sorry. Poorly-worded. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:29, 14 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::::::Will someone please tell me why (a) SR/GR promotes (moral) relativism, (b) photons aren't legit even though I've just pointed that your argument was wrong (maybe that's a bit generous. To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, I can't even say it's wrong...) and (c) what is the vector field such that when one integrates over it, one gets time? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 10:26, 27 November 2011 (EST)

==FTL Neutrinos at LHC ==

It may be jumping the gun to put the finding from Friday as evidence against GR. The results have yet to be duplicated - duplicability is needed for a claim to have scientific merit - and have yet to be carefully peer reviewed. The results are significant at the 95% CI but that means there's a 1 in 20 chance they're actually inaccurate. Given how many measurements are made at the LHC some are going to be both statistically significant and incorrect. It may be more prudent to wait to see if it's a one off or measurement error. I propose waiting at least until other particle acceleration labs can attempt to duplicate the results to make any judgement; after all, that's what CERN is doing
--[[User:BillyWest|BillyWest]] 00:18, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:I disagree. The opposition to the results from CERN -- which confirm prior results from another laboratory which were not as precise -- is unreasonable. It's not necessary to continue to pretend that Relativity is true when there is so much evidence against it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:35, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::CERN itself hasn't even confirmed the results. The data was published a lot quicker than data usually is because if it is accurate, then it changes the majority of physics laws discovered in the past century. The theory of relativity is not the only theory/law which involves the speed of light, electromagnetism does as well. Because of this, CERN wanted other scientists to try and find a flaw in the experiment quickly so that if there is a flaw, it is found quickly, and if there isn't, then scientists can begin determining what needs to change in order to accomodate this. Once the data has been properly analysed, without prematurely jumping to conclusions, then it would be fair to say that the neutrinos traveled faster than the speed of light. But something to keep in mind: this is not the first experiment done with neutrinos, all of the prior ones having travelled slower than the speed of light. If you do an experiment 500 times, and each results has a 1/1000 chance of being inaccurate, there is a 40% chance that at least one result will be inaccurate. If they find an error in the experiment (such as a piece of the measuring equipment being broken, or poor calibration of equipment, or leftover neutrinos from previous experiments, or any other impacting error), then wouldn't it make conservapedia look silly for jumping to a conclusion too quickly? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The CERN experiment is not the only one suggesting faster-than-c travel. Moreover, there is no basis for doubting the news that something travels faster than c. Most of the objections in the media are based in an irrational clinging to Relativity. Hence the counterexample is being restored ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Looks like they've found the problem already: there was a flaw with the experiment.http://www.dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php This article basically says that they used GPS to measure the locations and the times. However, because the satellite used moves at a different speed to the Earth, relativity needs to be taken into account. Usually, relativity has no significant effect until speeds get nearish the speed of light. However, the neutrinos travelled 60 nanoseconds faster than light. Because it's nanoseconds, the speed difference of the Earth and the satellite is enough that relativity affects the experiment at the nanosecond level. Scientists have done calculations to determine how this changes the results (as because of the flaw, the results they got weren't actually accurate), and found that the neutrinos actually travelled for 64 seconds longer than they previously thought, making their speed very slightly less than the speed of light. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 18:02, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

: No, this explanation has not been accepted. There have been many other papers with other explanations. The jury is still out. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:33, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Paul Johnson, the renowned historian, explains the link -- and the significance of the link -- between relativity and moral relativism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:57, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
:Do you have a link for that? It seems pretty flimsy to me. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:10, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::Ah right, I found some stuff! It appears that Johnson acknowledged that there was no ACTUAL link between the two, but pointed out how many liberals CLAIM a link. That seems pretty close to what the article is saying, so my edit probably wasn't the best idea I've ever had, and as a bonus I've learned something interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain rather than just blocking me :-S --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:17, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Have you read Tribe's article applying the curvature of space to support liberal views?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, I haven't. Is it easy to find? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: You can find it here [http://blog1.darkbuzz.com/tribe-1989.htm] or a pdf here [http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/~wat4y/103_Harv._L._Rev._1,_.PDF][http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~daw/D_Realism/Tribe.pdf]. On a college campus, you might be able to get it here.[http://www.jstor.org/pss/1341407] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Relativity and Electromagnetism ==
It is often claimed that Relativity is proven by its ability to explain aspects of electromagnetism. But those aspects do not relate to physical mass, gravity or various frames of reference throughout the universe -- the basic claims of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: Lorentz used electromagnetic relativity to predict relativistic mass in 1899, and it was experimentally confirmed a couple of years later. Poincare used E=mc2 for radiation in 1900. So I think that electromagnetic aspects of relativity do relate to physical mass. They also relate to various frames of reference, as electromagnetic experiments were done at different times of the year to test different frames of reference in the Earth's orbit. Gravity and electromagnetism are separate forces, and I guess it is fair to say that relativistic aspects had to be tested separately. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Most of the counterexamples to Relativity relate to gravity; some relate to the claim that all (non-accelerating) frames of reference are the same everywhere in the universe. The essence of Relativity is its claims about gravity and space. Electromagnetism experiments have nothing to do with this, and do not confirm any of these "grand unified" assertions of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:12, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: You have to distinguish between general relativity, which is about gravity, and special relativity, which isn't.
::: Anyway, Newtonian mechanics is not consistent with Maxwell's equations while relativity (both special and general) is. Do you deny Maxwell's equations, Aschlafly? If you accept Newtonian mechanics, you have to. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: Also, it should be noted that Einstein's famous 1905 paper (which was very important in the history of relativity) is entitled ''On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies''. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:30, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Again, a big part of the objection to Relativity is its "grand unified" approach. The insistence on that view is simply not scientific, and is contrary to the data.

::::: There are different forces in nature. There really are, and they really are different. That's what the data show.

::::: Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light. None of that exists in electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: ''Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light'' -> No. Light travels the speed of light in special relativity. Any massless particle does as well.
:::::: ''None of that exists in electromagnetism'' -> A charged particle with a velocity less than the speed of light definitely falls under the domain of electromagnetism.
:::::: Again, Maxwell's equations and Newtonian mechanics are inconsistent. You can't have both. The fact that other forces exist is irrelevant. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:56, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Special relativity makes no predictions, and only assumptions, about the speed of light. Instead, special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light.
::::::: When the claim is made that Relativity explains electromagnetism, the claim is not referring to charged particles traveling less then the speed of light.
::::::: Your statement that Maxwell's equations and Newtownian mechanics are somehow inconsistent needs explanation. They describe completely different forces.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Special relativity predicts the speed of light is the same regardless of orientation of the observer, which is consistent with the Michelson–Morley experiment. It also predicts that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer, which is consistent with the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment.
:::::::: You said velocities less than the speed of light not exist in electromagnetism. This was clearly false.
:::::::: I already mentioned that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under Galilean transformation, yet are under Lorentz transformations. This is very well known. If you want the exact details see [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.165.5841&rep=rep1&type=pdf On the Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=19TCz0cxAFMC&pg=PA484&lpg=PA484&dq=%22maxwell's+equations%22+invariant+under+%22lorentz+transformation%22&source=bl&ots=gudaGknbwi&sig=9idd1t_o89t5RUSLcemoMq7hNjc&hl=en&ei=eq9SToXdHuTH0QHig62-Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CHQQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=%22maxwell's%20equations%22%20invariant%20under%20%22lorentz%20transformation%22&f=false Understanding Physics, Invariance of electromagnetism under Lorentz transformation]. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: Special relativity says that the speed of light is constant. Maxwell's theory says that same thing, as does the Michelson-Morley experiment. It can be said to be an assumption or a prediction, depending on what textbook you are reading. At any rate, it is testable, and has been confirmed in many ways (for light in a vacuum). It was tested in outer space before testing on Earth. Relativity certainly also makes predictions about charged particles traveling less then the speed of light. The biggest prediction is the formula known as the Lorentz force law. This was an important part of relativity as decribed by Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein. The Lorentz force law used to be considered part of Maxwell's equations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:49, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: These are interesting mathematical observations, having aesthetic value. They can suggest the existence of an intelligent designer.

::::::::: But the physical significance of these mathematical observations is scant or non-existence. Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light, and claims made by special relativity with respect to such motion are not verified by electromagnetism. Claims made by general relativity are not verified at all by electromagnetism.

::::::::: I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics. I'm not saying that Newtonian mechanics must be correct, but some criticisms of it do not withstand scrutiny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Yes, electromagnetism does involve particles moving close enough to the speed of light for relativistic effects to be important. Examples include the electron gun in an ordinary CRT TV set, electric motors, speakers, and just about any electronic device. These are not new. The earliest non-optical tests of special relativity were the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments] They started in 1901 based on Lorentz's relativity, and pre-date Einstein. They show that mass increases with velocity so that nothing goes faster than light. In Newtonian mechanics, the speed of light is not an obstacle. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:13, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::: ''"Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light."'' -> [[Particle accelerator]] use electromagnetic fields to move particles close to the speed of light.
::::::::::: ''"I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics."'' -> The observed constancy of speed of the speed of light (an electromagnet wave) does. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:16, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I have an open mind about this, and would like to learn more. I wasn't familiar with the Kaufmann-Bucherer-Neumann experiments but didn't get much out of the Wikipedia description of them in the above link. Is there a clearer, more objective explanation that doesn't end with a sweeping, unsupported claim of proof of Relativity?

:::::::::::: The two most prominent claims of proof of Relativity -- the perihelion advance of Mercury and the binary pulsar -- are now counterexamples and the most precise data are not being made available to the public. So something isn't adding up in favor of Relativity.

:::::::::::: The lack of scientific basis for Relativity leaves it defenseless against another unscientific theory: string theory. Before long it may become important to list counterexamples to string theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Can I start [[counterexamples to string theory]] now? Its a good excuse for me to learn! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:57, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Please do! Also, Max, did you see the answer to your question about how Relativity is used by [[liberals]] to advance their belief system? I can repost the links if you didn't see them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Great, I'll look into String Theory (I don't know much about it) and get on to writing something. Having a project to work on is a great incentive to learn new topics. please do post those links, thanks!

::::::::::::::::I see the links are posted just above this subheading, under "You can find it here"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Ah yes, now I see. I'll read those tonight. Thanks! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:46, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: The Mercury and binary pulsar observations were used to support the gravity theory, and relativity remains the most accurate explanation. Andy, you asked about electromagnetism, not gravity. There is no way to understand electromagnetism without relativity, as far as I know. The Kaufmann experiments were supposed to disprove relativity. More precise experiments were consistent with relativity, as with all the other electromagnetic experiments. Just turn on an old-style TV set with a tube. How do you think that those pixels get lit up? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:16, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: There is some overlap between the invariant equations for electromagnetism and for relativity. The electromagnetism invariant equations came first, so I think the better description would be that one cannot understand relativity without understanding electromagnetism, not vice versa. But what that has to do with gravity is far from clear. In fact, it probably has nothing to do with gravity. Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism, because no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism.

::::::::::::: It's not relativity that lit up the pixels on an old TV screen. Quantum mechanics has more to do with that than relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:32, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ''Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism'' -> Untrue. Quantum electrodynsmics (QED) combines special relativity, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. A Nobel Prize for its discovery was awarded to Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga in 1965.

:::::::::::::: ''no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism'' -> Also untrue. QED predictions are accurate within 12 significant digits, making it the most accurate theory we have. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:17, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: By my count, Nobel prizes were given for relativistic electromagnetism were given in 1902, 1907, 1933, 1945, 1965, 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1999. Prizes for relativistic gravity were given in 1978, 1983, and 1993. The list is here.[http://www.almaz.com/nobel/physics/physics.html] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

@Andy Schlafly: Relativity predicts that no particle with mass can go the speed of light or faster. How do you explain that no particle accelerator has been able to get a massive particle at or above the speed of light? How do you explain the results that the inertial mass increases with velocity, as relativity predicts? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:00, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:PArticle accelerators don't. CERN (the biggest one) gets them exceedingly close, but not above. It's something like 99.999% of C. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:59, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: Relativity assumes that, rather than predicts it. I think relavitist purists would actually say all that is needed is a maximum velocity, whether that is "c" or something else. Many would not be genuinely surprised if velocities slightly faster than ''c'' are ultimately attained, and ''c'' itself may be changing over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:36, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

: Historically, the constant speed of light was an empirical observation, and not just an assumption. Maxwell's theory predicted that electromagnetic waves traveled at the speed of light, and that was observed. It was one of the big reasons for concluding that light was an electromagnetic wave. Experiments like Michelson-Morley (1887) found a constant speed of light. Also, there were astronomical reasons for believing in a constant speed of light. Distances were measured in light-minutes or light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant. Yes, Einstein declared the constant speed of light to be postulate in 1905, but by then it was a well-accepted empirical fact. Going faster than ''c'' or finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics that it would be like finding a perpetual motion machine. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:27, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Empirical data suggest that the speed of light has changed over time, and as recently as 1/6th of the universe's lifetime. [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html]

:: You comments, like "distances were measured in ... light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant," is a political statement, not a scientific one. Likewise for stating that "finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics ...." Is this what university science has become - ignoring the data to preserve the reputation of some current and past professors?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The article you linked to claims that "The speed of light...may have been lower as recently as two billion years ago." How do you reconcile that time frame with a Young Earth Creationist model where the universe is only 6000 years old? You cant reject that study on the one hand because it directly contradicts the Bible but embrace it on the other when it supports the idea of a shifting c. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 18:45, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: The linked article says there may have been a change in the fine structure constant, α, not necessarily the speed of light, c. Also, it hardly seems like a variable α is currently well-established. It's just the result from one set of data. But even accepting that there has been a change in α and that this means a change in c, the amount seems minuscule. The article says that α "had increased by a few parts in 105 in the past 12 billion years", which would correspond to a similar change in c. Therefore, even if c is not exactly constant it would be very nearly constant and relativity would still be a great approximation. That's ignoring that there may be a mundane explanation for this apparent change.
:::: Also, as BrentH mentions above, if you accept these results you have to accept that the universe is billions of years old. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: I was explaining historically why the speed of light was thought to be constant. It was not just some unproved Einstein relativity assumption. There was solid experimental and theoretical evidence before Einstein. There is no evidence for a variable speed of light. That 2004 paper claiming alpha changed has been superseded with a more accurate study in 2007, with no variation. [http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/the-oklo-reactor-and-varying-physical-constants/][http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0701019] Even if alpha changed, it would not necessarily mean that ''c'' changed. I am not sure why any of this is political. We can measure the speed of light to about 10 decimal places. If the speed were not constant, then an experiment would be likely to detect it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I wish you, Andy and I could have a drunken dinner together some time. That would be an epic debate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:17, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, what do you make of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation syncrotron radiation]? Here you have effects which can't be explained without relativity and which are used in many fields of research, e.g. in medicine... 08:28, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Wikipedia]] has many dubious claims that relativity explains something ... as one might expect from a [[liberal]] website. This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L] It appears that this may be unresolved and I welcome more discussion about it. I don't see evidence that relativity played a role in discovering it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Nearly everything about charged particles requires relativity and quantum mechanics. There is no alternative way to understand charged particles, as far as I know. I do not even know what it would mean to reject relativity for this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:12, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Relativity is an unproductive belief system, disproved by more precise measurements in the tests that supposedly verified it. String theory is taking over university physics programs because Relativity is so obviously flawed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 27 August

-
::::::: [[String theory]] assumes that relativity is 100% correct. Physicists pursue string theory because they are sold on Einstein's dream of using relativistic ideas to unify physics, without having to pay attention to experiments. They are ''not'' pursuing string theory because they are persuaded by your list of relativity counterexamples. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:47, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
:::::::: String theory's motivation is to provide a way to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity, so it assumes general relativity is a good description of nature. In fact, string theory becomes general relativity in the low energy limit. In addition, string theories are Lorentz invariant. Whatever the merits of string theory, relativity is incorporated fundamentally to it, so if anything this example speaks to the strength of relativity. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:11, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
::::::::: Andy Schlafly: ''"This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L]"''-> It also says (right in the abstract) that relativity ''must'' be taken into account:

-
::::::::::"However, '''when ɣB ≅ 1014 Gauss, where ɣ is the electron Lorentz factor, Compton scattering becomes important'''. The result is a reduction in the synchrotron loss rate which '''agrees closely with quantum electrodynamics'''." [Emphasis added]

-
::::::::: Both Compton scattering and quantum electrodynamics make use of special relativity. If you take a look at the equations in the paper you can see that special relativity is used explicitly. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:32, 27 August 2011 (EDT)2011 (EDT)

This discussion is interesting, and I'm learning from it. I have an open mind about this. But it seems to me that term "relativity" is being used in comments above to mean anything from "invariance" (which, of course, predates relativity), electromagnetism (which, of course, predates relativity), and even quantum mechanics (which many say conflicts with relativity). The only thing that "relativity" does not seem to mean in many of the above comments is its description of gravity -- which is what is unique to relativity and what most associate it with.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: The word "relativity" was coined by Maxwell, and it became popular from Poincare calling the "principle of relativity" the idea that different inertial frames are indistinguishable. When I said that string theory assumes relativity, I meant primarily that it assumes Lorentz/Poincare invariance. The influence of relativity on physics has been primarily in electromagnetism, not gravity. The nonlinear gravity effects are barely detectable. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:45, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:: * Again, general relativity is about gravity. Special relativity is not.
:: * No one is saying "quantum mechanics" means "relativity". However, the article you linked to referenced quantum electrodynamics (a subset of quantum mechanics) which does incorporate special relativity. Moreover, while general relativity and quantum mechanics are difficult to reconcile, special relativity and quantum mechanics aren't and doing so has produced [[Quantum electrodynamics|the most accurate theory in physics]].
:: * No one is saying "invariance" means "relativity". For example, Galilean invariance contradicts relativity. However, a special type of invariance, Lorentz invariance, is fundamental to both special and general relativity (it holds locally in general relativity). String theory is Lorentz invariant.
:: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:38, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Actually, there were some people around 1910 who wanted to rename relativity theory as invariant theory. Einstein is sometimes said to have agreed with that opinion, but I am not sure he really said that. There is some disagreement about whether relativity is compatible with quantum mechanics. The two main problem areas are collapse of the wave function during an observation, and gravitational nonlinearities at the center of a black hole. But these are a little off the subject. The theories are completely compatible for nearly all considerations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it. Most of the counterexamples here relate to the claims about gravity and the curvature of space that are made by general relativity. Special relativity, according to the theory, is a "special case" of the general theory. If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me.

:::: The mathematical theory of general or special relativity permits no exceptions. So even a slight variation (outside of measurement error) between observation and prediction means the theory is wrong. It means the worldview embodied in relativity is wrong. And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::: ''"Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it."''
::::: We encountered phenomena that none of these people had before. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the Michelson–Morley experiment, gravitational lensing, etc. Changing your worldview in light of new evidence is quite a sensible thing to do.
::::: ''"If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me."''
::::: It's not so much that, but that one must be careful to separate the two.
::::: ''"And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed."''
::::: They haven't been ignored. The data has been analyzed and it agrees with relativity. Just here we've given you the examples of the Michelson–Morley experiment, the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments, Kennedy–Thorndike experiment, synchrotron radiation, etc. We've also answered here your alleged counterexamples to relativity and the problems with them. If you have any more I'd be happy to address them.
::::: I'm not sure what data you're talking about that hasn't being publicly disclosed. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Special relativity is not so much a special case, but rather the linearized version of the general theory. The special theory has been tested in many more different ways, and it could be true without the general theory being true. I really don't think that relativity requires any different view from Maxwell's. Relativity is consistent with what Maxwell said. I really don't see why you would say that relativity does not permit any exceptions any more than Maxwells theory does not permit any exceptions. What's the difference? Theories have formulas. If observations don't agree with the formulas, then something is wrong. Why is relativity any different from any other theory in the hard sciences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:41, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Relativity should not be treated any differently compared with any other theory in the hard sciences. But Relativity obviously is:

::::::*physics journals will not accept for publication anything that conflicts with the theory of relativity
::::::*the Nobel Prize will not be given to anyone who has criticized the theory of relativity
::::::*no science graduate student or science professor dare even criticize the above two forms of censorship.

::::::As to the data, the two leading supposed verifications of the theory are the binary pulsar (for which a Nobel Prize was given) and the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it. Yet additional data have not been made fully available to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::: I have to say I had no idea of this bias until reading Conservapedia. It sounds shocking. Can you tell me which physicists have been denied awards, or refused publication on this basis? It would be really useful in arguments I'm having off-site. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:54, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: ''"But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it."''
:::::::: Can you please provide a source for this claim? What data are you talking about? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: A "source"? No source is needed, or possible given the censorship by physics journals I just described.

::::::::: Wouldn't you be at least interested yourself in looking up what the precession for the Mercury perihelion is, and comparing it to what Relativity predicts? I think that would be the first step before one made up his mind, not something that must be raised by someone else.

::::::::: The Mercury perihelion precession is 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, plus/minus 0.1. General Relativity predicts 5599.98, plus/minus 0.04. The observed precession is clearly outside of prediction by more than the standard of error. But beginning in the early 1990s, probably because of this emerging divergence, physicists stopped publishing the data perhaps to avoid pinpointing the contradiction with even greater accuracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: So by your own admission general relativity is within 0.005% of the correct value?
:::::::::: Anyway, where are you getting your information for the precession rate? From what I gather the error is larger than 0.1 arc-seconds per century.
::::::::::Some values for the anomalous precession rate (i.e, deviation from what you expect from Newtonain gravity):
:::::::::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
:::::::::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
:::::::::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
:::::::::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
:::::::::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]
:::::::::: General relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04, while Newtonian gravity predicts 0. Clearly general relativity is superior here. It's within experimental error in three out of the four experiments above, and just barely out of it with the fourth. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:22, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: The theory of relativity is proven wrong by the data, '''''beyond measurement error'''''. If you're not going to address that directly, then I'm unlikely to respond further to your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I really don't know what to say. I just showed that for four experiments of the precession of Mercury's perihelion relativity was within experimental uncertainty in three of them and just barely out of it for one. This is better that Newtonian theory which was zero for four. Measuring outside experimental uncertainty ''once'' doesn't automatically make a theory wrong. They are many differences between a simple, clean model and a complex, messy reality that can account for this. Even just by statistics alone you'd expect a correct theory to be outside measurement error once in a while. It still stands that relativity is more accurate than any other theory.
:::::::::::: If you have any citations of experiments that show relativity's predictions fall outside experimental uncertainty I'll be happy to address them. However, just declaring that it's outside experimental uncertainty, but you don't have the data because a relativity cabal is keeping it secret is doesn't merit a response. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:54, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: The most recent -- and most precise -- Mercury perihelion precession data '''''demonstrate that the [[theory of relativity]] is wrong by more than the measurement error'''''. Case closed based on the data.

::::::::::::: [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site. If someone has more precise Mercury perihelion precession data than what has disproved the theory of relativity, then a discussion of that data is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Sigh... I just explained in detail why it wasn't "case closed". Being outside experimental error doesn't automatically make a theory wrong, especially when it isn't that far off. It could mean the theory is wrong or it could mean the theory is right, but by chance measured outside experimental uncertainty. By statistics we expect that to happen every now and then. '''''You can't just cherry pick the one experiment that fits your preconceptions and declare it case closed. You have to take all the other experimental data into account.''''' When you do that here (that is, you also look at the other three experiments) the results look in favor for relativity.

:::::::::::::: You can have the last word if you want. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:31, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: It is not true that the data demonstrate that the theory of relativity is wrong by more than the measurement error. What you have is a difference of opinion, and one scientist claiming that the combination of relativity and other assumptions and observations results in a discrepancy that exceeds the ''estimated'' measurement error. The problem could be with those other assumptions and observations, or with the estimate of the measurement error. As with the Pioneer anomaly, there are explanations that do not violate relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: Any and all attempts to reconcile the observed data with the theory of relativity are welcome. Instead, I not aware of the publication of observed data for this fundamental claim of the theory since 1992 (see above), despite improvements in technology and precision since then. Anyone think that it became impossible to observe the data after that time??? Notice what the data were showing leading up that point: increasing divergence (and contradiction) with the well-settled prediction made by the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:37, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Here is the [http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf Mercury Radar Ranging Data from 1987 to 1997]. The work was carried out by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under NASA. You are absolutely free to analyze the data in depth to see if the relativists are hiding anything. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:32, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Somehow I doubt the data above (going five years after the supposed suppression of data began) is going appease you. Well, you can go send NASA a letter and ask them for the most recent data about Mercury's orbit. They might give it to you if you ask nicely and they almost certainly have it, since [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/index.html they currently have a space probe orbiting Mercury] (I guess they didn't get the memo from the relativists telling everyone to ignore Mercury because it contradicted relativity). Anyway, once you get the data you'll have definitive proof that liberals have been suppressing important information about Mercury's orbit (or something). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:18, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: Looking back, I made a mistake. I said general relativity's prediction was outside the measurement uncertainty for the fourth experiment (Anderson et al., 1992). I misread it. GR prediciton: 42.98 ±0.04, Observation: 43.13 ± 0.14. They actually do overlap. So general relativity is four for four. My bad. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:41, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::: I took a look at the JPL link above but did not find any reference to the perihelion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::::: I'm pretty sure there's no reference to the perihelion because it's the raw data, without analysis. If the data was mapped to show Mercury's location, it would (presumably) show a perihelion. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

=== More counterexamples ===
I found another page with a long list of supposed counterexamples. It looks like nonsense to me, but you can check it out for yourself. He says, "Fossil records indicate the Earth’s gravity was far less during the time of the dinosaurs." He does have references of many of his alleged anomalies. [http://knol.google.com/k/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence-presented] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

=== Denial of [[Nobel Prize]] to anyone who criticizes relativity ===

:::::::: [[Robert Dicke]], the finest American physicist of the 20th century, criticized the theory of relativity and was then never given a Nobel Prize. In fact, in a pattern also used to punish [[Fred Hoyle]] for his criticism of the theory of evolution, a Nobel Prize was given for Dicke's insight to other scientists less deserving of the award than Dicke, within years of Dicke's criticism of the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: According to the [http://www.nap.edu/readingroom.php?book=biomems&page=rdicke.html National Academies Press] Dicke was given:
::::::::: ''"the National Medal of Science (1971), the Comstock Prize of the National Academy of Sciences (1973), and the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (1973). He was a member of the National Science Board from 1970 to 1976. Bob was appointed to the Princeton University Department of Physics in 1946, served as chair from 1967 to 1970, moved to emeritus in 1984''.
::::::::: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:11, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Right ... and no [[Nobel Prize]], despite being the finest American physicist of the 20th century. Note also that it was his criticism of relativity in the mid-1970s -- after the awards you cite -- that caused him to be punished by the Nobel Prize committee. No one in grad school or on university faculties dare criticize Relativity again, no matter what the data say. No relativist will even criticize the policy of excluding anyone who criticizes the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: I am sure the Nobel committee has its prejudices. Hoyle once wrote a letter to the London Times criticizing a Nobel physics prize. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/03/fred-hoyle-nobel-prize/print] So maybe they did not like him for that. By the time they gave the big bang prize in 1978, Gamow and others were dead. I would have rather given the prize to the theorists, but those are the biases of the folks in Sweden. I am not sure it has anything to do with the acceptability of relativity. There is a lot of excellent theoretical work that never got a prize, such as the work of Poincare and Minkowski on relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:56, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: You link to an interesting, in-depth article that gives other possible examples of Nobel Prize bias. But the article misses the timing on the insult to Fred Hoyle -- fall 1983 -- which was around the time that he was challenging a tenet of evolution (I'd like to obtain further details on the timing - his partner in the research apparently raised the criticism as early as 1980). Such a coincidence in timing for a prize that was given for 1957 work can hardly be ignored. Note that the article also says Fowler was "stunned" by the award's passing over Hoyle.

:::::::::::: The article also omits the insults to Teller and Wheeler, to Robert Dicke, and to Raymond Damadian (see explanation in [[Nobel Prize]]).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: I am not sure I understand your bias theory, but even supposing that some Swedes have some prejudices, how does this relate to the merits of relativity? You criticize the 1978 prize. But that was for discovery of the cosmic microwave radiation that was predicted by relativity theorists and confirmed by a couple of telephone company engineers who were just trying to measure their satellite reception interference. They did not even believe in the relativity explanation. So why did the Swedes give the prize to the Bell engineers instead of the relativists? Maybe you should start a page on Counterexamples to Swedish Wisdom. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:00, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: "Swedes" are not picking the Nobel Prize-winners. They just act on the recommendations of [[liberal]] professors who don't like criticism of the theories of evolution, relativity, or [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Really, the bias is not that complicated. It's no different from the bias in [[Academy Award]]s, [[Pulitzer Prize]]s, [[Rhodes Scholar]]s, or any other award system that is heavily influenced by leftists.

:::::::::::::: Once [[Fred Hoyle]] and [[Robert Dicke]] criticized liberal theories, they had to be punished. The greatest punishment is to award the Nobel Prize for their work '''''to someone less deserving'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:08, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

== Standard kilogrammes? ==
I'm not sure how good an argument this is. ONE out of a batch of 40 identical standard kilogrammes has diverged in weight from the others. Common sense says that there's something wrong with that one weight, which is after all stored in France. It's not likely that the answer has anything to do with relativity, which if correct would have caused an identical change in mass in all 40. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:06, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: I have a drawer full of socks. I cannot find a match for one of them. Can I blame relativity? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::Is it a French sock? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 08:14, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Maybe so. Or from some other country where "kilogram" is spelled "kilogramme". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::That would be everywhere except the USA. I'm English. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:I believe that it has something to do with the metals used are slightly radioactive and are emitting either alpha or beta particles causing a very slight decrease in weight. The answer doesn't have anything to do with relativity and is a well know issue. Scientists are currently trying to come up with a better way of standardizing mass. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:56, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::There's a difference between relativity and quantum mechanics (which explains the above observation). If you only took high school physics--you have about two hundred years of catching up to do on the field. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

==Ummmm...==

Physics has come a long way since Albert Einstein published his theories of relativity. Actually, there are quite a few hypothetical paradigms within modern physics that would allow a particle of sufficiently high energy to apparently travel faster than light. I'm not a physicist (as I've said on other pages, I'm a biologist), but I am peripherally familiar with a few of the better-supported ideas. I suggest you read up on M theory and string theory. At the risk of butchering the explanation (I am NOT a physicist), I will say that within the paradigm of M theory and string theory, observing high-energy particles moving slightly faster than light is not all that surprising. That said, the authors of the paper describing the "faster than light" neutrinos, admit up front that the numbers they got was probably the result of some sort of experimental error--the results need to be repeatable in order to be scientific. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

: Science can advance with one observation, and it's not necessary to wait until it is repeated before discussing and learning from it. How quickly (if ever) was the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] repeated?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:: The Michelson-Morley experiment was first done in 1887. It was repeated by them and by others many times in the next few years. Illingworth and Kennedy came up with a variant that was more sensitive and could test for certain exotic explanations. They did that very soon after the initial experiment. Dayton Miller also did such experiments and continued to do them even after Einstein's work was completed. Miller acknowledged the results of the experiments but remained a committed opponent to special relativity. One of Miller's experiments did actually turn up some interesting results but his later experiments and other work failed to replicate it and it seems to have been a statistical anomaly. Others continued to duplicate versions of the MM experiment because the data from it can be used to test aspects of special relativity and other ideas. So duplicated forms have continued right up to the present day although generally using carefully tuned lasers as the light sources which give much more precision. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Some experiments done following the MM experiment (not all listed, only some early ones and some recent ones): Morley-Miller 1902-1904 (published 1904), Miller 1921, Miller 1923-1924, Antonini et al 2005, Stanwix et al 2006, Eisele et al 2009, Herrmann et al 2009. Plus others between them, just listing some early ones and some recent ones. And it is usually necessary to wait until an experiment is repeated before accepting it to be accurate. A single observation, that can't be repeated, usually has an explanation within the current understanding of physics. For example, a network of ravines and gullies was observed in the 1870s on the surface of Mars, and there was wide speculation about their origin. An explanation suggested in the early 1900s wasn't proved until the 1960s, that the ravines and gullies were in actuality an optical illusion caused by streaks of dust blowing across the surface in the strong winds. Another example of a 'discovery' that later turned out to be false was the existence of Vulcan, a planet between Mercury and the Sun. A single observation, unconfirmed by repetition, does not indicate a discovery. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:22, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::: Yes, the M-M experiment was repeated many times. It had to be done at different times of the year, at different altitudes, with different materials, etc. Eg, maybe the length contraction might have been different for wood and brass.
::: There are physicists who have suggested faster than light particles, but string theory and M theory are Lorentz invariant and useless on the issue. The string theorists would definitely be surprised by anything faster than light. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:24, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::: Claimed results from a single experiment have been proven wrong before (e.g, the claims of producing [[cold fusion]] in 1989). It makes sense to see if an experiment is replicated before throwing out an extremely well tested theory. It's very suspicious that we haven't seen neutrinos going faster than the speed of light before this. Experimenters are only human beings and could easily have made a mistake or forget to include something in their calculations. The claimed velocity is only a tiny fraction lager than c and might easily be explained by not taking into account some systematic error.
:::: If Mr. Schlafly's other 36 "counterexamples" are so strong then I don't see why he so badly needs the example of an unreplicated experiment whose data is still in the process of being analyzed. (When Einstein was asked about the book '100 Authors Against Einstein' he responded: "If I were wrong, it would only have taken one".) --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 11:27, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::::: If the experiment is disproved by subsequent experiments, then that particular counterexample can be removed. But the insistence on clinging to the [[theory of relativity]] when the available evidence is to the contrary is unjustified. Einstein's quote is inapplicable to this issue: the context of Einstein's quote refers to a government attempt to discredit his theory. His quote does apply to government efforts to deny scientific evidence today, such as the attempt by the [[NCI]] to deny the [[abortion]]-[[breast cancer]] link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Gee, the experiment counts as a counterexample even before the facts are in. What a surprise....
:::::: I'm not sure if the German government was behind '100 Authors Against Einstein', but even if it were it's completely irrelevant. The folly wasn't that it was done by the government; it was that if relativity was wrong one good argument would suffice. The inclusion of this unconfirmed experimental result just shows how this list of "counterexamples" values quantity over quality. Rather than making a few strong arguments it's a list of 37 random tidbits. '''You're expecting to overturn one of science's best theories with something that can fit inside a Twitter post?''' The reasoning for many points' inclusion are not well explained and counterarguments are not addressed (e.g, Hawking radiation is called a "[c]ontrived explanation" with no justification whatsoever). I suspect the "conciseness" of the points is just a reflection of its author's short attention span. I'll report to the Worldwide Relativity Cabal that we have nothing to fear from... oops. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:46, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Thank you MatthewQ! Oh, and Mr. Schlafly, the evidence does not support a link between abortion and breast cancer. You may find good sources on the topic [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1733063/?tool=pmcentrez here], [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)15835-2/fulltext here], and [http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814 here]. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 08:11, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::: As for redoing the M-M experiment, the [[LIGO]] experiment can be seen as a $400M modern M-M experiment. While the M-M failed to detect the motion of the Earth, LIGO has failed to detect motion in other galaxies. You may be interested in this new paper reporting on an NSF grant to teach high school students about LIGO detecting gravity waves. This is just to be ready in case LIGO ever succeeds in detecting anything, I guess. [http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.3720] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 06:08, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

== A few sections that should be removed... ==

12: For this point to be right, things need to have started VERY VERY small, which is impossible if Creationism is right. This creates an inconsistency within Conservapedia and should be removed.
26: The first part is wrong due to GPSs. In order to be more accurate, they take into account relativity, and hence relativity has produced something useful. The rest of it is repeated in 18. Hence, as everything in 26 is either wrong or repeated, it should be removed.
28: Relativity does not require everything with 0 mass to have 0 momentum. It actually takes into account that light, despite having 0 mass, has momentum.
29: This is actually wrong. The age of each twin is independent of the path travel, it is dependent only on the acceleration they experience. Therefore, this point is wrong.
Any comments or disagreements? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 22:02, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:On point 12, physicists themselves admit that relativity contradicts quantum mechanics shortly after the Big Bang. So even relativists would (or should) concede the validity of this counterexample.

:On point 26, GPS's were not developed as a result of relativity. This has been discussed at length on this site in the past. No relativists were involved in the engineering of GPS's; any differences in timing on the satellites relative to ground are more easily corrected by synchronization rather than theoretical predictions.

:Will review the other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:45, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

::I fully agree with all this. Some of the stuff in this page literally left my head hurting pretty badly from facepalming so hard.

::And, Schlafly, how does this make relativity wrong? Newtonian physics is wrong at quantum levels too. Should we add a "Counterexamples to Newtonian Mechanics" page and put something like that in there too? Of course not--it's an excellent approximation for things on the everyday scale. Same thing with GR.

::No, they were not developed because of relativity, but they were developed taking relativity into account. The people who built it didn't know the specifics, but they knew the corrections from relativity were there and they took them into account. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:53, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

::::I concur. Rather, arguing "counterexamples" is a fine way to demonstrate the weaknesses, inconsistencies, or future directions of inquiry regarding any scientific paradigm. However, it is a logical fallacy to say that "these are the problems with hypothesis A, therefore hypothesis B ''must'' be true". For a position to be effectively argued, one must present empirical evidence in support of an alternative hypothesis. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 00:56, 12 November 2011 (EST)

:::::A bigger logical fallacy occurs when someone insists or thinks that an alternative hypothesis B must exist before disproving a hypothesis A.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:14, 12 November 2011 (EST)

:::::::Good point. However, when a hypothesis is not supported the scientific process usually then entails asking the question of why it was not supported, and then forming a new hypothesis that once again fits all of the available data. This is why scientific understanding of even the most hard and fast paradigms can change so dramatically from one generation to the next (or, occasionally, from one experiment to the next). The most exciting science gets done when a well-reasoned hypothesis is rejected--simply because it opens the door to so many new possibilities.--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 13:01, 14 November 2011 (EST)

== A couple more problems ==

These went up after I posted the other section so I didn't know what to do. If you would prefer I post it there, then sorry. I'm new to wikis so I don't know proper etiquette and perhaps a missed something in the guidelines :)

Anyway, first thing, you state: "It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world."

...Honestly, I am speechless about this. Again, this was taken down but now someone put it back up... You guys honestly think this statement is true? There is no connection between the two--the only thing they have in common is the name "relativity." What, you think that people's morals depend on their frame of reference and change by the relativistic <math> \gamma (\equiv 1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2})</math> factor or something?! I am truly shocked by this...What connection is there? Where is the equation that predicts this?

Secondly: "Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light." Nope. Things can't travel at the speed of light, according to SR. Relativity explicitly states that things cannot go faster than light. If you drop this, then of course there are going to be going to be inconsistencies with SR...And that thread only talks about things going at the speed of light. What's the problem with solenoids travelling near c? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 16:52, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
:Can someone please tell me what the link between moral relativism and GR/SR is...? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:04, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::Because <s>God</s> <s>psychotic rambling homophobic momma's boy</s> Andy Schlafly said so. You have to turn off your <s>indoctrinated</s> educated mind... --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:36, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

== At first glance ==

There are so many problems with this page I don't know where to start. Whomever wrote it is obviously clueless about science and its

methods. A few of the problems include:

1. Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found.

The lack of experimental confirmation ''so far'' of gravity waves does NOT falsify the theory. Absence of evidence is not evidence of

absence.

3. Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of

Relativity.

Only in experiments that have yet to be confirmed.

7. The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds relativity

Untrue. The EFEs contain a term (the cosmological constant) that fully accounts for accelerated expansion.

10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass

What logical problem? I studied physics at the graduate level and have never heard of any logical problem. ?

13. The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement

AAAD is a matter of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In any case, it does NOT Falsify GRT as no information is propagated faster

than light.

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

See 13 (above). This statement also assumes that the action-at-a-distance by Jesus described in the Bible actually happened. It is not

"true and verifiable".

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

Gravitons are the quanta of gravity waves. See #1.

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

The ability to lead to other insights has never been a test of the validity of a scientific theory, and lack of consequent insight does not

falsify a theory.

26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the

theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.

Development of useful devices is a matter of engineering, and is not a test of a scientific theories validity.

27. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction.

This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.

The priniciple of isotropy does not falisfy Relativity. The theory itself accounts for, and predicts, the difference in observed inertia.

28. Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws

of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.

And Relativity also predicts that photons have non-zero momentum. Relativistic systems can have non-zero momentum even with no

rest mass, due to ''mass-energy equivalence''. Relativity correctly predicts the momentum of a massless particle as p = h*f/c = h/λ.

31. The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows

down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to

be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity

Incorrect, as this only takes Special Relativity into account. This is a common fallacy. It is the acceleration required to return the twin

that accounts for the difference in clocks and is explained/predicted by General Relativity. One must take both SRT and GRT into

account.

32. Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right,

theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.

Fields do not constitute an "aether". The EM field exists (and was explained/predicted by Maxwell long before Eistein).

34 (a). In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens.

How is such an account "true and verifiable"?

34(b). This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.

Something that is "likely" does not falsify a scientific theory.

35. Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the

properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.

This is not an argument against applied mathematics, not against Relativity per se.

37. Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding.

This does not falsify the theory.

~~csmcmillion

:'''Reply''': by starting with an ''ad hominem'' attack, you lost credibility from the get-go. A quick review of your points confirms it:

:1. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." It is when billions are spent on many years of looking. Surely you wouldn't think a lost item is in your backpack if you spent time looking for it there and could not find it.

:3. "Only in experiments that have yet to be confirmed." Experiments '''''are''''' confirmation in themselves.

:7. "the cosmological constant... fully accounts for accelerated expansion." Reliance on a cosmological constant has failed before.

:10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass. "What logical problem? I studied physics at the graduate level and have never heard of any logical problem?" Oh please. None of these counterexamples is candidly addressed in physics departments because these counterexamples cast doubt on a theory preferred for political reasons. Anyone in a physics department who expresses doubt about the theory of relativity would be thereby ending his own academic career.

:13. The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement. "AAAD is a matter of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In any case, it does NOT Falsify GRT as no information is propagated faster than light." Relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance (which cannot seriously be disputed in QM) whether a type of information is transmitted or not.

:14. The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51. "See 13 (above). This statement also assumes that the action-at-a-distance by Jesus described in the Bible actually happened. It is not 'true and verifiable.'" There are no [[Counterexamples to the Bible]], so this conflict is a serious one.

:15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching. "Gravitons are the quanta of gravity waves. See #1." And see my answer to #1.

:18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics. "The ability to lead to other insights has never been a test of the validity of a scientific theory, and lack of consequent insight does not falsify a theory." The failure of the theory to produce is strong evidence against its validity.

:26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. "Development of useful devices is a matter of engineering, and is not a test of a scientific theories validity." A theory that inhibits technological progress, rather than enhance it, is almost certainly wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I'll address your other responses as my time permits. For now:

"by starting with an ''ad hominem'' attack"

Stating the obvious is not an ad hominem attack. I didn't say the author was an "idiot". Anyone who honestly thinks that because "devices" have not been engineered based upon a scientific theory somehow ''falsifies'' that theory ''is'' truly clueless (maybe ignorant would have been a better word) of science and the scientific method. A correct scientific theory must explain previous observations and correctly predict those to come. No where is there a requirement that it lead to engineered "devices".

14. "The action-at-a-distance by Jesus"

I should have added: The AAAD by Jesus is (usually) considered a miracle - a suspension of natural law. So I'm not clear on how the suspension of natural law could be considered a counterexample to a natural law to begin with.

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

I should have asked a simple question on this one: Have you ever asked an astronomer, cosmologist or theoretical physicist if s/he has had insights from Relativity? Please - find ''one'' that hasn't had deep insight as a result.

"A theory that inhibits technological progress, rather than enhance it, is almost certainly wrong.--Andy Schlafly 00:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)"

So, adherence to a literal interpretation of the Bible, which hindered technical progress for more than a thousand years, indicates that the Bible is almost certainly wrong. Thank you '''so much''' for clearing that up. ~~csmcmillion

:Take a look at [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]. When you post more substantive comments, then I'll respond to them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:37, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I agree that "relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance", but not that AAAD "cannot seriously be disputed in QM". There is no QM experiment that show AAAD. There are interpretations of QM that seem to imply AAAD, and respected physicists who believe in those interpretations and hence in AAAD. But QM does not imply AAAD as there are also relativistic interpretations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:27, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:QM experiments have shown that a pair of spinning, entangled photons can be separated a great distance, and that the mere observation of the spin of one of those photons immediately removes the uncertainty about the spin of the other photon a far distance away. All attempts to deny that [[action-at-a-distance]] reality have failed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:42, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:: Yes, the photon experiment is correct. Some people do interpret the observation of one photon as affecting the other photon. But there is no proof of that. You could prove it if the observation transmitted information, but no one can do that. Other interpretations do not require AAAD. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:47, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Andy: Why did you delete RSchlafly's most recent comment? RSchlafly: I believe you are correct. A little research on my part shows numerous refutations to the assertions made on this page, going back a couple of years:

http://skullsinthestars.com/2010/08/09/right-wing-refutations-of-relativity-really-really-wrong/

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/6253

I'm beginning to see why people are telling me not to waste my time trying to contribute to this site.
:All you're doing is making your own "assertions without clarification". We've had these arguments before, and these arguments were created by people who refuse to listen to what we say or refuse to read any of the sources we provide. And it's tiresome. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:44, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:User:csmcmillion, it's not a discussion when someone won't use his own words to explain his views.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:49, 13 November 2011 (EST)

::And it's not a discussion when sysops repeatedly delete comments, as you just did. ~~csmcmillion
:::And what exactly did I delete? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:42, 13 November 2011 (EST)
Just wanted to add to this: When has <math>\Lambda</math> failed? It's a perfectly legitimate term in the EFE's, as csmcmillion has stated. The righthand side of it is (in <math>G=c=1</math> units) is <math>8 \pi T^{\alpha \beta }</math>. You need something on the left which is a measure of curvature, i.e., the Einstein tensor <math>G^{\alpha \beta}</math>. Why the Einstein tensor? Why not the Ricci tensor? Why not the scalar curvature times the metric? The reason is that the stress-energy tensor (T) has to have zero divergence: <math>\nabla_{\beta} T^{\alpha \beta} = 0 </math>. The Einstein tensor has zero divergence as well. But, we also have <math> \nabla_{\gamma} g^{\alpha \beta} = 0</math>. So we can safely add in <math>\Lambda g^{\alpha \beta}</math> to the left hand side of the EFE without violating local conservation of energy-momentum. Using this gives <math>G^{\alpha \beta}+\Lambda g^{\alpha \beta} = 8 \pi T^{\alpha \beta}. </math> [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:46, 15 November 2011 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The "The observed lack of curvature in overall space" is not an "unobserved" phenomenon. Accordingly, it has been reverted along with the others. Looking for something that should be there under a theory, but not finding it there as predicted, is a counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:50, 30 November 2011 (EST)

:[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], sorry, yes, I was being a bit overzealous on that one. However, I think the principle holds - many of the concepts listed are not counterexamples. Starting with number one: relativity predicts gravity waves and predicts that they will be extremely difficult to detect. Now I hear you say that's a pretty lousy kind of prediction - and you're right - but it still doesn't make it a counterexample. The same goes for the entry on gravitons (additionally, they're a prediction of quantum theory, not relativity, but that's for another phase of editing).
:It may be that further categorizing is necessary. For example, issues like the Twin Paradox and the Ehrenfest Paradox are not strictly unobserved phenomena either. Item 37, failure to solve the equations, is a problem for mathematics, not necessarily for relativity.
:Perhaps a simpler solution would be to rename the whole article, perhaps to 'Counterarguments to Relativity'. That way the article doesn't look silly by listing things that clearly aren't counterexamples, and also is open to inclusion of a broader range of criticisms of the theory. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:50, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:: I agree with QPR, as upon thinking about it, 'counterexamples' does not accurately describe the things on the list. And looking for something predicted and not finding it is only a counterexample/counterargument if it is predicted to be in a specific place, and when looking there, it isn't found. Hence, not finding gravity waves despite looking for them doesn't mean they don't exist. Many things were thought to be myths or non-existent until they were found, including giraffes. But I also disagree with QPR in that categorizing the list is unnecessary, and would result in needless discussions about where certain points belong, rather than more productive discussions. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:56, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::: I don't think that counterexamples is the best word either. My suggestion would be to leave the title as is, but to split the list into ''paradoxes'' and ''anomalies''. They maybe people would have a better idea what to expect from each item. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:43, 2 December 2011 (EST)

Response to the above: the list is of "counterexamples". These are examples that are counter to the theory. Other terms, like "paradox" or "anomaly", capture neither the concept of "example" nor of it being "counter" to the theory. The term "paradox" arises in philosophy, but this isn't philosophy. Relativity is a theory that pretends to be correct in every case, but it isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:24, 3 December 2011 (EST)

== Deleted example to releativity ==

Hello, I added a counter example to relativity that was removed, despite it being valid. My counter example was that the special theory of relativity predicts that mass is a form of energy and they are interchangeable. But if this were true the huge amount of energy stored in common matter would have been utilised by now in power stations and weaponry.

The problem is, it's been over 100 years since this theory was published and not one power station that utilises the interchange of mass and energy predicted by relativity has actually been built.

However, this counter example was removed because a member claimed that these do exist. Now this leaves us with a dichotomy. Do we...
A) Admit that these power stations exist (which they don't) and therefore acknowledge the special theory of relativity is accurate and true, or
B) We keep the counter example included that no power station that utilises special relativity exists, and therefore it is a sign that relativity is false.

I think we should vote for B on this issue. It would be like inventing the motor engine, but not building cars! --[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 12:36, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:Actually these power stations DO exist and have done for decades; they're called "nuclear reactors" and they generate heat by turning mass into energy. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 12:45, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::If these stations do exist, then how come Albert Einstein admitted of the inability to apply the predictions of his OWN theory? I quote "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable".

::Next you'll be telling me that we can do the physically impossible and generate electricity by fusing atoms to form heavier atoms too.

::Let's face it, special relativity has no practical application in providing energy. If it were, mass and energy would be seen interchanging all the time. F will ''always'' equal MA, mass can neither increase or decrease by being converted into energy; observations of non-zero mass particles accelerated to ''exactly'' the speed of light prove this.--[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 13:01, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:::The stations exist, hundreds of them, all over the world. Some of them even fit into ships and submarines. Nuclear fission reactors produce power by converting rest mass into electromagnetic and kinetic energy, exactly in accordance with e=mc2. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 13:06, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::::''I'' don't believe that. Do you ''know'' they exist for sure? Have you ''really'' ever been to one? ''I'm'' sure they employ some kind of ''a'' clever trick. Otherwise Newton, unchallenged as the most intelligent ''scientist'' of all time, would see his second law of motion proven wrong. The second law of motion is a law that is known to always hold true by centuries of accurate tests. These power stations can not exist, the laws of physics don't allow it!--[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 13:18, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:::::I don't care what you believe. Yes they exist, and yes I've been to one. If you tell me where you live I'll give you directions to the nearest one, and you can either visit or call their press officer. Either way they'll be happy to explain how they turn mass into energy and generate power with the heat that's released. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 13:23, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::::::*Cough* ReadTheItalics *Cough* These aren't my beliefs, these are scientific facts. Newton's laws have been established for centuries and have never been challenged. Yet if they are true, then nuclear power stations can't exist because that would require the M of F=MA to be a variable quantity directly related to A.

::::::As I put more energy into the acceleration of an object, the mass does not increase, it cannot increase. Why? Because mass and energy cannot be interchanged. If this were true, then no non-zero mass particle could ever be accelerated to the speed of light. Non-zero mass particles are accelerated to the speed of light every day at particle colliders worldwide.

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-12-03T18:18:21Z

GMilhouse: /* Deleted example to releativity */

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-12-03T18:17:17Z

GMilhouse: /* Deleted example to releativity */

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-12-03T18:02:56Z

GMilhouse: /* Deleted example to releativity */

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-12-03T18:01:33Z

GMilhouse: /* Deleted example to releativity */

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

==Path Independence and Photons==
Wait, so time is some sort of vector field such that when you integrate it you get time? And that vector field is conservative? I've never heard of such a thing... 
As well, you state: "Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum." Yes, if you plug in the formula for non-relativistic, Newtonian momentum, you get zero, but SR gives you the equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2. Plug m=0 in. You get E=pc. So, the momentum is nonzero. That's a very well-known result... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 12:06, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:So should I take the "counter example" down...? Not to be rude but can someone at least respond to me? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:54, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
::Take it down, then if someone reverts (which is likely) it'll provoke a short discussion that probably won't reach a consensus. Regardless, you're unlikely to succeed in keeping it changed. I'm not trying to discourage, go ahead and try changing it, I'm just letting you know what to expect. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:33, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:::These are interesting points worthy of further discussion. As to the first point, however, merely asking two questions is not persuasive to me.

:::As to the second point, I find the argument somewhat circular. Is the energy equation cited verified by any experiment, or is it merely definitional? If merely definitional, then it does not provide a way for calculating actual momentum.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:54, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Well answer them. The point I'm making is that there is no vector field such that when integrates it, one gets time. I had never heard of it until then. I am asking you to enlighten me.
 
::::And as a matter of fact there is! The equation is E=hf where E is the energy of the photon, f is the frequency of the photon, and h is just a proportionality constant (known as Planck's constant). And it has been experimentally verified. It explains the spectrum from blackbody radiation and it explains the photoelectric effect. And if I recall correctly, your camera uses the photoelectric effect. These things are quite well known... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 14:55, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::Oh, and I forgot to mention--the Compton effect is explained by photons. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:00, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::::Please address my more substantive point: has your equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2 been experimentally verified, or is it simply definitional?

:::::::First of all, will you please answer my question...? What is the vector field such that when one integrates over it, one gets time? And oops. Misread your question. And no, it's not "definitional," it's from the relativistic expressions of energy and momentum... (And yes, those have been experimentally verified--if I recall correctly, using those equations, you can predict what can happen (i.e. speeds) when elementary particles are created. But I'm not particle physicist) Once you have those, just do a little algebra and you get that equation. And I hope you're not going to deny basic algebra....
 
:::::::Again, all this is well known.... Out of curiosity have you ever actually studied relativity or this photon stuff? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 13:39, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::OK, I've removed the counter-example of photons...I think I've provided a satisfactory explanation to Schlafly (and he's not responding for some reason...) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:50, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Schlafly, I saw you re-added the "counter-example." Will you please respond to me? Are you seriously just going to keep it there and refuse to discuss this at all? Wow and you claim that we're not open-minded.... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:45, 9 November 2011 (EST)

::::::::::Andy, there is no "counter-example of photons." Photons are not mentioned in the list. But are you referring to this counterexample:

:::::::::::28.Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.

::::::::::Let's be clear about what the dispute is first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 11 November 2011 (EST)

:::::::::::Yeah, that's the one. Sorry. Poorly-worded. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:29, 14 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::::::Will someone please tell me why (a) SR/GR promotes (moral) relativism, (b) photons aren't legit even though I've just pointed that your argument was wrong (maybe that's a bit generous. To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, I can't even say it's wrong...) and (c) what is the vector field such that when one integrates over it, one gets time? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 10:26, 27 November 2011 (EST)

==FTL Neutrinos at LHC ==

It may be jumping the gun to put the finding from Friday as evidence against GR. The results have yet to be duplicated - duplicability is needed for a claim to have scientific merit - and have yet to be carefully peer reviewed. The results are significant at the 95% CI but that means there's a 1 in 20 chance they're actually inaccurate. Given how many measurements are made at the LHC some are going to be both statistically significant and incorrect. It may be more prudent to wait to see if it's a one off or measurement error. I propose waiting at least until other particle acceleration labs can attempt to duplicate the results to make any judgement; after all, that's what CERN is doing
--[[User:BillyWest|BillyWest]] 00:18, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:I disagree. The opposition to the results from CERN -- which confirm prior results from another laboratory which were not as precise -- is unreasonable. It's not necessary to continue to pretend that Relativity is true when there is so much evidence against it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:35, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::CERN itself hasn't even confirmed the results. The data was published a lot quicker than data usually is because if it is accurate, then it changes the majority of physics laws discovered in the past century. The theory of relativity is not the only theory/law which involves the speed of light, electromagnetism does as well. Because of this, CERN wanted other scientists to try and find a flaw in the experiment quickly so that if there is a flaw, it is found quickly, and if there isn't, then scientists can begin determining what needs to change in order to accomodate this. Once the data has been properly analysed, without prematurely jumping to conclusions, then it would be fair to say that the neutrinos traveled faster than the speed of light. But something to keep in mind: this is not the first experiment done with neutrinos, all of the prior ones having travelled slower than the speed of light. If you do an experiment 500 times, and each results has a 1/1000 chance of being inaccurate, there is a 40% chance that at least one result will be inaccurate. If they find an error in the experiment (such as a piece of the measuring equipment being broken, or poor calibration of equipment, or leftover neutrinos from previous experiments, or any other impacting error), then wouldn't it make conservapedia look silly for jumping to a conclusion too quickly? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The CERN experiment is not the only one suggesting faster-than-c travel. Moreover, there is no basis for doubting the news that something travels faster than c. Most of the objections in the media are based in an irrational clinging to Relativity. Hence the counterexample is being restored ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Looks like they've found the problem already: there was a flaw with the experiment.http://www.dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php This article basically says that they used GPS to measure the locations and the times. However, because the satellite used moves at a different speed to the Earth, relativity needs to be taken into account. Usually, relativity has no significant effect until speeds get nearish the speed of light. However, the neutrinos travelled 60 nanoseconds faster than light. Because it's nanoseconds, the speed difference of the Earth and the satellite is enough that relativity affects the experiment at the nanosecond level. Scientists have done calculations to determine how this changes the results (as because of the flaw, the results they got weren't actually accurate), and found that the neutrinos actually travelled for 64 seconds longer than they previously thought, making their speed very slightly less than the speed of light. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 18:02, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

: No, this explanation has not been accepted. There have been many other papers with other explanations. The jury is still out. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:33, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Paul Johnson, the renowned historian, explains the link -- and the significance of the link -- between relativity and moral relativism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:57, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
:Do you have a link for that? It seems pretty flimsy to me. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:10, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::Ah right, I found some stuff! It appears that Johnson acknowledged that there was no ACTUAL link between the two, but pointed out how many liberals CLAIM a link. That seems pretty close to what the article is saying, so my edit probably wasn't the best idea I've ever had, and as a bonus I've learned something interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain rather than just blocking me :-S --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:17, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Have you read Tribe's article applying the curvature of space to support liberal views?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, I haven't. Is it easy to find? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: You can find it here [http://blog1.darkbuzz.com/tribe-1989.htm] or a pdf here [http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/~wat4y/103_Harv._L._Rev._1,_.PDF][http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~daw/D_Realism/Tribe.pdf]. On a college campus, you might be able to get it here.[http://www.jstor.org/pss/1341407] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Relativity and Electromagnetism ==
It is often claimed that Relativity is proven by its ability to explain aspects of electromagnetism. But those aspects do not relate to physical mass, gravity or various frames of reference throughout the universe -- the basic claims of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: Lorentz used electromagnetic relativity to predict relativistic mass in 1899, and it was experimentally confirmed a couple of years later. Poincare used E=mc2 for radiation in 1900. So I think that electromagnetic aspects of relativity do relate to physical mass. They also relate to various frames of reference, as electromagnetic experiments were done at different times of the year to test different frames of reference in the Earth's orbit. Gravity and electromagnetism are separate forces, and I guess it is fair to say that relativistic aspects had to be tested separately. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Most of the counterexamples to Relativity relate to gravity; some relate to the claim that all (non-accelerating) frames of reference are the same everywhere in the universe. The essence of Relativity is its claims about gravity and space. Electromagnetism experiments have nothing to do with this, and do not confirm any of these "grand unified" assertions of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:12, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: You have to distinguish between general relativity, which is about gravity, and special relativity, which isn't.
::: Anyway, Newtonian mechanics is not consistent with Maxwell's equations while relativity (both special and general) is. Do you deny Maxwell's equations, Aschlafly? If you accept Newtonian mechanics, you have to. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: Also, it should be noted that Einstein's famous 1905 paper (which was very important in the history of relativity) is entitled ''On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies''. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:30, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Again, a big part of the objection to Relativity is its "grand unified" approach. The insistence on that view is simply not scientific, and is contrary to the data.

::::: There are different forces in nature. There really are, and they really are different. That's what the data show.

::::: Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light. None of that exists in electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: ''Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light'' -> No. Light travels the speed of light in special relativity. Any massless particle does as well.
:::::: ''None of that exists in electromagnetism'' -> A charged particle with a velocity less than the speed of light definitely falls under the domain of electromagnetism.
:::::: Again, Maxwell's equations and Newtonian mechanics are inconsistent. You can't have both. The fact that other forces exist is irrelevant. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:56, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Special relativity makes no predictions, and only assumptions, about the speed of light. Instead, special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light.
::::::: When the claim is made that Relativity explains electromagnetism, the claim is not referring to charged particles traveling less then the speed of light.
::::::: Your statement that Maxwell's equations and Newtownian mechanics are somehow inconsistent needs explanation. They describe completely different forces.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Special relativity predicts the speed of light is the same regardless of orientation of the observer, which is consistent with the Michelson–Morley experiment. It also predicts that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer, which is consistent with the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment.
:::::::: You said velocities less than the speed of light not exist in electromagnetism. This was clearly false.
:::::::: I already mentioned that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under Galilean transformation, yet are under Lorentz transformations. This is very well known. If you want the exact details see [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.165.5841&rep=rep1&type=pdf On the Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=19TCz0cxAFMC&pg=PA484&lpg=PA484&dq=%22maxwell's+equations%22+invariant+under+%22lorentz+transformation%22&source=bl&ots=gudaGknbwi&sig=9idd1t_o89t5RUSLcemoMq7hNjc&hl=en&ei=eq9SToXdHuTH0QHig62-Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CHQQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=%22maxwell's%20equations%22%20invariant%20under%20%22lorentz%20transformation%22&f=false Understanding Physics, Invariance of electromagnetism under Lorentz transformation]. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: Special relativity says that the speed of light is constant. Maxwell's theory says that same thing, as does the Michelson-Morley experiment. It can be said to be an assumption or a prediction, depending on what textbook you are reading. At any rate, it is testable, and has been confirmed in many ways (for light in a vacuum). It was tested in outer space before testing on Earth. Relativity certainly also makes predictions about charged particles traveling less then the speed of light. The biggest prediction is the formula known as the Lorentz force law. This was an important part of relativity as decribed by Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein. The Lorentz force law used to be considered part of Maxwell's equations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:49, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: These are interesting mathematical observations, having aesthetic value. They can suggest the existence of an intelligent designer.

::::::::: But the physical significance of these mathematical observations is scant or non-existence. Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light, and claims made by special relativity with respect to such motion are not verified by electromagnetism. Claims made by general relativity are not verified at all by electromagnetism.

::::::::: I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics. I'm not saying that Newtonian mechanics must be correct, but some criticisms of it do not withstand scrutiny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Yes, electromagnetism does involve particles moving close enough to the speed of light for relativistic effects to be important. Examples include the electron gun in an ordinary CRT TV set, electric motors, speakers, and just about any electronic device. These are not new. The earliest non-optical tests of special relativity were the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments] They started in 1901 based on Lorentz's relativity, and pre-date Einstein. They show that mass increases with velocity so that nothing goes faster than light. In Newtonian mechanics, the speed of light is not an obstacle. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:13, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::: ''"Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light."'' -> [[Particle accelerator]] use electromagnetic fields to move particles close to the speed of light.
::::::::::: ''"I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics."'' -> The observed constancy of speed of the speed of light (an electromagnet wave) does. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:16, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I have an open mind about this, and would like to learn more. I wasn't familiar with the Kaufmann-Bucherer-Neumann experiments but didn't get much out of the Wikipedia description of them in the above link. Is there a clearer, more objective explanation that doesn't end with a sweeping, unsupported claim of proof of Relativity?

:::::::::::: The two most prominent claims of proof of Relativity -- the perihelion advance of Mercury and the binary pulsar -- are now counterexamples and the most precise data are not being made available to the public. So something isn't adding up in favor of Relativity.

:::::::::::: The lack of scientific basis for Relativity leaves it defenseless against another unscientific theory: string theory. Before long it may become important to list counterexamples to string theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Can I start [[counterexamples to string theory]] now? Its a good excuse for me to learn! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:57, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Please do! Also, Max, did you see the answer to your question about how Relativity is used by [[liberals]] to advance their belief system? I can repost the links if you didn't see them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Great, I'll look into String Theory (I don't know much about it) and get on to writing something. Having a project to work on is a great incentive to learn new topics. please do post those links, thanks!

::::::::::::::::I see the links are posted just above this subheading, under "You can find it here"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Ah yes, now I see. I'll read those tonight. Thanks! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:46, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: The Mercury and binary pulsar observations were used to support the gravity theory, and relativity remains the most accurate explanation. Andy, you asked about electromagnetism, not gravity. There is no way to understand electromagnetism without relativity, as far as I know. The Kaufmann experiments were supposed to disprove relativity. More precise experiments were consistent with relativity, as with all the other electromagnetic experiments. Just turn on an old-style TV set with a tube. How do you think that those pixels get lit up? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:16, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: There is some overlap between the invariant equations for electromagnetism and for relativity. The electromagnetism invariant equations came first, so I think the better description would be that one cannot understand relativity without understanding electromagnetism, not vice versa. But what that has to do with gravity is far from clear. In fact, it probably has nothing to do with gravity. Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism, because no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism.

::::::::::::: It's not relativity that lit up the pixels on an old TV screen. Quantum mechanics has more to do with that than relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:32, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ''Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism'' -> Untrue. Quantum electrodynsmics (QED) combines special relativity, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. A Nobel Prize for its discovery was awarded to Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga in 1965.

:::::::::::::: ''no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism'' -> Also untrue. QED predictions are accurate within 12 significant digits, making it the most accurate theory we have. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:17, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: By my count, Nobel prizes were given for relativistic electromagnetism were given in 1902, 1907, 1933, 1945, 1965, 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1999. Prizes for relativistic gravity were given in 1978, 1983, and 1993. The list is here.[http://www.almaz.com/nobel/physics/physics.html] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

@Andy Schlafly: Relativity predicts that no particle with mass can go the speed of light or faster. How do you explain that no particle accelerator has been able to get a massive particle at or above the speed of light? How do you explain the results that the inertial mass increases with velocity, as relativity predicts? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:00, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:PArticle accelerators don't. CERN (the biggest one) gets them exceedingly close, but not above. It's something like 99.999% of C. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:59, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: Relativity assumes that, rather than predicts it. I think relavitist purists would actually say all that is needed is a maximum velocity, whether that is "c" or something else. Many would not be genuinely surprised if velocities slightly faster than ''c'' are ultimately attained, and ''c'' itself may be changing over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:36, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

: Historically, the constant speed of light was an empirical observation, and not just an assumption. Maxwell's theory predicted that electromagnetic waves traveled at the speed of light, and that was observed. It was one of the big reasons for concluding that light was an electromagnetic wave. Experiments like Michelson-Morley (1887) found a constant speed of light. Also, there were astronomical reasons for believing in a constant speed of light. Distances were measured in light-minutes or light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant. Yes, Einstein declared the constant speed of light to be postulate in 1905, but by then it was a well-accepted empirical fact. Going faster than ''c'' or finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics that it would be like finding a perpetual motion machine. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:27, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Empirical data suggest that the speed of light has changed over time, and as recently as 1/6th of the universe's lifetime. [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html]

:: You comments, like "distances were measured in ... light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant," is a political statement, not a scientific one. Likewise for stating that "finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics ...." Is this what university science has become - ignoring the data to preserve the reputation of some current and past professors?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The article you linked to claims that "The speed of light...may have been lower as recently as two billion years ago." How do you reconcile that time frame with a Young Earth Creationist model where the universe is only 6000 years old? You cant reject that study on the one hand because it directly contradicts the Bible but embrace it on the other when it supports the idea of a shifting c. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 18:45, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: The linked article says there may have been a change in the fine structure constant, α, not necessarily the speed of light, c. Also, it hardly seems like a variable α is currently well-established. It's just the result from one set of data. But even accepting that there has been a change in α and that this means a change in c, the amount seems minuscule. The article says that α "had increased by a few parts in 105 in the past 12 billion years", which would correspond to a similar change in c. Therefore, even if c is not exactly constant it would be very nearly constant and relativity would still be a great approximation. That's ignoring that there may be a mundane explanation for this apparent change.
:::: Also, as BrentH mentions above, if you accept these results you have to accept that the universe is billions of years old. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: I was explaining historically why the speed of light was thought to be constant. It was not just some unproved Einstein relativity assumption. There was solid experimental and theoretical evidence before Einstein. There is no evidence for a variable speed of light. That 2004 paper claiming alpha changed has been superseded with a more accurate study in 2007, with no variation. [http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/the-oklo-reactor-and-varying-physical-constants/][http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0701019] Even if alpha changed, it would not necessarily mean that ''c'' changed. I am not sure why any of this is political. We can measure the speed of light to about 10 decimal places. If the speed were not constant, then an experiment would be likely to detect it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I wish you, Andy and I could have a drunken dinner together some time. That would be an epic debate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:17, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, what do you make of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation syncrotron radiation]? Here you have effects which can't be explained without relativity and which are used in many fields of research, e.g. in medicine... 08:28, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Wikipedia]] has many dubious claims that relativity explains something ... as one might expect from a [[liberal]] website. This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L] It appears that this may be unresolved and I welcome more discussion about it. I don't see evidence that relativity played a role in discovering it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Nearly everything about charged particles requires relativity and quantum mechanics. There is no alternative way to understand charged particles, as far as I know. I do not even know what it would mean to reject relativity for this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:12, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Relativity is an unproductive belief system, disproved by more precise measurements in the tests that supposedly verified it. String theory is taking over university physics programs because Relativity is so obviously flawed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 27 August

-
::::::: [[String theory]] assumes that relativity is 100% correct. Physicists pursue string theory because they are sold on Einstein's dream of using relativistic ideas to unify physics, without having to pay attention to experiments. They are ''not'' pursuing string theory because they are persuaded by your list of relativity counterexamples. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:47, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
:::::::: String theory's motivation is to provide a way to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity, so it assumes general relativity is a good description of nature. In fact, string theory becomes general relativity in the low energy limit. In addition, string theories are Lorentz invariant. Whatever the merits of string theory, relativity is incorporated fundamentally to it, so if anything this example speaks to the strength of relativity. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:11, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
::::::::: Andy Schlafly: ''"This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L]"''-> It also says (right in the abstract) that relativity ''must'' be taken into account:

-
::::::::::"However, '''when ɣB ≅ 1014 Gauss, where ɣ is the electron Lorentz factor, Compton scattering becomes important'''. The result is a reduction in the synchrotron loss rate which '''agrees closely with quantum electrodynamics'''." [Emphasis added]

-
::::::::: Both Compton scattering and quantum electrodynamics make use of special relativity. If you take a look at the equations in the paper you can see that special relativity is used explicitly. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:32, 27 August 2011 (EDT)2011 (EDT)

This discussion is interesting, and I'm learning from it. I have an open mind about this. But it seems to me that term "relativity" is being used in comments above to mean anything from "invariance" (which, of course, predates relativity), electromagnetism (which, of course, predates relativity), and even quantum mechanics (which many say conflicts with relativity). The only thing that "relativity" does not seem to mean in many of the above comments is its description of gravity -- which is what is unique to relativity and what most associate it with.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: The word "relativity" was coined by Maxwell, and it became popular from Poincare calling the "principle of relativity" the idea that different inertial frames are indistinguishable. When I said that string theory assumes relativity, I meant primarily that it assumes Lorentz/Poincare invariance. The influence of relativity on physics has been primarily in electromagnetism, not gravity. The nonlinear gravity effects are barely detectable. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:45, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:: * Again, general relativity is about gravity. Special relativity is not.
:: * No one is saying "quantum mechanics" means "relativity". However, the article you linked to referenced quantum electrodynamics (a subset of quantum mechanics) which does incorporate special relativity. Moreover, while general relativity and quantum mechanics are difficult to reconcile, special relativity and quantum mechanics aren't and doing so has produced [[Quantum electrodynamics|the most accurate theory in physics]].
:: * No one is saying "invariance" means "relativity". For example, Galilean invariance contradicts relativity. However, a special type of invariance, Lorentz invariance, is fundamental to both special and general relativity (it holds locally in general relativity). String theory is Lorentz invariant.
:: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:38, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Actually, there were some people around 1910 who wanted to rename relativity theory as invariant theory. Einstein is sometimes said to have agreed with that opinion, but I am not sure he really said that. There is some disagreement about whether relativity is compatible with quantum mechanics. The two main problem areas are collapse of the wave function during an observation, and gravitational nonlinearities at the center of a black hole. But these are a little off the subject. The theories are completely compatible for nearly all considerations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it. Most of the counterexamples here relate to the claims about gravity and the curvature of space that are made by general relativity. Special relativity, according to the theory, is a "special case" of the general theory. If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me.

:::: The mathematical theory of general or special relativity permits no exceptions. So even a slight variation (outside of measurement error) between observation and prediction means the theory is wrong. It means the worldview embodied in relativity is wrong. And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::: ''"Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it."''
::::: We encountered phenomena that none of these people had before. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the Michelson–Morley experiment, gravitational lensing, etc. Changing your worldview in light of new evidence is quite a sensible thing to do.
::::: ''"If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me."''
::::: It's not so much that, but that one must be careful to separate the two.
::::: ''"And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed."''
::::: They haven't been ignored. The data has been analyzed and it agrees with relativity. Just here we've given you the examples of the Michelson–Morley experiment, the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments, Kennedy–Thorndike experiment, synchrotron radiation, etc. We've also answered here your alleged counterexamples to relativity and the problems with them. If you have any more I'd be happy to address them.
::::: I'm not sure what data you're talking about that hasn't being publicly disclosed. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Special relativity is not so much a special case, but rather the linearized version of the general theory. The special theory has been tested in many more different ways, and it could be true without the general theory being true. I really don't think that relativity requires any different view from Maxwell's. Relativity is consistent with what Maxwell said. I really don't see why you would say that relativity does not permit any exceptions any more than Maxwells theory does not permit any exceptions. What's the difference? Theories have formulas. If observations don't agree with the formulas, then something is wrong. Why is relativity any different from any other theory in the hard sciences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:41, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Relativity should not be treated any differently compared with any other theory in the hard sciences. But Relativity obviously is:

::::::*physics journals will not accept for publication anything that conflicts with the theory of relativity
::::::*the Nobel Prize will not be given to anyone who has criticized the theory of relativity
::::::*no science graduate student or science professor dare even criticize the above two forms of censorship.

::::::As to the data, the two leading supposed verifications of the theory are the binary pulsar (for which a Nobel Prize was given) and the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it. Yet additional data have not been made fully available to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::: I have to say I had no idea of this bias until reading Conservapedia. It sounds shocking. Can you tell me which physicists have been denied awards, or refused publication on this basis? It would be really useful in arguments I'm having off-site. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:54, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: ''"But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it."''
:::::::: Can you please provide a source for this claim? What data are you talking about? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: A "source"? No source is needed, or possible given the censorship by physics journals I just described.

::::::::: Wouldn't you be at least interested yourself in looking up what the precession for the Mercury perihelion is, and comparing it to what Relativity predicts? I think that would be the first step before one made up his mind, not something that must be raised by someone else.

::::::::: The Mercury perihelion precession is 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, plus/minus 0.1. General Relativity predicts 5599.98, plus/minus 0.04. The observed precession is clearly outside of prediction by more than the standard of error. But beginning in the early 1990s, probably because of this emerging divergence, physicists stopped publishing the data perhaps to avoid pinpointing the contradiction with even greater accuracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: So by your own admission general relativity is within 0.005% of the correct value?
:::::::::: Anyway, where are you getting your information for the precession rate? From what I gather the error is larger than 0.1 arc-seconds per century.
::::::::::Some values for the anomalous precession rate (i.e, deviation from what you expect from Newtonain gravity):
:::::::::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
:::::::::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
:::::::::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
:::::::::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
:::::::::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]
:::::::::: General relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04, while Newtonian gravity predicts 0. Clearly general relativity is superior here. It's within experimental error in three out of the four experiments above, and just barely out of it with the fourth. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:22, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: The theory of relativity is proven wrong by the data, '''''beyond measurement error'''''. If you're not going to address that directly, then I'm unlikely to respond further to your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I really don't know what to say. I just showed that for four experiments of the precession of Mercury's perihelion relativity was within experimental uncertainty in three of them and just barely out of it for one. This is better that Newtonian theory which was zero for four. Measuring outside experimental uncertainty ''once'' doesn't automatically make a theory wrong. They are many differences between a simple, clean model and a complex, messy reality that can account for this. Even just by statistics alone you'd expect a correct theory to be outside measurement error once in a while. It still stands that relativity is more accurate than any other theory.
:::::::::::: If you have any citations of experiments that show relativity's predictions fall outside experimental uncertainty I'll be happy to address them. However, just declaring that it's outside experimental uncertainty, but you don't have the data because a relativity cabal is keeping it secret is doesn't merit a response. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:54, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: The most recent -- and most precise -- Mercury perihelion precession data '''''demonstrate that the [[theory of relativity]] is wrong by more than the measurement error'''''. Case closed based on the data.

::::::::::::: [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site. If someone has more precise Mercury perihelion precession data than what has disproved the theory of relativity, then a discussion of that data is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Sigh... I just explained in detail why it wasn't "case closed". Being outside experimental error doesn't automatically make a theory wrong, especially when it isn't that far off. It could mean the theory is wrong or it could mean the theory is right, but by chance measured outside experimental uncertainty. By statistics we expect that to happen every now and then. '''''You can't just cherry pick the one experiment that fits your preconceptions and declare it case closed. You have to take all the other experimental data into account.''''' When you do that here (that is, you also look at the other three experiments) the results look in favor for relativity.

:::::::::::::: You can have the last word if you want. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:31, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: It is not true that the data demonstrate that the theory of relativity is wrong by more than the measurement error. What you have is a difference of opinion, and one scientist claiming that the combination of relativity and other assumptions and observations results in a discrepancy that exceeds the ''estimated'' measurement error. The problem could be with those other assumptions and observations, or with the estimate of the measurement error. As with the Pioneer anomaly, there are explanations that do not violate relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: Any and all attempts to reconcile the observed data with the theory of relativity are welcome. Instead, I not aware of the publication of observed data for this fundamental claim of the theory since 1992 (see above), despite improvements in technology and precision since then. Anyone think that it became impossible to observe the data after that time??? Notice what the data were showing leading up that point: increasing divergence (and contradiction) with the well-settled prediction made by the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:37, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Here is the [http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf Mercury Radar Ranging Data from 1987 to 1997]. The work was carried out by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under NASA. You are absolutely free to analyze the data in depth to see if the relativists are hiding anything. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:32, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Somehow I doubt the data above (going five years after the supposed suppression of data began) is going appease you. Well, you can go send NASA a letter and ask them for the most recent data about Mercury's orbit. They might give it to you if you ask nicely and they almost certainly have it, since [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/index.html they currently have a space probe orbiting Mercury] (I guess they didn't get the memo from the relativists telling everyone to ignore Mercury because it contradicted relativity). Anyway, once you get the data you'll have definitive proof that liberals have been suppressing important information about Mercury's orbit (or something). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:18, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: Looking back, I made a mistake. I said general relativity's prediction was outside the measurement uncertainty for the fourth experiment (Anderson et al., 1992). I misread it. GR prediciton: 42.98 ±0.04, Observation: 43.13 ± 0.14. They actually do overlap. So general relativity is four for four. My bad. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:41, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::: I took a look at the JPL link above but did not find any reference to the perihelion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::::: I'm pretty sure there's no reference to the perihelion because it's the raw data, without analysis. If the data was mapped to show Mercury's location, it would (presumably) show a perihelion. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

=== More counterexamples ===
I found another page with a long list of supposed counterexamples. It looks like nonsense to me, but you can check it out for yourself. He says, "Fossil records indicate the Earth’s gravity was far less during the time of the dinosaurs." He does have references of many of his alleged anomalies. [http://knol.google.com/k/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence-presented] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

=== Denial of [[Nobel Prize]] to anyone who criticizes relativity ===

:::::::: [[Robert Dicke]], the finest American physicist of the 20th century, criticized the theory of relativity and was then never given a Nobel Prize. In fact, in a pattern also used to punish [[Fred Hoyle]] for his criticism of the theory of evolution, a Nobel Prize was given for Dicke's insight to other scientists less deserving of the award than Dicke, within years of Dicke's criticism of the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: According to the [http://www.nap.edu/readingroom.php?book=biomems&page=rdicke.html National Academies Press] Dicke was given:
::::::::: ''"the National Medal of Science (1971), the Comstock Prize of the National Academy of Sciences (1973), and the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (1973). He was a member of the National Science Board from 1970 to 1976. Bob was appointed to the Princeton University Department of Physics in 1946, served as chair from 1967 to 1970, moved to emeritus in 1984''.
::::::::: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:11, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Right ... and no [[Nobel Prize]], despite being the finest American physicist of the 20th century. Note also that it was his criticism of relativity in the mid-1970s -- after the awards you cite -- that caused him to be punished by the Nobel Prize committee. No one in grad school or on university faculties dare criticize Relativity again, no matter what the data say. No relativist will even criticize the policy of excluding anyone who criticizes the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: I am sure the Nobel committee has its prejudices. Hoyle once wrote a letter to the London Times criticizing a Nobel physics prize. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/03/fred-hoyle-nobel-prize/print] So maybe they did not like him for that. By the time they gave the big bang prize in 1978, Gamow and others were dead. I would have rather given the prize to the theorists, but those are the biases of the folks in Sweden. I am not sure it has anything to do with the acceptability of relativity. There is a lot of excellent theoretical work that never got a prize, such as the work of Poincare and Minkowski on relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:56, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: You link to an interesting, in-depth article that gives other possible examples of Nobel Prize bias. But the article misses the timing on the insult to Fred Hoyle -- fall 1983 -- which was around the time that he was challenging a tenet of evolution (I'd like to obtain further details on the timing - his partner in the research apparently raised the criticism as early as 1980). Such a coincidence in timing for a prize that was given for 1957 work can hardly be ignored. Note that the article also says Fowler was "stunned" by the award's passing over Hoyle.

:::::::::::: The article also omits the insults to Teller and Wheeler, to Robert Dicke, and to Raymond Damadian (see explanation in [[Nobel Prize]]).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: I am not sure I understand your bias theory, but even supposing that some Swedes have some prejudices, how does this relate to the merits of relativity? You criticize the 1978 prize. But that was for discovery of the cosmic microwave radiation that was predicted by relativity theorists and confirmed by a couple of telephone company engineers who were just trying to measure their satellite reception interference. They did not even believe in the relativity explanation. So why did the Swedes give the prize to the Bell engineers instead of the relativists? Maybe you should start a page on Counterexamples to Swedish Wisdom. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:00, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: "Swedes" are not picking the Nobel Prize-winners. They just act on the recommendations of [[liberal]] professors who don't like criticism of the theories of evolution, relativity, or [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Really, the bias is not that complicated. It's no different from the bias in [[Academy Award]]s, [[Pulitzer Prize]]s, [[Rhodes Scholar]]s, or any other award system that is heavily influenced by leftists.

:::::::::::::: Once [[Fred Hoyle]] and [[Robert Dicke]] criticized liberal theories, they had to be punished. The greatest punishment is to award the Nobel Prize for their work '''''to someone less deserving'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:08, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

== Standard kilogrammes? ==
I'm not sure how good an argument this is. ONE out of a batch of 40 identical standard kilogrammes has diverged in weight from the others. Common sense says that there's something wrong with that one weight, which is after all stored in France. It's not likely that the answer has anything to do with relativity, which if correct would have caused an identical change in mass in all 40. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:06, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: I have a drawer full of socks. I cannot find a match for one of them. Can I blame relativity? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::Is it a French sock? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 08:14, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Maybe so. Or from some other country where "kilogram" is spelled "kilogramme". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::That would be everywhere except the USA. I'm English. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:I believe that it has something to do with the metals used are slightly radioactive and are emitting either alpha or beta particles causing a very slight decrease in weight. The answer doesn't have anything to do with relativity and is a well know issue. Scientists are currently trying to come up with a better way of standardizing mass. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:56, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::There's a difference between relativity and quantum mechanics (which explains the above observation). If you only took high school physics--you have about two hundred years of catching up to do on the field. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

==Ummmm...==

Physics has come a long way since Albert Einstein published his theories of relativity. Actually, there are quite a few hypothetical paradigms within modern physics that would allow a particle of sufficiently high energy to apparently travel faster than light. I'm not a physicist (as I've said on other pages, I'm a biologist), but I am peripherally familiar with a few of the better-supported ideas. I suggest you read up on M theory and string theory. At the risk of butchering the explanation (I am NOT a physicist), I will say that within the paradigm of M theory and string theory, observing high-energy particles moving slightly faster than light is not all that surprising. That said, the authors of the paper describing the "faster than light" neutrinos, admit up front that the numbers they got was probably the result of some sort of experimental error--the results need to be repeatable in order to be scientific. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

: Science can advance with one observation, and it's not necessary to wait until it is repeated before discussing and learning from it. How quickly (if ever) was the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] repeated?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:: The Michelson-Morley experiment was first done in 1887. It was repeated by them and by others many times in the next few years. Illingworth and Kennedy came up with a variant that was more sensitive and could test for certain exotic explanations. They did that very soon after the initial experiment. Dayton Miller also did such experiments and continued to do them even after Einstein's work was completed. Miller acknowledged the results of the experiments but remained a committed opponent to special relativity. One of Miller's experiments did actually turn up some interesting results but his later experiments and other work failed to replicate it and it seems to have been a statistical anomaly. Others continued to duplicate versions of the MM experiment because the data from it can be used to test aspects of special relativity and other ideas. So duplicated forms have continued right up to the present day although generally using carefully tuned lasers as the light sources which give much more precision. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Some experiments done following the MM experiment (not all listed, only some early ones and some recent ones): Morley-Miller 1902-1904 (published 1904), Miller 1921, Miller 1923-1924, Antonini et al 2005, Stanwix et al 2006, Eisele et al 2009, Herrmann et al 2009. Plus others between them, just listing some early ones and some recent ones. And it is usually necessary to wait until an experiment is repeated before accepting it to be accurate. A single observation, that can't be repeated, usually has an explanation within the current understanding of physics. For example, a network of ravines and gullies was observed in the 1870s on the surface of Mars, and there was wide speculation about their origin. An explanation suggested in the early 1900s wasn't proved until the 1960s, that the ravines and gullies were in actuality an optical illusion caused by streaks of dust blowing across the surface in the strong winds. Another example of a 'discovery' that later turned out to be false was the existence of Vulcan, a planet between Mercury and the Sun. A single observation, unconfirmed by repetition, does not indicate a discovery. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:22, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::: Yes, the M-M experiment was repeated many times. It had to be done at different times of the year, at different altitudes, with different materials, etc. Eg, maybe the length contraction might have been different for wood and brass.
::: There are physicists who have suggested faster than light particles, but string theory and M theory are Lorentz invariant and useless on the issue. The string theorists would definitely be surprised by anything faster than light. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:24, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::: Claimed results from a single experiment have been proven wrong before (e.g, the claims of producing [[cold fusion]] in 1989). It makes sense to see if an experiment is replicated before throwing out an extremely well tested theory. It's very suspicious that we haven't seen neutrinos going faster than the speed of light before this. Experimenters are only human beings and could easily have made a mistake or forget to include something in their calculations. The claimed velocity is only a tiny fraction lager than c and might easily be explained by not taking into account some systematic error.
:::: If Mr. Schlafly's other 36 "counterexamples" are so strong then I don't see why he so badly needs the example of an unreplicated experiment whose data is still in the process of being analyzed. (When Einstein was asked about the book '100 Authors Against Einstein' he responded: "If I were wrong, it would only have taken one".) --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 11:27, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::::: If the experiment is disproved by subsequent experiments, then that particular counterexample can be removed. But the insistence on clinging to the [[theory of relativity]] when the available evidence is to the contrary is unjustified. Einstein's quote is inapplicable to this issue: the context of Einstein's quote refers to a government attempt to discredit his theory. His quote does apply to government efforts to deny scientific evidence today, such as the attempt by the [[NCI]] to deny the [[abortion]]-[[breast cancer]] link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Gee, the experiment counts as a counterexample even before the facts are in. What a surprise....
:::::: I'm not sure if the German government was behind '100 Authors Against Einstein', but even if it were it's completely irrelevant. The folly wasn't that it was done by the government; it was that if relativity was wrong one good argument would suffice. The inclusion of this unconfirmed experimental result just shows how this list of "counterexamples" values quantity over quality. Rather than making a few strong arguments it's a list of 37 random tidbits. '''You're expecting to overturn one of science's best theories with something that can fit inside a Twitter post?''' The reasoning for many points' inclusion are not well explained and counterarguments are not addressed (e.g, Hawking radiation is called a "[c]ontrived explanation" with no justification whatsoever). I suspect the "conciseness" of the points is just a reflection of its author's short attention span. I'll report to the Worldwide Relativity Cabal that we have nothing to fear from... oops. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:46, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Thank you MatthewQ! Oh, and Mr. Schlafly, the evidence does not support a link between abortion and breast cancer. You may find good sources on the topic [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1733063/?tool=pmcentrez here], [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)15835-2/fulltext here], and [http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814 here]. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 08:11, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::: As for redoing the M-M experiment, the [[LIGO]] experiment can be seen as a $400M modern M-M experiment. While the M-M failed to detect the motion of the Earth, LIGO has failed to detect motion in other galaxies. You may be interested in this new paper reporting on an NSF grant to teach high school students about LIGO detecting gravity waves. This is just to be ready in case LIGO ever succeeds in detecting anything, I guess. [http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.3720] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 06:08, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

== A few sections that should be removed... ==

12: For this point to be right, things need to have started VERY VERY small, which is impossible if Creationism is right. This creates an inconsistency within Conservapedia and should be removed.
26: The first part is wrong due to GPSs. In order to be more accurate, they take into account relativity, and hence relativity has produced something useful. The rest of it is repeated in 18. Hence, as everything in 26 is either wrong or repeated, it should be removed.
28: Relativity does not require everything with 0 mass to have 0 momentum. It actually takes into account that light, despite having 0 mass, has momentum.
29: This is actually wrong. The age of each twin is independent of the path travel, it is dependent only on the acceleration they experience. Therefore, this point is wrong.
Any comments or disagreements? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 22:02, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:On point 12, physicists themselves admit that relativity contradicts quantum mechanics shortly after the Big Bang. So even relativists would (or should) concede the validity of this counterexample.

:On point 26, GPS's were not developed as a result of relativity. This has been discussed at length on this site in the past. No relativists were involved in the engineering of GPS's; any differences in timing on the satellites relative to ground are more easily corrected by synchronization rather than theoretical predictions.

:Will review the other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:45, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

::I fully agree with all this. Some of the stuff in this page literally left my head hurting pretty badly from facepalming so hard.

::And, Schlafly, how does this make relativity wrong? Newtonian physics is wrong at quantum levels too. Should we add a "Counterexamples to Newtonian Mechanics" page and put something like that in there too? Of course not--it's an excellent approximation for things on the everyday scale. Same thing with GR.

::No, they were not developed because of relativity, but they were developed taking relativity into account. The people who built it didn't know the specifics, but they knew the corrections from relativity were there and they took them into account. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:53, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

::::I concur. Rather, arguing "counterexamples" is a fine way to demonstrate the weaknesses, inconsistencies, or future directions of inquiry regarding any scientific paradigm. However, it is a logical fallacy to say that "these are the problems with hypothesis A, therefore hypothesis B ''must'' be true". For a position to be effectively argued, one must present empirical evidence in support of an alternative hypothesis. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 00:56, 12 November 2011 (EST)

:::::A bigger logical fallacy occurs when someone insists or thinks that an alternative hypothesis B must exist before disproving a hypothesis A.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:14, 12 November 2011 (EST)

:::::::Good point. However, when a hypothesis is not supported the scientific process usually then entails asking the question of why it was not supported, and then forming a new hypothesis that once again fits all of the available data. This is why scientific understanding of even the most hard and fast paradigms can change so dramatically from one generation to the next (or, occasionally, from one experiment to the next). The most exciting science gets done when a well-reasoned hypothesis is rejected--simply because it opens the door to so many new possibilities.--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 13:01, 14 November 2011 (EST)

== A couple more problems ==

These went up after I posted the other section so I didn't know what to do. If you would prefer I post it there, then sorry. I'm new to wikis so I don't know proper etiquette and perhaps a missed something in the guidelines :)

Anyway, first thing, you state: "It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world."

...Honestly, I am speechless about this. Again, this was taken down but now someone put it back up... You guys honestly think this statement is true? There is no connection between the two--the only thing they have in common is the name "relativity." What, you think that people's morals depend on their frame of reference and change by the relativistic <math> \gamma (\equiv 1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2})</math> factor or something?! I am truly shocked by this...What connection is there? Where is the equation that predicts this?

Secondly: "Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light." Nope. Things can't travel at the speed of light, according to SR. Relativity explicitly states that things cannot go faster than light. If you drop this, then of course there are going to be going to be inconsistencies with SR...And that thread only talks about things going at the speed of light. What's the problem with solenoids travelling near c? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 16:52, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
:Can someone please tell me what the link between moral relativism and GR/SR is...? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:04, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::Because <s>God</s> <s>psychotic rambling homophobic momma's boy</s> Andy Schlafly said so. You have to turn off your <s>indoctrinated</s> educated mind... --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:36, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

== At first glance ==

There are so many problems with this page I don't know where to start. Whomever wrote it is obviously clueless about science and its

methods. A few of the problems include:

1. Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found.

The lack of experimental confirmation ''so far'' of gravity waves does NOT falsify the theory. Absence of evidence is not evidence of

absence.

3. Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of

Relativity.

Only in experiments that have yet to be confirmed.

7. The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds relativity

Untrue. The EFEs contain a term (the cosmological constant) that fully accounts for accelerated expansion.

10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass

What logical problem? I studied physics at the graduate level and have never heard of any logical problem. ?

13. The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement

AAAD is a matter of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In any case, it does NOT Falsify GRT as no information is propagated faster

than light.

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

See 13 (above). This statement also assumes that the action-at-a-distance by Jesus described in the Bible actually happened. It is not

"true and verifiable".

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

Gravitons are the quanta of gravity waves. See #1.

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

The ability to lead to other insights has never been a test of the validity of a scientific theory, and lack of consequent insight does not

falsify a theory.

26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the

theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.

Development of useful devices is a matter of engineering, and is not a test of a scientific theories validity.

27. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction.

This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.

The priniciple of isotropy does not falisfy Relativity. The theory itself accounts for, and predicts, the difference in observed inertia.

28. Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws

of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.

And Relativity also predicts that photons have non-zero momentum. Relativistic systems can have non-zero momentum even with no

rest mass, due to ''mass-energy equivalence''. Relativity correctly predicts the momentum of a massless particle as p = h*f/c = h/λ.

31. The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows

down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to

be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity

Incorrect, as this only takes Special Relativity into account. This is a common fallacy. It is the acceleration required to return the twin

that accounts for the difference in clocks and is explained/predicted by General Relativity. One must take both SRT and GRT into

account.

32. Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right,

theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.

Fields do not constitute an "aether". The EM field exists (and was explained/predicted by Maxwell long before Eistein).

34 (a). In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens.

How is such an account "true and verifiable"?

34(b). This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.

Something that is "likely" does not falsify a scientific theory.

35. Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the

properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.

This is not an argument against applied mathematics, not against Relativity per se.

37. Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding.

This does not falsify the theory.

~~csmcmillion

:'''Reply''': by starting with an ''ad hominem'' attack, you lost credibility from the get-go. A quick review of your points confirms it:

:1. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." It is when billions are spent on many years of looking. Surely you wouldn't think a lost item is in your backpack if you spent time looking for it there and could not find it.

:3. "Only in experiments that have yet to be confirmed." Experiments '''''are''''' confirmation in themselves.

:7. "the cosmological constant... fully accounts for accelerated expansion." Reliance on a cosmological constant has failed before.

:10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass. "What logical problem? I studied physics at the graduate level and have never heard of any logical problem?" Oh please. None of these counterexamples is candidly addressed in physics departments because these counterexamples cast doubt on a theory preferred for political reasons. Anyone in a physics department who expresses doubt about the theory of relativity would be thereby ending his own academic career.

:13. The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement. "AAAD is a matter of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In any case, it does NOT Falsify GRT as no information is propagated faster than light." Relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance (which cannot seriously be disputed in QM) whether a type of information is transmitted or not.

:14. The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51. "See 13 (above). This statement also assumes that the action-at-a-distance by Jesus described in the Bible actually happened. It is not 'true and verifiable.'" There are no [[Counterexamples to the Bible]], so this conflict is a serious one.

:15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching. "Gravitons are the quanta of gravity waves. See #1." And see my answer to #1.

:18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics. "The ability to lead to other insights has never been a test of the validity of a scientific theory, and lack of consequent insight does not falsify a theory." The failure of the theory to produce is strong evidence against its validity.

:26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. "Development of useful devices is a matter of engineering, and is not a test of a scientific theories validity." A theory that inhibits technological progress, rather than enhance it, is almost certainly wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I'll address your other responses as my time permits. For now:

"by starting with an ''ad hominem'' attack"

Stating the obvious is not an ad hominem attack. I didn't say the author was an "idiot". Anyone who honestly thinks that because "devices" have not been engineered based upon a scientific theory somehow ''falsifies'' that theory ''is'' truly clueless (maybe ignorant would have been a better word) of science and the scientific method. A correct scientific theory must explain previous observations and correctly predict those to come. No where is there a requirement that it lead to engineered "devices".

14. "The action-at-a-distance by Jesus"

I should have added: The AAAD by Jesus is (usually) considered a miracle - a suspension of natural law. So I'm not clear on how the suspension of natural law could be considered a counterexample to a natural law to begin with.

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

I should have asked a simple question on this one: Have you ever asked an astronomer, cosmologist or theoretical physicist if s/he has had insights from Relativity? Please - find ''one'' that hasn't had deep insight as a result.

"A theory that inhibits technological progress, rather than enhance it, is almost certainly wrong.--Andy Schlafly 00:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)"

So, adherence to a literal interpretation of the Bible, which hindered technical progress for more than a thousand years, indicates that the Bible is almost certainly wrong. Thank you '''so much''' for clearing that up. ~~csmcmillion

:Take a look at [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]. When you post more substantive comments, then I'll respond to them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:37, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I agree that "relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance", but not that AAAD "cannot seriously be disputed in QM". There is no QM experiment that show AAAD. There are interpretations of QM that seem to imply AAAD, and respected physicists who believe in those interpretations and hence in AAAD. But QM does not imply AAAD as there are also relativistic interpretations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:27, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:QM experiments have shown that a pair of spinning, entangled photons can be separated a great distance, and that the mere observation of the spin of one of those photons immediately removes the uncertainty about the spin of the other photon a far distance away. All attempts to deny that [[action-at-a-distance]] reality have failed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:42, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:: Yes, the photon experiment is correct. Some people do interpret the observation of one photon as affecting the other photon. But there is no proof of that. You could prove it if the observation transmitted information, but no one can do that. Other interpretations do not require AAAD. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:47, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Andy: Why did you delete RSchlafly's most recent comment? RSchlafly: I believe you are correct. A little research on my part shows numerous refutations to the assertions made on this page, going back a couple of years:

http://skullsinthestars.com/2010/08/09/right-wing-refutations-of-relativity-really-really-wrong/

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/6253

I'm beginning to see why people are telling me not to waste my time trying to contribute to this site.
:All you're doing is making your own "assertions without clarification". We've had these arguments before, and these arguments were created by people who refuse to listen to what we say or refuse to read any of the sources we provide. And it's tiresome. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:44, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:User:csmcmillion, it's not a discussion when someone won't use his own words to explain his views.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:49, 13 November 2011 (EST)

::And it's not a discussion when sysops repeatedly delete comments, as you just did. ~~csmcmillion
:::And what exactly did I delete? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:42, 13 November 2011 (EST)
Just wanted to add to this: When has <math>\Lambda</math> failed? It's a perfectly legitimate term in the EFE's, as csmcmillion has stated. The righthand side of it is (in <math>G=c=1</math> units) is <math>8 \pi T^{\alpha \beta }</math>. You need something on the left which is a measure of curvature, i.e., the Einstein tensor <math>G^{\alpha \beta}</math>. Why the Einstein tensor? Why not the Ricci tensor? Why not the scalar curvature times the metric? The reason is that the stress-energy tensor (T) has to have zero divergence: <math>\nabla_{\beta} T^{\alpha \beta} = 0 </math>. The Einstein tensor has zero divergence as well. But, we also have <math> \nabla_{\gamma} g^{\alpha \beta} = 0</math>. So we can safely add in <math>\Lambda g^{\alpha \beta}</math> to the left hand side of the EFE without violating local conservation of energy-momentum. Using this gives <math>G^{\alpha \beta}+\Lambda g^{\alpha \beta} = 8 \pi T^{\alpha \beta}. </math> [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:46, 15 November 2011 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The "The observed lack of curvature in overall space" is not an "unobserved" phenomenon. Accordingly, it has been reverted along with the others. Looking for something that should be there under a theory, but not finding it there as predicted, is a counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:50, 30 November 2011 (EST)

:[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], sorry, yes, I was being a bit overzealous on that one. However, I think the principle holds - many of the concepts listed are not counterexamples. Starting with number one: relativity predicts gravity waves and predicts that they will be extremely difficult to detect. Now I hear you say that's a pretty lousy kind of prediction - and you're right - but it still doesn't make it a counterexample. The same goes for the entry on gravitons (additionally, they're a prediction of quantum theory, not relativity, but that's for another phase of editing).
:It may be that further categorizing is necessary. For example, issues like the Twin Paradox and the Ehrenfest Paradox are not strictly unobserved phenomena either. Item 37, failure to solve the equations, is a problem for mathematics, not necessarily for relativity.
:Perhaps a simpler solution would be to rename the whole article, perhaps to 'Counterarguments to Relativity'. That way the article doesn't look silly by listing things that clearly aren't counterexamples, and also is open to inclusion of a broader range of criticisms of the theory. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:50, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:: I agree with QPR, as upon thinking about it, 'counterexamples' does not accurately describe the things on the list. And looking for something predicted and not finding it is only a counterexample/counterargument if it is predicted to be in a specific place, and when looking there, it isn't found. Hence, not finding gravity waves despite looking for them doesn't mean they don't exist. Many things were thought to be myths or non-existent until they were found, including giraffes. But I also disagree with QPR in that categorizing the list is unnecessary, and would result in needless discussions about where certain points belong, rather than more productive discussions. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:56, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::: I don't think that counterexamples is the best word either. My suggestion would be to leave the title as is, but to split the list into ''paradoxes'' and ''anomalies''. They maybe people would have a better idea what to expect from each item. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:43, 2 December 2011 (EST)

Response to the above: the list is of "counterexamples". These are examples that are counter to the theory. Other terms, like "paradox" or "anomaly", capture neither the concept of "example" nor of it being "counter" to the theory. The term "paradox" arises in philosophy, but this isn't philosophy. Relativity is a theory that pretends to be correct in every case, but it isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:24, 3 December 2011 (EST)

== Deleted example to releativity ==

Hello, I added a counter example to relativity that was removed, despite it being valid. My counter example was that the special theory of relativity predicts that mass is a form of energy and they are interchangeable. But if this were true the huge amount of energy stored in common matter would have been utilised by now in power stations and weaponry.

The problem is, it's been over 100 years since this theory was published and not one power station that utilises the interchange of mass and energy predicted by relativity has actually been built.

However, this counter example was removed because a member claimed that these do exist. Now this leaves us with a dichotomy. Do we...
A) Admit that these power stations exist (which they don't) and therefore acknowledge the special theory of relativity is accurate and true, or
B) We keep the counter example included that no power station that utilises special relativity exists, and therefore it is a sign that relativity is false.

I think we should vote for B on this issue. It would be like inventing the motor engine, but not building cars! --[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 12:36, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:Actually these power stations DO exist and have done for decades; they're called "nuclear reactors" and they generate heat by turning mass into energy. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 12:45, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::If these stations do exist, then how come Albert Einstein admitted of the inability to apply the predictions of his OWN theory? I quote "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable".

::Next you'll be telling me that we can do the physically impossible and generate electricity by fusing atoms to form heavier atoms too.

::Let's face it, special relativity has no practical application in providing energy. If it were, mass and energy would be seen interchanging all the time. F will ''always'' equal MA, it can neither increase or decrease by being converted into energy; observations of non-zero mass particles accelerated to ''exactly'' the speed of light prove this.--[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 13:01, 3 December 2011 (EST)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-12-03T18:00:19Z

GMilhouse: /* Deleted example to releativity */

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

==Path Independence and Photons==
Wait, so time is some sort of vector field such that when you integrate it you get time? And that vector field is conservative? I've never heard of such a thing... 
As well, you state: "Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum." Yes, if you plug in the formula for non-relativistic, Newtonian momentum, you get zero, but SR gives you the equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2. Plug m=0 in. You get E=pc. So, the momentum is nonzero. That's a very well-known result... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 12:06, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:So should I take the "counter example" down...? Not to be rude but can someone at least respond to me? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:54, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
::Take it down, then if someone reverts (which is likely) it'll provoke a short discussion that probably won't reach a consensus. Regardless, you're unlikely to succeed in keeping it changed. I'm not trying to discourage, go ahead and try changing it, I'm just letting you know what to expect. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:33, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:::These are interesting points worthy of further discussion. As to the first point, however, merely asking two questions is not persuasive to me.

:::As to the second point, I find the argument somewhat circular. Is the energy equation cited verified by any experiment, or is it merely definitional? If merely definitional, then it does not provide a way for calculating actual momentum.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:54, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Well answer them. The point I'm making is that there is no vector field such that when integrates it, one gets time. I had never heard of it until then. I am asking you to enlighten me.
 
::::And as a matter of fact there is! The equation is E=hf where E is the energy of the photon, f is the frequency of the photon, and h is just a proportionality constant (known as Planck's constant). And it has been experimentally verified. It explains the spectrum from blackbody radiation and it explains the photoelectric effect. And if I recall correctly, your camera uses the photoelectric effect. These things are quite well known... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 14:55, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::Oh, and I forgot to mention--the Compton effect is explained by photons. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:00, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::::Please address my more substantive point: has your equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2 been experimentally verified, or is it simply definitional?

:::::::First of all, will you please answer my question...? What is the vector field such that when one integrates over it, one gets time? And oops. Misread your question. And no, it's not "definitional," it's from the relativistic expressions of energy and momentum... (And yes, those have been experimentally verified--if I recall correctly, using those equations, you can predict what can happen (i.e. speeds) when elementary particles are created. But I'm not particle physicist) Once you have those, just do a little algebra and you get that equation. And I hope you're not going to deny basic algebra....
 
:::::::Again, all this is well known.... Out of curiosity have you ever actually studied relativity or this photon stuff? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 13:39, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::OK, I've removed the counter-example of photons...I think I've provided a satisfactory explanation to Schlafly (and he's not responding for some reason...) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:50, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Schlafly, I saw you re-added the "counter-example." Will you please respond to me? Are you seriously just going to keep it there and refuse to discuss this at all? Wow and you claim that we're not open-minded.... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:45, 9 November 2011 (EST)

::::::::::Andy, there is no "counter-example of photons." Photons are not mentioned in the list. But are you referring to this counterexample:

:::::::::::28.Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.

::::::::::Let's be clear about what the dispute is first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 11 November 2011 (EST)

:::::::::::Yeah, that's the one. Sorry. Poorly-worded. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:29, 14 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::::::Will someone please tell me why (a) SR/GR promotes (moral) relativism, (b) photons aren't legit even though I've just pointed that your argument was wrong (maybe that's a bit generous. To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, I can't even say it's wrong...) and (c) what is the vector field such that when one integrates over it, one gets time? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 10:26, 27 November 2011 (EST)

==FTL Neutrinos at LHC ==

It may be jumping the gun to put the finding from Friday as evidence against GR. The results have yet to be duplicated - duplicability is needed for a claim to have scientific merit - and have yet to be carefully peer reviewed. The results are significant at the 95% CI but that means there's a 1 in 20 chance they're actually inaccurate. Given how many measurements are made at the LHC some are going to be both statistically significant and incorrect. It may be more prudent to wait to see if it's a one off or measurement error. I propose waiting at least until other particle acceleration labs can attempt to duplicate the results to make any judgement; after all, that's what CERN is doing
--[[User:BillyWest|BillyWest]] 00:18, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:I disagree. The opposition to the results from CERN -- which confirm prior results from another laboratory which were not as precise -- is unreasonable. It's not necessary to continue to pretend that Relativity is true when there is so much evidence against it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:35, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::CERN itself hasn't even confirmed the results. The data was published a lot quicker than data usually is because if it is accurate, then it changes the majority of physics laws discovered in the past century. The theory of relativity is not the only theory/law which involves the speed of light, electromagnetism does as well. Because of this, CERN wanted other scientists to try and find a flaw in the experiment quickly so that if there is a flaw, it is found quickly, and if there isn't, then scientists can begin determining what needs to change in order to accomodate this. Once the data has been properly analysed, without prematurely jumping to conclusions, then it would be fair to say that the neutrinos traveled faster than the speed of light. But something to keep in mind: this is not the first experiment done with neutrinos, all of the prior ones having travelled slower than the speed of light. If you do an experiment 500 times, and each results has a 1/1000 chance of being inaccurate, there is a 40% chance that at least one result will be inaccurate. If they find an error in the experiment (such as a piece of the measuring equipment being broken, or poor calibration of equipment, or leftover neutrinos from previous experiments, or any other impacting error), then wouldn't it make conservapedia look silly for jumping to a conclusion too quickly? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The CERN experiment is not the only one suggesting faster-than-c travel. Moreover, there is no basis for doubting the news that something travels faster than c. Most of the objections in the media are based in an irrational clinging to Relativity. Hence the counterexample is being restored ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Looks like they've found the problem already: there was a flaw with the experiment.http://www.dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php This article basically says that they used GPS to measure the locations and the times. However, because the satellite used moves at a different speed to the Earth, relativity needs to be taken into account. Usually, relativity has no significant effect until speeds get nearish the speed of light. However, the neutrinos travelled 60 nanoseconds faster than light. Because it's nanoseconds, the speed difference of the Earth and the satellite is enough that relativity affects the experiment at the nanosecond level. Scientists have done calculations to determine how this changes the results (as because of the flaw, the results they got weren't actually accurate), and found that the neutrinos actually travelled for 64 seconds longer than they previously thought, making their speed very slightly less than the speed of light. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 18:02, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

: No, this explanation has not been accepted. There have been many other papers with other explanations. The jury is still out. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:33, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Paul Johnson, the renowned historian, explains the link -- and the significance of the link -- between relativity and moral relativism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:57, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
:Do you have a link for that? It seems pretty flimsy to me. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:10, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::Ah right, I found some stuff! It appears that Johnson acknowledged that there was no ACTUAL link between the two, but pointed out how many liberals CLAIM a link. That seems pretty close to what the article is saying, so my edit probably wasn't the best idea I've ever had, and as a bonus I've learned something interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain rather than just blocking me :-S --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:17, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Have you read Tribe's article applying the curvature of space to support liberal views?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, I haven't. Is it easy to find? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: You can find it here [http://blog1.darkbuzz.com/tribe-1989.htm] or a pdf here [http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/~wat4y/103_Harv._L._Rev._1,_.PDF][http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~daw/D_Realism/Tribe.pdf]. On a college campus, you might be able to get it here.[http://www.jstor.org/pss/1341407] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Relativity and Electromagnetism ==
It is often claimed that Relativity is proven by its ability to explain aspects of electromagnetism. But those aspects do not relate to physical mass, gravity or various frames of reference throughout the universe -- the basic claims of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: Lorentz used electromagnetic relativity to predict relativistic mass in 1899, and it was experimentally confirmed a couple of years later. Poincare used E=mc2 for radiation in 1900. So I think that electromagnetic aspects of relativity do relate to physical mass. They also relate to various frames of reference, as electromagnetic experiments were done at different times of the year to test different frames of reference in the Earth's orbit. Gravity and electromagnetism are separate forces, and I guess it is fair to say that relativistic aspects had to be tested separately. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Most of the counterexamples to Relativity relate to gravity; some relate to the claim that all (non-accelerating) frames of reference are the same everywhere in the universe. The essence of Relativity is its claims about gravity and space. Electromagnetism experiments have nothing to do with this, and do not confirm any of these "grand unified" assertions of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:12, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: You have to distinguish between general relativity, which is about gravity, and special relativity, which isn't.
::: Anyway, Newtonian mechanics is not consistent with Maxwell's equations while relativity (both special and general) is. Do you deny Maxwell's equations, Aschlafly? If you accept Newtonian mechanics, you have to. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: Also, it should be noted that Einstein's famous 1905 paper (which was very important in the history of relativity) is entitled ''On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies''. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:30, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Again, a big part of the objection to Relativity is its "grand unified" approach. The insistence on that view is simply not scientific, and is contrary to the data.

::::: There are different forces in nature. There really are, and they really are different. That's what the data show.

::::: Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light. None of that exists in electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: ''Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light'' -> No. Light travels the speed of light in special relativity. Any massless particle does as well.
:::::: ''None of that exists in electromagnetism'' -> A charged particle with a velocity less than the speed of light definitely falls under the domain of electromagnetism.
:::::: Again, Maxwell's equations and Newtonian mechanics are inconsistent. You can't have both. The fact that other forces exist is irrelevant. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:56, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Special relativity makes no predictions, and only assumptions, about the speed of light. Instead, special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light.
::::::: When the claim is made that Relativity explains electromagnetism, the claim is not referring to charged particles traveling less then the speed of light.
::::::: Your statement that Maxwell's equations and Newtownian mechanics are somehow inconsistent needs explanation. They describe completely different forces.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Special relativity predicts the speed of light is the same regardless of orientation of the observer, which is consistent with the Michelson–Morley experiment. It also predicts that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer, which is consistent with the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment.
:::::::: You said velocities less than the speed of light not exist in electromagnetism. This was clearly false.
:::::::: I already mentioned that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under Galilean transformation, yet are under Lorentz transformations. This is very well known. If you want the exact details see [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.165.5841&rep=rep1&type=pdf On the Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=19TCz0cxAFMC&pg=PA484&lpg=PA484&dq=%22maxwell's+equations%22+invariant+under+%22lorentz+transformation%22&source=bl&ots=gudaGknbwi&sig=9idd1t_o89t5RUSLcemoMq7hNjc&hl=en&ei=eq9SToXdHuTH0QHig62-Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CHQQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=%22maxwell's%20equations%22%20invariant%20under%20%22lorentz%20transformation%22&f=false Understanding Physics, Invariance of electromagnetism under Lorentz transformation]. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: Special relativity says that the speed of light is constant. Maxwell's theory says that same thing, as does the Michelson-Morley experiment. It can be said to be an assumption or a prediction, depending on what textbook you are reading. At any rate, it is testable, and has been confirmed in many ways (for light in a vacuum). It was tested in outer space before testing on Earth. Relativity certainly also makes predictions about charged particles traveling less then the speed of light. The biggest prediction is the formula known as the Lorentz force law. This was an important part of relativity as decribed by Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein. The Lorentz force law used to be considered part of Maxwell's equations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:49, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: These are interesting mathematical observations, having aesthetic value. They can suggest the existence of an intelligent designer.

::::::::: But the physical significance of these mathematical observations is scant or non-existence. Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light, and claims made by special relativity with respect to such motion are not verified by electromagnetism. Claims made by general relativity are not verified at all by electromagnetism.

::::::::: I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics. I'm not saying that Newtonian mechanics must be correct, but some criticisms of it do not withstand scrutiny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Yes, electromagnetism does involve particles moving close enough to the speed of light for relativistic effects to be important. Examples include the electron gun in an ordinary CRT TV set, electric motors, speakers, and just about any electronic device. These are not new. The earliest non-optical tests of special relativity were the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments] They started in 1901 based on Lorentz's relativity, and pre-date Einstein. They show that mass increases with velocity so that nothing goes faster than light. In Newtonian mechanics, the speed of light is not an obstacle. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:13, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::: ''"Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light."'' -> [[Particle accelerator]] use electromagnetic fields to move particles close to the speed of light.
::::::::::: ''"I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics."'' -> The observed constancy of speed of the speed of light (an electromagnet wave) does. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:16, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I have an open mind about this, and would like to learn more. I wasn't familiar with the Kaufmann-Bucherer-Neumann experiments but didn't get much out of the Wikipedia description of them in the above link. Is there a clearer, more objective explanation that doesn't end with a sweeping, unsupported claim of proof of Relativity?

:::::::::::: The two most prominent claims of proof of Relativity -- the perihelion advance of Mercury and the binary pulsar -- are now counterexamples and the most precise data are not being made available to the public. So something isn't adding up in favor of Relativity.

:::::::::::: The lack of scientific basis for Relativity leaves it defenseless against another unscientific theory: string theory. Before long it may become important to list counterexamples to string theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Can I start [[counterexamples to string theory]] now? Its a good excuse for me to learn! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:57, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Please do! Also, Max, did you see the answer to your question about how Relativity is used by [[liberals]] to advance their belief system? I can repost the links if you didn't see them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Great, I'll look into String Theory (I don't know much about it) and get on to writing something. Having a project to work on is a great incentive to learn new topics. please do post those links, thanks!

::::::::::::::::I see the links are posted just above this subheading, under "You can find it here"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Ah yes, now I see. I'll read those tonight. Thanks! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:46, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: The Mercury and binary pulsar observations were used to support the gravity theory, and relativity remains the most accurate explanation. Andy, you asked about electromagnetism, not gravity. There is no way to understand electromagnetism without relativity, as far as I know. The Kaufmann experiments were supposed to disprove relativity. More precise experiments were consistent with relativity, as with all the other electromagnetic experiments. Just turn on an old-style TV set with a tube. How do you think that those pixels get lit up? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:16, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: There is some overlap between the invariant equations for electromagnetism and for relativity. The electromagnetism invariant equations came first, so I think the better description would be that one cannot understand relativity without understanding electromagnetism, not vice versa. But what that has to do with gravity is far from clear. In fact, it probably has nothing to do with gravity. Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism, because no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism.

::::::::::::: It's not relativity that lit up the pixels on an old TV screen. Quantum mechanics has more to do with that than relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:32, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ''Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism'' -> Untrue. Quantum electrodynsmics (QED) combines special relativity, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. A Nobel Prize for its discovery was awarded to Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga in 1965.

:::::::::::::: ''no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism'' -> Also untrue. QED predictions are accurate within 12 significant digits, making it the most accurate theory we have. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:17, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: By my count, Nobel prizes were given for relativistic electromagnetism were given in 1902, 1907, 1933, 1945, 1965, 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1999. Prizes for relativistic gravity were given in 1978, 1983, and 1993. The list is here.[http://www.almaz.com/nobel/physics/physics.html] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

@Andy Schlafly: Relativity predicts that no particle with mass can go the speed of light or faster. How do you explain that no particle accelerator has been able to get a massive particle at or above the speed of light? How do you explain the results that the inertial mass increases with velocity, as relativity predicts? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:00, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:PArticle accelerators don't. CERN (the biggest one) gets them exceedingly close, but not above. It's something like 99.999% of C. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:59, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: Relativity assumes that, rather than predicts it. I think relavitist purists would actually say all that is needed is a maximum velocity, whether that is "c" or something else. Many would not be genuinely surprised if velocities slightly faster than ''c'' are ultimately attained, and ''c'' itself may be changing over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:36, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

: Historically, the constant speed of light was an empirical observation, and not just an assumption. Maxwell's theory predicted that electromagnetic waves traveled at the speed of light, and that was observed. It was one of the big reasons for concluding that light was an electromagnetic wave. Experiments like Michelson-Morley (1887) found a constant speed of light. Also, there were astronomical reasons for believing in a constant speed of light. Distances were measured in light-minutes or light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant. Yes, Einstein declared the constant speed of light to be postulate in 1905, but by then it was a well-accepted empirical fact. Going faster than ''c'' or finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics that it would be like finding a perpetual motion machine. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:27, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Empirical data suggest that the speed of light has changed over time, and as recently as 1/6th of the universe's lifetime. [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html]

:: You comments, like "distances were measured in ... light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant," is a political statement, not a scientific one. Likewise for stating that "finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics ...." Is this what university science has become - ignoring the data to preserve the reputation of some current and past professors?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The article you linked to claims that "The speed of light...may have been lower as recently as two billion years ago." How do you reconcile that time frame with a Young Earth Creationist model where the universe is only 6000 years old? You cant reject that study on the one hand because it directly contradicts the Bible but embrace it on the other when it supports the idea of a shifting c. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 18:45, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: The linked article says there may have been a change in the fine structure constant, α, not necessarily the speed of light, c. Also, it hardly seems like a variable α is currently well-established. It's just the result from one set of data. But even accepting that there has been a change in α and that this means a change in c, the amount seems minuscule. The article says that α "had increased by a few parts in 105 in the past 12 billion years", which would correspond to a similar change in c. Therefore, even if c is not exactly constant it would be very nearly constant and relativity would still be a great approximation. That's ignoring that there may be a mundane explanation for this apparent change.
:::: Also, as BrentH mentions above, if you accept these results you have to accept that the universe is billions of years old. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: I was explaining historically why the speed of light was thought to be constant. It was not just some unproved Einstein relativity assumption. There was solid experimental and theoretical evidence before Einstein. There is no evidence for a variable speed of light. That 2004 paper claiming alpha changed has been superseded with a more accurate study in 2007, with no variation. [http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/the-oklo-reactor-and-varying-physical-constants/][http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0701019] Even if alpha changed, it would not necessarily mean that ''c'' changed. I am not sure why any of this is political. We can measure the speed of light to about 10 decimal places. If the speed were not constant, then an experiment would be likely to detect it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I wish you, Andy and I could have a drunken dinner together some time. That would be an epic debate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:17, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, what do you make of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation syncrotron radiation]? Here you have effects which can't be explained without relativity and which are used in many fields of research, e.g. in medicine... 08:28, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Wikipedia]] has many dubious claims that relativity explains something ... as one might expect from a [[liberal]] website. This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L] It appears that this may be unresolved and I welcome more discussion about it. I don't see evidence that relativity played a role in discovering it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Nearly everything about charged particles requires relativity and quantum mechanics. There is no alternative way to understand charged particles, as far as I know. I do not even know what it would mean to reject relativity for this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:12, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Relativity is an unproductive belief system, disproved by more precise measurements in the tests that supposedly verified it. String theory is taking over university physics programs because Relativity is so obviously flawed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 27 August

-
::::::: [[String theory]] assumes that relativity is 100% correct. Physicists pursue string theory because they are sold on Einstein's dream of using relativistic ideas to unify physics, without having to pay attention to experiments. They are ''not'' pursuing string theory because they are persuaded by your list of relativity counterexamples. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:47, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
:::::::: String theory's motivation is to provide a way to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity, so it assumes general relativity is a good description of nature. In fact, string theory becomes general relativity in the low energy limit. In addition, string theories are Lorentz invariant. Whatever the merits of string theory, relativity is incorporated fundamentally to it, so if anything this example speaks to the strength of relativity. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:11, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
::::::::: Andy Schlafly: ''"This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L]"''-> It also says (right in the abstract) that relativity ''must'' be taken into account:

-
::::::::::"However, '''when ɣB ≅ 1014 Gauss, where ɣ is the electron Lorentz factor, Compton scattering becomes important'''. The result is a reduction in the synchrotron loss rate which '''agrees closely with quantum electrodynamics'''." [Emphasis added]

-
::::::::: Both Compton scattering and quantum electrodynamics make use of special relativity. If you take a look at the equations in the paper you can see that special relativity is used explicitly. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:32, 27 August 2011 (EDT)2011 (EDT)

This discussion is interesting, and I'm learning from it. I have an open mind about this. But it seems to me that term "relativity" is being used in comments above to mean anything from "invariance" (which, of course, predates relativity), electromagnetism (which, of course, predates relativity), and even quantum mechanics (which many say conflicts with relativity). The only thing that "relativity" does not seem to mean in many of the above comments is its description of gravity -- which is what is unique to relativity and what most associate it with.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: The word "relativity" was coined by Maxwell, and it became popular from Poincare calling the "principle of relativity" the idea that different inertial frames are indistinguishable. When I said that string theory assumes relativity, I meant primarily that it assumes Lorentz/Poincare invariance. The influence of relativity on physics has been primarily in electromagnetism, not gravity. The nonlinear gravity effects are barely detectable. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:45, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:: * Again, general relativity is about gravity. Special relativity is not.
:: * No one is saying "quantum mechanics" means "relativity". However, the article you linked to referenced quantum electrodynamics (a subset of quantum mechanics) which does incorporate special relativity. Moreover, while general relativity and quantum mechanics are difficult to reconcile, special relativity and quantum mechanics aren't and doing so has produced [[Quantum electrodynamics|the most accurate theory in physics]].
:: * No one is saying "invariance" means "relativity". For example, Galilean invariance contradicts relativity. However, a special type of invariance, Lorentz invariance, is fundamental to both special and general relativity (it holds locally in general relativity). String theory is Lorentz invariant.
:: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:38, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Actually, there were some people around 1910 who wanted to rename relativity theory as invariant theory. Einstein is sometimes said to have agreed with that opinion, but I am not sure he really said that. There is some disagreement about whether relativity is compatible with quantum mechanics. The two main problem areas are collapse of the wave function during an observation, and gravitational nonlinearities at the center of a black hole. But these are a little off the subject. The theories are completely compatible for nearly all considerations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it. Most of the counterexamples here relate to the claims about gravity and the curvature of space that are made by general relativity. Special relativity, according to the theory, is a "special case" of the general theory. If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me.

:::: The mathematical theory of general or special relativity permits no exceptions. So even a slight variation (outside of measurement error) between observation and prediction means the theory is wrong. It means the worldview embodied in relativity is wrong. And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::: ''"Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it."''
::::: We encountered phenomena that none of these people had before. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the Michelson–Morley experiment, gravitational lensing, etc. Changing your worldview in light of new evidence is quite a sensible thing to do.
::::: ''"If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me."''
::::: It's not so much that, but that one must be careful to separate the two.
::::: ''"And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed."''
::::: They haven't been ignored. The data has been analyzed and it agrees with relativity. Just here we've given you the examples of the Michelson–Morley experiment, the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments, Kennedy–Thorndike experiment, synchrotron radiation, etc. We've also answered here your alleged counterexamples to relativity and the problems with them. If you have any more I'd be happy to address them.
::::: I'm not sure what data you're talking about that hasn't being publicly disclosed. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Special relativity is not so much a special case, but rather the linearized version of the general theory. The special theory has been tested in many more different ways, and it could be true without the general theory being true. I really don't think that relativity requires any different view from Maxwell's. Relativity is consistent with what Maxwell said. I really don't see why you would say that relativity does not permit any exceptions any more than Maxwells theory does not permit any exceptions. What's the difference? Theories have formulas. If observations don't agree with the formulas, then something is wrong. Why is relativity any different from any other theory in the hard sciences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:41, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Relativity should not be treated any differently compared with any other theory in the hard sciences. But Relativity obviously is:

::::::*physics journals will not accept for publication anything that conflicts with the theory of relativity
::::::*the Nobel Prize will not be given to anyone who has criticized the theory of relativity
::::::*no science graduate student or science professor dare even criticize the above two forms of censorship.

::::::As to the data, the two leading supposed verifications of the theory are the binary pulsar (for which a Nobel Prize was given) and the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it. Yet additional data have not been made fully available to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::: I have to say I had no idea of this bias until reading Conservapedia. It sounds shocking. Can you tell me which physicists have been denied awards, or refused publication on this basis? It would be really useful in arguments I'm having off-site. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:54, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: ''"But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it."''
:::::::: Can you please provide a source for this claim? What data are you talking about? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: A "source"? No source is needed, or possible given the censorship by physics journals I just described.

::::::::: Wouldn't you be at least interested yourself in looking up what the precession for the Mercury perihelion is, and comparing it to what Relativity predicts? I think that would be the first step before one made up his mind, not something that must be raised by someone else.

::::::::: The Mercury perihelion precession is 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, plus/minus 0.1. General Relativity predicts 5599.98, plus/minus 0.04. The observed precession is clearly outside of prediction by more than the standard of error. But beginning in the early 1990s, probably because of this emerging divergence, physicists stopped publishing the data perhaps to avoid pinpointing the contradiction with even greater accuracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: So by your own admission general relativity is within 0.005% of the correct value?
:::::::::: Anyway, where are you getting your information for the precession rate? From what I gather the error is larger than 0.1 arc-seconds per century.
::::::::::Some values for the anomalous precession rate (i.e, deviation from what you expect from Newtonain gravity):
:::::::::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
:::::::::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
:::::::::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
:::::::::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
:::::::::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]
:::::::::: General relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04, while Newtonian gravity predicts 0. Clearly general relativity is superior here. It's within experimental error in three out of the four experiments above, and just barely out of it with the fourth. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:22, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: The theory of relativity is proven wrong by the data, '''''beyond measurement error'''''. If you're not going to address that directly, then I'm unlikely to respond further to your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I really don't know what to say. I just showed that for four experiments of the precession of Mercury's perihelion relativity was within experimental uncertainty in three of them and just barely out of it for one. This is better that Newtonian theory which was zero for four. Measuring outside experimental uncertainty ''once'' doesn't automatically make a theory wrong. They are many differences between a simple, clean model and a complex, messy reality that can account for this. Even just by statistics alone you'd expect a correct theory to be outside measurement error once in a while. It still stands that relativity is more accurate than any other theory.
:::::::::::: If you have any citations of experiments that show relativity's predictions fall outside experimental uncertainty I'll be happy to address them. However, just declaring that it's outside experimental uncertainty, but you don't have the data because a relativity cabal is keeping it secret is doesn't merit a response. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:54, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: The most recent -- and most precise -- Mercury perihelion precession data '''''demonstrate that the [[theory of relativity]] is wrong by more than the measurement error'''''. Case closed based on the data.

::::::::::::: [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site. If someone has more precise Mercury perihelion precession data than what has disproved the theory of relativity, then a discussion of that data is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Sigh... I just explained in detail why it wasn't "case closed". Being outside experimental error doesn't automatically make a theory wrong, especially when it isn't that far off. It could mean the theory is wrong or it could mean the theory is right, but by chance measured outside experimental uncertainty. By statistics we expect that to happen every now and then. '''''You can't just cherry pick the one experiment that fits your preconceptions and declare it case closed. You have to take all the other experimental data into account.''''' When you do that here (that is, you also look at the other three experiments) the results look in favor for relativity.

:::::::::::::: You can have the last word if you want. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:31, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: It is not true that the data demonstrate that the theory of relativity is wrong by more than the measurement error. What you have is a difference of opinion, and one scientist claiming that the combination of relativity and other assumptions and observations results in a discrepancy that exceeds the ''estimated'' measurement error. The problem could be with those other assumptions and observations, or with the estimate of the measurement error. As with the Pioneer anomaly, there are explanations that do not violate relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: Any and all attempts to reconcile the observed data with the theory of relativity are welcome. Instead, I not aware of the publication of observed data for this fundamental claim of the theory since 1992 (see above), despite improvements in technology and precision since then. Anyone think that it became impossible to observe the data after that time??? Notice what the data were showing leading up that point: increasing divergence (and contradiction) with the well-settled prediction made by the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:37, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Here is the [http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf Mercury Radar Ranging Data from 1987 to 1997]. The work was carried out by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under NASA. You are absolutely free to analyze the data in depth to see if the relativists are hiding anything. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:32, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Somehow I doubt the data above (going five years after the supposed suppression of data began) is going appease you. Well, you can go send NASA a letter and ask them for the most recent data about Mercury's orbit. They might give it to you if you ask nicely and they almost certainly have it, since [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/index.html they currently have a space probe orbiting Mercury] (I guess they didn't get the memo from the relativists telling everyone to ignore Mercury because it contradicted relativity). Anyway, once you get the data you'll have definitive proof that liberals have been suppressing important information about Mercury's orbit (or something). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:18, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: Looking back, I made a mistake. I said general relativity's prediction was outside the measurement uncertainty for the fourth experiment (Anderson et al., 1992). I misread it. GR prediciton: 42.98 ±0.04, Observation: 43.13 ± 0.14. They actually do overlap. So general relativity is four for four. My bad. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:41, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::: I took a look at the JPL link above but did not find any reference to the perihelion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::::: I'm pretty sure there's no reference to the perihelion because it's the raw data, without analysis. If the data was mapped to show Mercury's location, it would (presumably) show a perihelion. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

=== More counterexamples ===
I found another page with a long list of supposed counterexamples. It looks like nonsense to me, but you can check it out for yourself. He says, "Fossil records indicate the Earth’s gravity was far less during the time of the dinosaurs." He does have references of many of his alleged anomalies. [http://knol.google.com/k/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence-presented] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

=== Denial of [[Nobel Prize]] to anyone who criticizes relativity ===

:::::::: [[Robert Dicke]], the finest American physicist of the 20th century, criticized the theory of relativity and was then never given a Nobel Prize. In fact, in a pattern also used to punish [[Fred Hoyle]] for his criticism of the theory of evolution, a Nobel Prize was given for Dicke's insight to other scientists less deserving of the award than Dicke, within years of Dicke's criticism of the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: According to the [http://www.nap.edu/readingroom.php?book=biomems&page=rdicke.html National Academies Press] Dicke was given:
::::::::: ''"the National Medal of Science (1971), the Comstock Prize of the National Academy of Sciences (1973), and the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (1973). He was a member of the National Science Board from 1970 to 1976. Bob was appointed to the Princeton University Department of Physics in 1946, served as chair from 1967 to 1970, moved to emeritus in 1984''.
::::::::: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:11, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Right ... and no [[Nobel Prize]], despite being the finest American physicist of the 20th century. Note also that it was his criticism of relativity in the mid-1970s -- after the awards you cite -- that caused him to be punished by the Nobel Prize committee. No one in grad school or on university faculties dare criticize Relativity again, no matter what the data say. No relativist will even criticize the policy of excluding anyone who criticizes the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: I am sure the Nobel committee has its prejudices. Hoyle once wrote a letter to the London Times criticizing a Nobel physics prize. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/03/fred-hoyle-nobel-prize/print] So maybe they did not like him for that. By the time they gave the big bang prize in 1978, Gamow and others were dead. I would have rather given the prize to the theorists, but those are the biases of the folks in Sweden. I am not sure it has anything to do with the acceptability of relativity. There is a lot of excellent theoretical work that never got a prize, such as the work of Poincare and Minkowski on relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:56, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: You link to an interesting, in-depth article that gives other possible examples of Nobel Prize bias. But the article misses the timing on the insult to Fred Hoyle -- fall 1983 -- which was around the time that he was challenging a tenet of evolution (I'd like to obtain further details on the timing - his partner in the research apparently raised the criticism as early as 1980). Such a coincidence in timing for a prize that was given for 1957 work can hardly be ignored. Note that the article also says Fowler was "stunned" by the award's passing over Hoyle.

:::::::::::: The article also omits the insults to Teller and Wheeler, to Robert Dicke, and to Raymond Damadian (see explanation in [[Nobel Prize]]).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: I am not sure I understand your bias theory, but even supposing that some Swedes have some prejudices, how does this relate to the merits of relativity? You criticize the 1978 prize. But that was for discovery of the cosmic microwave radiation that was predicted by relativity theorists and confirmed by a couple of telephone company engineers who were just trying to measure their satellite reception interference. They did not even believe in the relativity explanation. So why did the Swedes give the prize to the Bell engineers instead of the relativists? Maybe you should start a page on Counterexamples to Swedish Wisdom. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:00, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: "Swedes" are not picking the Nobel Prize-winners. They just act on the recommendations of [[liberal]] professors who don't like criticism of the theories of evolution, relativity, or [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Really, the bias is not that complicated. It's no different from the bias in [[Academy Award]]s, [[Pulitzer Prize]]s, [[Rhodes Scholar]]s, or any other award system that is heavily influenced by leftists.

:::::::::::::: Once [[Fred Hoyle]] and [[Robert Dicke]] criticized liberal theories, they had to be punished. The greatest punishment is to award the Nobel Prize for their work '''''to someone less deserving'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:08, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

== Standard kilogrammes? ==
I'm not sure how good an argument this is. ONE out of a batch of 40 identical standard kilogrammes has diverged in weight from the others. Common sense says that there's something wrong with that one weight, which is after all stored in France. It's not likely that the answer has anything to do with relativity, which if correct would have caused an identical change in mass in all 40. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:06, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: I have a drawer full of socks. I cannot find a match for one of them. Can I blame relativity? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::Is it a French sock? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 08:14, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Maybe so. Or from some other country where "kilogram" is spelled "kilogramme". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::That would be everywhere except the USA. I'm English. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:I believe that it has something to do with the metals used are slightly radioactive and are emitting either alpha or beta particles causing a very slight decrease in weight. The answer doesn't have anything to do with relativity and is a well know issue. Scientists are currently trying to come up with a better way of standardizing mass. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:56, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::There's a difference between relativity and quantum mechanics (which explains the above observation). If you only took high school physics--you have about two hundred years of catching up to do on the field. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

==Ummmm...==

Physics has come a long way since Albert Einstein published his theories of relativity. Actually, there are quite a few hypothetical paradigms within modern physics that would allow a particle of sufficiently high energy to apparently travel faster than light. I'm not a physicist (as I've said on other pages, I'm a biologist), but I am peripherally familiar with a few of the better-supported ideas. I suggest you read up on M theory and string theory. At the risk of butchering the explanation (I am NOT a physicist), I will say that within the paradigm of M theory and string theory, observing high-energy particles moving slightly faster than light is not all that surprising. That said, the authors of the paper describing the "faster than light" neutrinos, admit up front that the numbers they got was probably the result of some sort of experimental error--the results need to be repeatable in order to be scientific. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

: Science can advance with one observation, and it's not necessary to wait until it is repeated before discussing and learning from it. How quickly (if ever) was the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] repeated?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:: The Michelson-Morley experiment was first done in 1887. It was repeated by them and by others many times in the next few years. Illingworth and Kennedy came up with a variant that was more sensitive and could test for certain exotic explanations. They did that very soon after the initial experiment. Dayton Miller also did such experiments and continued to do them even after Einstein's work was completed. Miller acknowledged the results of the experiments but remained a committed opponent to special relativity. One of Miller's experiments did actually turn up some interesting results but his later experiments and other work failed to replicate it and it seems to have been a statistical anomaly. Others continued to duplicate versions of the MM experiment because the data from it can be used to test aspects of special relativity and other ideas. So duplicated forms have continued right up to the present day although generally using carefully tuned lasers as the light sources which give much more precision. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Some experiments done following the MM experiment (not all listed, only some early ones and some recent ones): Morley-Miller 1902-1904 (published 1904), Miller 1921, Miller 1923-1924, Antonini et al 2005, Stanwix et al 2006, Eisele et al 2009, Herrmann et al 2009. Plus others between them, just listing some early ones and some recent ones. And it is usually necessary to wait until an experiment is repeated before accepting it to be accurate. A single observation, that can't be repeated, usually has an explanation within the current understanding of physics. For example, a network of ravines and gullies was observed in the 1870s on the surface of Mars, and there was wide speculation about their origin. An explanation suggested in the early 1900s wasn't proved until the 1960s, that the ravines and gullies were in actuality an optical illusion caused by streaks of dust blowing across the surface in the strong winds. Another example of a 'discovery' that later turned out to be false was the existence of Vulcan, a planet between Mercury and the Sun. A single observation, unconfirmed by repetition, does not indicate a discovery. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:22, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::: Yes, the M-M experiment was repeated many times. It had to be done at different times of the year, at different altitudes, with different materials, etc. Eg, maybe the length contraction might have been different for wood and brass.
::: There are physicists who have suggested faster than light particles, but string theory and M theory are Lorentz invariant and useless on the issue. The string theorists would definitely be surprised by anything faster than light. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:24, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::: Claimed results from a single experiment have been proven wrong before (e.g, the claims of producing [[cold fusion]] in 1989). It makes sense to see if an experiment is replicated before throwing out an extremely well tested theory. It's very suspicious that we haven't seen neutrinos going faster than the speed of light before this. Experimenters are only human beings and could easily have made a mistake or forget to include something in their calculations. The claimed velocity is only a tiny fraction lager than c and might easily be explained by not taking into account some systematic error.
:::: If Mr. Schlafly's other 36 "counterexamples" are so strong then I don't see why he so badly needs the example of an unreplicated experiment whose data is still in the process of being analyzed. (When Einstein was asked about the book '100 Authors Against Einstein' he responded: "If I were wrong, it would only have taken one".) --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 11:27, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::::: If the experiment is disproved by subsequent experiments, then that particular counterexample can be removed. But the insistence on clinging to the [[theory of relativity]] when the available evidence is to the contrary is unjustified. Einstein's quote is inapplicable to this issue: the context of Einstein's quote refers to a government attempt to discredit his theory. His quote does apply to government efforts to deny scientific evidence today, such as the attempt by the [[NCI]] to deny the [[abortion]]-[[breast cancer]] link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Gee, the experiment counts as a counterexample even before the facts are in. What a surprise....
:::::: I'm not sure if the German government was behind '100 Authors Against Einstein', but even if it were it's completely irrelevant. The folly wasn't that it was done by the government; it was that if relativity was wrong one good argument would suffice. The inclusion of this unconfirmed experimental result just shows how this list of "counterexamples" values quantity over quality. Rather than making a few strong arguments it's a list of 37 random tidbits. '''You're expecting to overturn one of science's best theories with something that can fit inside a Twitter post?''' The reasoning for many points' inclusion are not well explained and counterarguments are not addressed (e.g, Hawking radiation is called a "[c]ontrived explanation" with no justification whatsoever). I suspect the "conciseness" of the points is just a reflection of its author's short attention span. I'll report to the Worldwide Relativity Cabal that we have nothing to fear from... oops. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:46, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Thank you MatthewQ! Oh, and Mr. Schlafly, the evidence does not support a link between abortion and breast cancer. You may find good sources on the topic [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1733063/?tool=pmcentrez here], [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)15835-2/fulltext here], and [http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814 here]. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 08:11, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::: As for redoing the M-M experiment, the [[LIGO]] experiment can be seen as a $400M modern M-M experiment. While the M-M failed to detect the motion of the Earth, LIGO has failed to detect motion in other galaxies. You may be interested in this new paper reporting on an NSF grant to teach high school students about LIGO detecting gravity waves. This is just to be ready in case LIGO ever succeeds in detecting anything, I guess. [http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.3720] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 06:08, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

== A few sections that should be removed... ==

12: For this point to be right, things need to have started VERY VERY small, which is impossible if Creationism is right. This creates an inconsistency within Conservapedia and should be removed.
26: The first part is wrong due to GPSs. In order to be more accurate, they take into account relativity, and hence relativity has produced something useful. The rest of it is repeated in 18. Hence, as everything in 26 is either wrong or repeated, it should be removed.
28: Relativity does not require everything with 0 mass to have 0 momentum. It actually takes into account that light, despite having 0 mass, has momentum.
29: This is actually wrong. The age of each twin is independent of the path travel, it is dependent only on the acceleration they experience. Therefore, this point is wrong.
Any comments or disagreements? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 22:02, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:On point 12, physicists themselves admit that relativity contradicts quantum mechanics shortly after the Big Bang. So even relativists would (or should) concede the validity of this counterexample.

:On point 26, GPS's were not developed as a result of relativity. This has been discussed at length on this site in the past. No relativists were involved in the engineering of GPS's; any differences in timing on the satellites relative to ground are more easily corrected by synchronization rather than theoretical predictions.

:Will review the other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:45, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

::I fully agree with all this. Some of the stuff in this page literally left my head hurting pretty badly from facepalming so hard.

::And, Schlafly, how does this make relativity wrong? Newtonian physics is wrong at quantum levels too. Should we add a "Counterexamples to Newtonian Mechanics" page and put something like that in there too? Of course not--it's an excellent approximation for things on the everyday scale. Same thing with GR.

::No, they were not developed because of relativity, but they were developed taking relativity into account. The people who built it didn't know the specifics, but they knew the corrections from relativity were there and they took them into account. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:53, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

::::I concur. Rather, arguing "counterexamples" is a fine way to demonstrate the weaknesses, inconsistencies, or future directions of inquiry regarding any scientific paradigm. However, it is a logical fallacy to say that "these are the problems with hypothesis A, therefore hypothesis B ''must'' be true". For a position to be effectively argued, one must present empirical evidence in support of an alternative hypothesis. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 00:56, 12 November 2011 (EST)

:::::A bigger logical fallacy occurs when someone insists or thinks that an alternative hypothesis B must exist before disproving a hypothesis A.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:14, 12 November 2011 (EST)

:::::::Good point. However, when a hypothesis is not supported the scientific process usually then entails asking the question of why it was not supported, and then forming a new hypothesis that once again fits all of the available data. This is why scientific understanding of even the most hard and fast paradigms can change so dramatically from one generation to the next (or, occasionally, from one experiment to the next). The most exciting science gets done when a well-reasoned hypothesis is rejected--simply because it opens the door to so many new possibilities.--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 13:01, 14 November 2011 (EST)

== A couple more problems ==

These went up after I posted the other section so I didn't know what to do. If you would prefer I post it there, then sorry. I'm new to wikis so I don't know proper etiquette and perhaps a missed something in the guidelines :)

Anyway, first thing, you state: "It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world."

...Honestly, I am speechless about this. Again, this was taken down but now someone put it back up... You guys honestly think this statement is true? There is no connection between the two--the only thing they have in common is the name "relativity." What, you think that people's morals depend on their frame of reference and change by the relativistic <math> \gamma (\equiv 1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2})</math> factor or something?! I am truly shocked by this...What connection is there? Where is the equation that predicts this?

Secondly: "Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light." Nope. Things can't travel at the speed of light, according to SR. Relativity explicitly states that things cannot go faster than light. If you drop this, then of course there are going to be going to be inconsistencies with SR...And that thread only talks about things going at the speed of light. What's the problem with solenoids travelling near c? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 16:52, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
:Can someone please tell me what the link between moral relativism and GR/SR is...? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:04, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::Because <s>God</s> <s>psychotic rambling homophobic momma's boy</s> Andy Schlafly said so. You have to turn off your <s>indoctrinated</s> educated mind... --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:36, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

== At first glance ==

There are so many problems with this page I don't know where to start. Whomever wrote it is obviously clueless about science and its

methods. A few of the problems include:

1. Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found.

The lack of experimental confirmation ''so far'' of gravity waves does NOT falsify the theory. Absence of evidence is not evidence of

absence.

3. Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of

Relativity.

Only in experiments that have yet to be confirmed.

7. The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds relativity

Untrue. The EFEs contain a term (the cosmological constant) that fully accounts for accelerated expansion.

10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass

What logical problem? I studied physics at the graduate level and have never heard of any logical problem. ?

13. The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement

AAAD is a matter of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In any case, it does NOT Falsify GRT as no information is propagated faster

than light.

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

See 13 (above). This statement also assumes that the action-at-a-distance by Jesus described in the Bible actually happened. It is not

"true and verifiable".

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

Gravitons are the quanta of gravity waves. See #1.

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

The ability to lead to other insights has never been a test of the validity of a scientific theory, and lack of consequent insight does not

falsify a theory.

26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the

theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.

Development of useful devices is a matter of engineering, and is not a test of a scientific theories validity.

27. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction.

This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.

The priniciple of isotropy does not falisfy Relativity. The theory itself accounts for, and predicts, the difference in observed inertia.

28. Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws

of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.

And Relativity also predicts that photons have non-zero momentum. Relativistic systems can have non-zero momentum even with no

rest mass, due to ''mass-energy equivalence''. Relativity correctly predicts the momentum of a massless particle as p = h*f/c = h/λ.

31. The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows

down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to

be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity

Incorrect, as this only takes Special Relativity into account. This is a common fallacy. It is the acceleration required to return the twin

that accounts for the difference in clocks and is explained/predicted by General Relativity. One must take both SRT and GRT into

account.

32. Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right,

theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.

Fields do not constitute an "aether". The EM field exists (and was explained/predicted by Maxwell long before Eistein).

34 (a). In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens.

How is such an account "true and verifiable"?

34(b). This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.

Something that is "likely" does not falsify a scientific theory.

35. Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the

properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.

This is not an argument against applied mathematics, not against Relativity per se.

37. Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding.

This does not falsify the theory.

~~csmcmillion

:'''Reply''': by starting with an ''ad hominem'' attack, you lost credibility from the get-go. A quick review of your points confirms it:

:1. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." It is when billions are spent on many years of looking. Surely you wouldn't think a lost item is in your backpack if you spent time looking for it there and could not find it.

:3. "Only in experiments that have yet to be confirmed." Experiments '''''are''''' confirmation in themselves.

:7. "the cosmological constant... fully accounts for accelerated expansion." Reliance on a cosmological constant has failed before.

:10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass. "What logical problem? I studied physics at the graduate level and have never heard of any logical problem?" Oh please. None of these counterexamples is candidly addressed in physics departments because these counterexamples cast doubt on a theory preferred for political reasons. Anyone in a physics department who expresses doubt about the theory of relativity would be thereby ending his own academic career.

:13. The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement. "AAAD is a matter of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In any case, it does NOT Falsify GRT as no information is propagated faster than light." Relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance (which cannot seriously be disputed in QM) whether a type of information is transmitted or not.

:14. The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51. "See 13 (above). This statement also assumes that the action-at-a-distance by Jesus described in the Bible actually happened. It is not 'true and verifiable.'" There are no [[Counterexamples to the Bible]], so this conflict is a serious one.

:15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching. "Gravitons are the quanta of gravity waves. See #1." And see my answer to #1.

:18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics. "The ability to lead to other insights has never been a test of the validity of a scientific theory, and lack of consequent insight does not falsify a theory." The failure of the theory to produce is strong evidence against its validity.

:26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. "Development of useful devices is a matter of engineering, and is not a test of a scientific theories validity." A theory that inhibits technological progress, rather than enhance it, is almost certainly wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I'll address your other responses as my time permits. For now:

"by starting with an ''ad hominem'' attack"

Stating the obvious is not an ad hominem attack. I didn't say the author was an "idiot". Anyone who honestly thinks that because "devices" have not been engineered based upon a scientific theory somehow ''falsifies'' that theory ''is'' truly clueless (maybe ignorant would have been a better word) of science and the scientific method. A correct scientific theory must explain previous observations and correctly predict those to come. No where is there a requirement that it lead to engineered "devices".

14. "The action-at-a-distance by Jesus"

I should have added: The AAAD by Jesus is (usually) considered a miracle - a suspension of natural law. So I'm not clear on how the suspension of natural law could be considered a counterexample to a natural law to begin with.

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

I should have asked a simple question on this one: Have you ever asked an astronomer, cosmologist or theoretical physicist if s/he has had insights from Relativity? Please - find ''one'' that hasn't had deep insight as a result.

"A theory that inhibits technological progress, rather than enhance it, is almost certainly wrong.--Andy Schlafly 00:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)"

So, adherence to a literal interpretation of the Bible, which hindered technical progress for more than a thousand years, indicates that the Bible is almost certainly wrong. Thank you '''so much''' for clearing that up. ~~csmcmillion

:Take a look at [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]. When you post more substantive comments, then I'll respond to them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:37, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I agree that "relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance", but not that AAAD "cannot seriously be disputed in QM". There is no QM experiment that show AAAD. There are interpretations of QM that seem to imply AAAD, and respected physicists who believe in those interpretations and hence in AAAD. But QM does not imply AAAD as there are also relativistic interpretations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:27, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:QM experiments have shown that a pair of spinning, entangled photons can be separated a great distance, and that the mere observation of the spin of one of those photons immediately removes the uncertainty about the spin of the other photon a far distance away. All attempts to deny that [[action-at-a-distance]] reality have failed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:42, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:: Yes, the photon experiment is correct. Some people do interpret the observation of one photon as affecting the other photon. But there is no proof of that. You could prove it if the observation transmitted information, but no one can do that. Other interpretations do not require AAAD. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:47, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Andy: Why did you delete RSchlafly's most recent comment? RSchlafly: I believe you are correct. A little research on my part shows numerous refutations to the assertions made on this page, going back a couple of years:

http://skullsinthestars.com/2010/08/09/right-wing-refutations-of-relativity-really-really-wrong/

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/6253

I'm beginning to see why people are telling me not to waste my time trying to contribute to this site.
:All you're doing is making your own "assertions without clarification". We've had these arguments before, and these arguments were created by people who refuse to listen to what we say or refuse to read any of the sources we provide. And it's tiresome. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:44, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:User:csmcmillion, it's not a discussion when someone won't use his own words to explain his views.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:49, 13 November 2011 (EST)

::And it's not a discussion when sysops repeatedly delete comments, as you just did. ~~csmcmillion
:::And what exactly did I delete? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:42, 13 November 2011 (EST)
Just wanted to add to this: When has <math>\Lambda</math> failed? It's a perfectly legitimate term in the EFE's, as csmcmillion has stated. The righthand side of it is (in <math>G=c=1</math> units) is <math>8 \pi T^{\alpha \beta }</math>. You need something on the left which is a measure of curvature, i.e., the Einstein tensor <math>G^{\alpha \beta}</math>. Why the Einstein tensor? Why not the Ricci tensor? Why not the scalar curvature times the metric? The reason is that the stress-energy tensor (T) has to have zero divergence: <math>\nabla_{\beta} T^{\alpha \beta} = 0 </math>. The Einstein tensor has zero divergence as well. But, we also have <math> \nabla_{\gamma} g^{\alpha \beta} = 0</math>. So we can safely add in <math>\Lambda g^{\alpha \beta}</math> to the left hand side of the EFE without violating local conservation of energy-momentum. Using this gives <math>G^{\alpha \beta}+\Lambda g^{\alpha \beta} = 8 \pi T^{\alpha \beta}. </math> [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:46, 15 November 2011 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The "The observed lack of curvature in overall space" is not an "unobserved" phenomenon. Accordingly, it has been reverted along with the others. Looking for something that should be there under a theory, but not finding it there as predicted, is a counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:50, 30 November 2011 (EST)

:[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], sorry, yes, I was being a bit overzealous on that one. However, I think the principle holds - many of the concepts listed are not counterexamples. Starting with number one: relativity predicts gravity waves and predicts that they will be extremely difficult to detect. Now I hear you say that's a pretty lousy kind of prediction - and you're right - but it still doesn't make it a counterexample. The same goes for the entry on gravitons (additionally, they're a prediction of quantum theory, not relativity, but that's for another phase of editing).
:It may be that further categorizing is necessary. For example, issues like the Twin Paradox and the Ehrenfest Paradox are not strictly unobserved phenomena either. Item 37, failure to solve the equations, is a problem for mathematics, not necessarily for relativity.
:Perhaps a simpler solution would be to rename the whole article, perhaps to 'Counterarguments to Relativity'. That way the article doesn't look silly by listing things that clearly aren't counterexamples, and also is open to inclusion of a broader range of criticisms of the theory. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:50, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:: I agree with QPR, as upon thinking about it, 'counterexamples' does not accurately describe the things on the list. And looking for something predicted and not finding it is only a counterexample/counterargument if it is predicted to be in a specific place, and when looking there, it isn't found. Hence, not finding gravity waves despite looking for them doesn't mean they don't exist. Many things were thought to be myths or non-existent until they were found, including giraffes. But I also disagree with QPR in that categorizing the list is unnecessary, and would result in needless discussions about where certain points belong, rather than more productive discussions. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:56, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::: I don't think that counterexamples is the best word either. My suggestion would be to leave the title as is, but to split the list into ''paradoxes'' and ''anomalies''. They maybe people would have a better idea what to expect from each item. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:43, 2 December 2011 (EST)

Response to the above: the list is of "counterexamples". These are examples that are counter to the theory. Other terms, like "paradox" or "anomaly", capture neither the concept of "example" nor of it being "counter" to the theory. The term "paradox" arises in philosophy, but this isn't philosophy. Relativity is a theory that pretends to be correct in every case, but it isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:24, 3 December 2011 (EST)

== Deleted example to releativity ==

Hello, I added a counter example to relativity that was removed, despite it being valid. My counter example was that the special theory of relativity predicts that mass is a form of energy and they are interchangeable. But if this were true the huge amount of energy stored in common matter would have been utilised by now in power stations and weaponry.

The problem is, it's been over 100 years since this theory was published and not one power station that utilises the interchange of mass and energy predicted by relativity has actually been built.

However, this counter example was removed because a member claimed that these do exist. Now this leaves us with a dichotomy. Do we...
A) Admit that these power stations exist (which they don't) and therefore acknowledge the special theory of relativity is accurate and true, or
B) We keep the counter example included that no power station that utilises special relativity exists, and therefore it is a sign that relativity is false.

I think we should vote for B on this issue. It would be like inventing the motor engine, but not building cars! --[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 12:36, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:Actually these power stations DO exist and have done for decades; they're called "nuclear reactors" and they generate heat by turning mass into energy. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 12:45, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::If these stations do exist, then how come Albert Einstein admitted of the inability to apply the predictions of his OWN theory? I quote "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable".

::Next you'll be telling me that we can do the physically impossible and generate electricity by fusing atoms to form heavier atoms too.

::Let's face it, special relativity has no practical application in providing energy. If it were, mass and energy would be seen interchanging all the time. F will ''always'' equal MA, it can neither increase or decrease by being converted into energy; observations of non-zero mass particles accelerated to exactly the speed of light prove this.

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-12-03T18:00:02Z

GMilhouse: /* Deleted example to releativity */

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

==Path Independence and Photons==
Wait, so time is some sort of vector field such that when you integrate it you get time? And that vector field is conservative? I've never heard of such a thing... 
As well, you state: "Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum." Yes, if you plug in the formula for non-relativistic, Newtonian momentum, you get zero, but SR gives you the equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2. Plug m=0 in. You get E=pc. So, the momentum is nonzero. That's a very well-known result... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 12:06, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:So should I take the "counter example" down...? Not to be rude but can someone at least respond to me? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:54, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
::Take it down, then if someone reverts (which is likely) it'll provoke a short discussion that probably won't reach a consensus. Regardless, you're unlikely to succeed in keeping it changed. I'm not trying to discourage, go ahead and try changing it, I'm just letting you know what to expect. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:33, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:::These are interesting points worthy of further discussion. As to the first point, however, merely asking two questions is not persuasive to me.

:::As to the second point, I find the argument somewhat circular. Is the energy equation cited verified by any experiment, or is it merely definitional? If merely definitional, then it does not provide a way for calculating actual momentum.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:54, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Well answer them. The point I'm making is that there is no vector field such that when integrates it, one gets time. I had never heard of it until then. I am asking you to enlighten me.
 
::::And as a matter of fact there is! The equation is E=hf where E is the energy of the photon, f is the frequency of the photon, and h is just a proportionality constant (known as Planck's constant). And it has been experimentally verified. It explains the spectrum from blackbody radiation and it explains the photoelectric effect. And if I recall correctly, your camera uses the photoelectric effect. These things are quite well known... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 14:55, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::Oh, and I forgot to mention--the Compton effect is explained by photons. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:00, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::::Please address my more substantive point: has your equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2 been experimentally verified, or is it simply definitional?

:::::::First of all, will you please answer my question...? What is the vector field such that when one integrates over it, one gets time? And oops. Misread your question. And no, it's not "definitional," it's from the relativistic expressions of energy and momentum... (And yes, those have been experimentally verified--if I recall correctly, using those equations, you can predict what can happen (i.e. speeds) when elementary particles are created. But I'm not particle physicist) Once you have those, just do a little algebra and you get that equation. And I hope you're not going to deny basic algebra....
 
:::::::Again, all this is well known.... Out of curiosity have you ever actually studied relativity or this photon stuff? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 13:39, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::OK, I've removed the counter-example of photons...I think I've provided a satisfactory explanation to Schlafly (and he's not responding for some reason...) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:50, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Schlafly, I saw you re-added the "counter-example." Will you please respond to me? Are you seriously just going to keep it there and refuse to discuss this at all? Wow and you claim that we're not open-minded.... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:45, 9 November 2011 (EST)

::::::::::Andy, there is no "counter-example of photons." Photons are not mentioned in the list. But are you referring to this counterexample:

:::::::::::28.Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.

::::::::::Let's be clear about what the dispute is first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 11 November 2011 (EST)

:::::::::::Yeah, that's the one. Sorry. Poorly-worded. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:29, 14 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::::::Will someone please tell me why (a) SR/GR promotes (moral) relativism, (b) photons aren't legit even though I've just pointed that your argument was wrong (maybe that's a bit generous. To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, I can't even say it's wrong...) and (c) what is the vector field such that when one integrates over it, one gets time? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 10:26, 27 November 2011 (EST)

==FTL Neutrinos at LHC ==

It may be jumping the gun to put the finding from Friday as evidence against GR. The results have yet to be duplicated - duplicability is needed for a claim to have scientific merit - and have yet to be carefully peer reviewed. The results are significant at the 95% CI but that means there's a 1 in 20 chance they're actually inaccurate. Given how many measurements are made at the LHC some are going to be both statistically significant and incorrect. It may be more prudent to wait to see if it's a one off or measurement error. I propose waiting at least until other particle acceleration labs can attempt to duplicate the results to make any judgement; after all, that's what CERN is doing
--[[User:BillyWest|BillyWest]] 00:18, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:I disagree. The opposition to the results from CERN -- which confirm prior results from another laboratory which were not as precise -- is unreasonable. It's not necessary to continue to pretend that Relativity is true when there is so much evidence against it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:35, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::CERN itself hasn't even confirmed the results. The data was published a lot quicker than data usually is because if it is accurate, then it changes the majority of physics laws discovered in the past century. The theory of relativity is not the only theory/law which involves the speed of light, electromagnetism does as well. Because of this, CERN wanted other scientists to try and find a flaw in the experiment quickly so that if there is a flaw, it is found quickly, and if there isn't, then scientists can begin determining what needs to change in order to accomodate this. Once the data has been properly analysed, without prematurely jumping to conclusions, then it would be fair to say that the neutrinos traveled faster than the speed of light. But something to keep in mind: this is not the first experiment done with neutrinos, all of the prior ones having travelled slower than the speed of light. If you do an experiment 500 times, and each results has a 1/1000 chance of being inaccurate, there is a 40% chance that at least one result will be inaccurate. If they find an error in the experiment (such as a piece of the measuring equipment being broken, or poor calibration of equipment, or leftover neutrinos from previous experiments, or any other impacting error), then wouldn't it make conservapedia look silly for jumping to a conclusion too quickly? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The CERN experiment is not the only one suggesting faster-than-c travel. Moreover, there is no basis for doubting the news that something travels faster than c. Most of the objections in the media are based in an irrational clinging to Relativity. Hence the counterexample is being restored ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Looks like they've found the problem already: there was a flaw with the experiment.http://www.dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php This article basically says that they used GPS to measure the locations and the times. However, because the satellite used moves at a different speed to the Earth, relativity needs to be taken into account. Usually, relativity has no significant effect until speeds get nearish the speed of light. However, the neutrinos travelled 60 nanoseconds faster than light. Because it's nanoseconds, the speed difference of the Earth and the satellite is enough that relativity affects the experiment at the nanosecond level. Scientists have done calculations to determine how this changes the results (as because of the flaw, the results they got weren't actually accurate), and found that the neutrinos actually travelled for 64 seconds longer than they previously thought, making their speed very slightly less than the speed of light. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 18:02, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

: No, this explanation has not been accepted. There have been many other papers with other explanations. The jury is still out. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:33, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Paul Johnson, the renowned historian, explains the link -- and the significance of the link -- between relativity and moral relativism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:57, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
:Do you have a link for that? It seems pretty flimsy to me. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:10, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::Ah right, I found some stuff! It appears that Johnson acknowledged that there was no ACTUAL link between the two, but pointed out how many liberals CLAIM a link. That seems pretty close to what the article is saying, so my edit probably wasn't the best idea I've ever had, and as a bonus I've learned something interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain rather than just blocking me :-S --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:17, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Have you read Tribe's article applying the curvature of space to support liberal views?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, I haven't. Is it easy to find? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: You can find it here [http://blog1.darkbuzz.com/tribe-1989.htm] or a pdf here [http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/~wat4y/103_Harv._L._Rev._1,_.PDF][http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~daw/D_Realism/Tribe.pdf]. On a college campus, you might be able to get it here.[http://www.jstor.org/pss/1341407] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Relativity and Electromagnetism ==
It is often claimed that Relativity is proven by its ability to explain aspects of electromagnetism. But those aspects do not relate to physical mass, gravity or various frames of reference throughout the universe -- the basic claims of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: Lorentz used electromagnetic relativity to predict relativistic mass in 1899, and it was experimentally confirmed a couple of years later. Poincare used E=mc2 for radiation in 1900. So I think that electromagnetic aspects of relativity do relate to physical mass. They also relate to various frames of reference, as electromagnetic experiments were done at different times of the year to test different frames of reference in the Earth's orbit. Gravity and electromagnetism are separate forces, and I guess it is fair to say that relativistic aspects had to be tested separately. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Most of the counterexamples to Relativity relate to gravity; some relate to the claim that all (non-accelerating) frames of reference are the same everywhere in the universe. The essence of Relativity is its claims about gravity and space. Electromagnetism experiments have nothing to do with this, and do not confirm any of these "grand unified" assertions of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:12, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: You have to distinguish between general relativity, which is about gravity, and special relativity, which isn't.
::: Anyway, Newtonian mechanics is not consistent with Maxwell's equations while relativity (both special and general) is. Do you deny Maxwell's equations, Aschlafly? If you accept Newtonian mechanics, you have to. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: Also, it should be noted that Einstein's famous 1905 paper (which was very important in the history of relativity) is entitled ''On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies''. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:30, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Again, a big part of the objection to Relativity is its "grand unified" approach. The insistence on that view is simply not scientific, and is contrary to the data.

::::: There are different forces in nature. There really are, and they really are different. That's what the data show.

::::: Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light. None of that exists in electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: ''Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light'' -> No. Light travels the speed of light in special relativity. Any massless particle does as well.
:::::: ''None of that exists in electromagnetism'' -> A charged particle with a velocity less than the speed of light definitely falls under the domain of electromagnetism.
:::::: Again, Maxwell's equations and Newtonian mechanics are inconsistent. You can't have both. The fact that other forces exist is irrelevant. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:56, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Special relativity makes no predictions, and only assumptions, about the speed of light. Instead, special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light.
::::::: When the claim is made that Relativity explains electromagnetism, the claim is not referring to charged particles traveling less then the speed of light.
::::::: Your statement that Maxwell's equations and Newtownian mechanics are somehow inconsistent needs explanation. They describe completely different forces.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Special relativity predicts the speed of light is the same regardless of orientation of the observer, which is consistent with the Michelson–Morley experiment. It also predicts that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer, which is consistent with the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment.
:::::::: You said velocities less than the speed of light not exist in electromagnetism. This was clearly false.
:::::::: I already mentioned that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under Galilean transformation, yet are under Lorentz transformations. This is very well known. If you want the exact details see [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.165.5841&rep=rep1&type=pdf On the Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=19TCz0cxAFMC&pg=PA484&lpg=PA484&dq=%22maxwell's+equations%22+invariant+under+%22lorentz+transformation%22&source=bl&ots=gudaGknbwi&sig=9idd1t_o89t5RUSLcemoMq7hNjc&hl=en&ei=eq9SToXdHuTH0QHig62-Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CHQQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=%22maxwell's%20equations%22%20invariant%20under%20%22lorentz%20transformation%22&f=false Understanding Physics, Invariance of electromagnetism under Lorentz transformation]. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: Special relativity says that the speed of light is constant. Maxwell's theory says that same thing, as does the Michelson-Morley experiment. It can be said to be an assumption or a prediction, depending on what textbook you are reading. At any rate, it is testable, and has been confirmed in many ways (for light in a vacuum). It was tested in outer space before testing on Earth. Relativity certainly also makes predictions about charged particles traveling less then the speed of light. The biggest prediction is the formula known as the Lorentz force law. This was an important part of relativity as decribed by Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein. The Lorentz force law used to be considered part of Maxwell's equations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:49, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: These are interesting mathematical observations, having aesthetic value. They can suggest the existence of an intelligent designer.

::::::::: But the physical significance of these mathematical observations is scant or non-existence. Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light, and claims made by special relativity with respect to such motion are not verified by electromagnetism. Claims made by general relativity are not verified at all by electromagnetism.

::::::::: I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics. I'm not saying that Newtonian mechanics must be correct, but some criticisms of it do not withstand scrutiny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Yes, electromagnetism does involve particles moving close enough to the speed of light for relativistic effects to be important. Examples include the electron gun in an ordinary CRT TV set, electric motors, speakers, and just about any electronic device. These are not new. The earliest non-optical tests of special relativity were the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments] They started in 1901 based on Lorentz's relativity, and pre-date Einstein. They show that mass increases with velocity so that nothing goes faster than light. In Newtonian mechanics, the speed of light is not an obstacle. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:13, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::: ''"Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light."'' -> [[Particle accelerator]] use electromagnetic fields to move particles close to the speed of light.
::::::::::: ''"I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics."'' -> The observed constancy of speed of the speed of light (an electromagnet wave) does. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:16, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I have an open mind about this, and would like to learn more. I wasn't familiar with the Kaufmann-Bucherer-Neumann experiments but didn't get much out of the Wikipedia description of them in the above link. Is there a clearer, more objective explanation that doesn't end with a sweeping, unsupported claim of proof of Relativity?

:::::::::::: The two most prominent claims of proof of Relativity -- the perihelion advance of Mercury and the binary pulsar -- are now counterexamples and the most precise data are not being made available to the public. So something isn't adding up in favor of Relativity.

:::::::::::: The lack of scientific basis for Relativity leaves it defenseless against another unscientific theory: string theory. Before long it may become important to list counterexamples to string theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Can I start [[counterexamples to string theory]] now? Its a good excuse for me to learn! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:57, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Please do! Also, Max, did you see the answer to your question about how Relativity is used by [[liberals]] to advance their belief system? I can repost the links if you didn't see them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Great, I'll look into String Theory (I don't know much about it) and get on to writing something. Having a project to work on is a great incentive to learn new topics. please do post those links, thanks!

::::::::::::::::I see the links are posted just above this subheading, under "You can find it here"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Ah yes, now I see. I'll read those tonight. Thanks! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:46, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: The Mercury and binary pulsar observations were used to support the gravity theory, and relativity remains the most accurate explanation. Andy, you asked about electromagnetism, not gravity. There is no way to understand electromagnetism without relativity, as far as I know. The Kaufmann experiments were supposed to disprove relativity. More precise experiments were consistent with relativity, as with all the other electromagnetic experiments. Just turn on an old-style TV set with a tube. How do you think that those pixels get lit up? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:16, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: There is some overlap between the invariant equations for electromagnetism and for relativity. The electromagnetism invariant equations came first, so I think the better description would be that one cannot understand relativity without understanding electromagnetism, not vice versa. But what that has to do with gravity is far from clear. In fact, it probably has nothing to do with gravity. Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism, because no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism.

::::::::::::: It's not relativity that lit up the pixels on an old TV screen. Quantum mechanics has more to do with that than relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:32, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ''Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism'' -> Untrue. Quantum electrodynsmics (QED) combines special relativity, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. A Nobel Prize for its discovery was awarded to Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga in 1965.

:::::::::::::: ''no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism'' -> Also untrue. QED predictions are accurate within 12 significant digits, making it the most accurate theory we have. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:17, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: By my count, Nobel prizes were given for relativistic electromagnetism were given in 1902, 1907, 1933, 1945, 1965, 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1999. Prizes for relativistic gravity were given in 1978, 1983, and 1993. The list is here.[http://www.almaz.com/nobel/physics/physics.html] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

@Andy Schlafly: Relativity predicts that no particle with mass can go the speed of light or faster. How do you explain that no particle accelerator has been able to get a massive particle at or above the speed of light? How do you explain the results that the inertial mass increases with velocity, as relativity predicts? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:00, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:PArticle accelerators don't. CERN (the biggest one) gets them exceedingly close, but not above. It's something like 99.999% of C. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:59, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: Relativity assumes that, rather than predicts it. I think relavitist purists would actually say all that is needed is a maximum velocity, whether that is "c" or something else. Many would not be genuinely surprised if velocities slightly faster than ''c'' are ultimately attained, and ''c'' itself may be changing over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:36, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

: Historically, the constant speed of light was an empirical observation, and not just an assumption. Maxwell's theory predicted that electromagnetic waves traveled at the speed of light, and that was observed. It was one of the big reasons for concluding that light was an electromagnetic wave. Experiments like Michelson-Morley (1887) found a constant speed of light. Also, there were astronomical reasons for believing in a constant speed of light. Distances were measured in light-minutes or light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant. Yes, Einstein declared the constant speed of light to be postulate in 1905, but by then it was a well-accepted empirical fact. Going faster than ''c'' or finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics that it would be like finding a perpetual motion machine. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:27, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Empirical data suggest that the speed of light has changed over time, and as recently as 1/6th of the universe's lifetime. [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html]

:: You comments, like "distances were measured in ... light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant," is a political statement, not a scientific one. Likewise for stating that "finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics ...." Is this what university science has become - ignoring the data to preserve the reputation of some current and past professors?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The article you linked to claims that "The speed of light...may have been lower as recently as two billion years ago." How do you reconcile that time frame with a Young Earth Creationist model where the universe is only 6000 years old? You cant reject that study on the one hand because it directly contradicts the Bible but embrace it on the other when it supports the idea of a shifting c. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 18:45, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: The linked article says there may have been a change in the fine structure constant, α, not necessarily the speed of light, c. Also, it hardly seems like a variable α is currently well-established. It's just the result from one set of data. But even accepting that there has been a change in α and that this means a change in c, the amount seems minuscule. The article says that α "had increased by a few parts in 105 in the past 12 billion years", which would correspond to a similar change in c. Therefore, even if c is not exactly constant it would be very nearly constant and relativity would still be a great approximation. That's ignoring that there may be a mundane explanation for this apparent change.
:::: Also, as BrentH mentions above, if you accept these results you have to accept that the universe is billions of years old. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: I was explaining historically why the speed of light was thought to be constant. It was not just some unproved Einstein relativity assumption. There was solid experimental and theoretical evidence before Einstein. There is no evidence for a variable speed of light. That 2004 paper claiming alpha changed has been superseded with a more accurate study in 2007, with no variation. [http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/the-oklo-reactor-and-varying-physical-constants/][http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0701019] Even if alpha changed, it would not necessarily mean that ''c'' changed. I am not sure why any of this is political. We can measure the speed of light to about 10 decimal places. If the speed were not constant, then an experiment would be likely to detect it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I wish you, Andy and I could have a drunken dinner together some time. That would be an epic debate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:17, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, what do you make of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation syncrotron radiation]? Here you have effects which can't be explained without relativity and which are used in many fields of research, e.g. in medicine... 08:28, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Wikipedia]] has many dubious claims that relativity explains something ... as one might expect from a [[liberal]] website. This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L] It appears that this may be unresolved and I welcome more discussion about it. I don't see evidence that relativity played a role in discovering it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Nearly everything about charged particles requires relativity and quantum mechanics. There is no alternative way to understand charged particles, as far as I know. I do not even know what it would mean to reject relativity for this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:12, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Relativity is an unproductive belief system, disproved by more precise measurements in the tests that supposedly verified it. String theory is taking over university physics programs because Relativity is so obviously flawed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 27 August

-
::::::: [[String theory]] assumes that relativity is 100% correct. Physicists pursue string theory because they are sold on Einstein's dream of using relativistic ideas to unify physics, without having to pay attention to experiments. They are ''not'' pursuing string theory because they are persuaded by your list of relativity counterexamples. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:47, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
:::::::: String theory's motivation is to provide a way to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity, so it assumes general relativity is a good description of nature. In fact, string theory becomes general relativity in the low energy limit. In addition, string theories are Lorentz invariant. Whatever the merits of string theory, relativity is incorporated fundamentally to it, so if anything this example speaks to the strength of relativity. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:11, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
::::::::: Andy Schlafly: ''"This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L]"''-> It also says (right in the abstract) that relativity ''must'' be taken into account:

-
::::::::::"However, '''when ɣB ≅ 1014 Gauss, where ɣ is the electron Lorentz factor, Compton scattering becomes important'''. The result is a reduction in the synchrotron loss rate which '''agrees closely with quantum electrodynamics'''." [Emphasis added]

-
::::::::: Both Compton scattering and quantum electrodynamics make use of special relativity. If you take a look at the equations in the paper you can see that special relativity is used explicitly. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:32, 27 August 2011 (EDT)2011 (EDT)

This discussion is interesting, and I'm learning from it. I have an open mind about this. But it seems to me that term "relativity" is being used in comments above to mean anything from "invariance" (which, of course, predates relativity), electromagnetism (which, of course, predates relativity), and even quantum mechanics (which many say conflicts with relativity). The only thing that "relativity" does not seem to mean in many of the above comments is its description of gravity -- which is what is unique to relativity and what most associate it with.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: The word "relativity" was coined by Maxwell, and it became popular from Poincare calling the "principle of relativity" the idea that different inertial frames are indistinguishable. When I said that string theory assumes relativity, I meant primarily that it assumes Lorentz/Poincare invariance. The influence of relativity on physics has been primarily in electromagnetism, not gravity. The nonlinear gravity effects are barely detectable. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:45, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:: * Again, general relativity is about gravity. Special relativity is not.
:: * No one is saying "quantum mechanics" means "relativity". However, the article you linked to referenced quantum electrodynamics (a subset of quantum mechanics) which does incorporate special relativity. Moreover, while general relativity and quantum mechanics are difficult to reconcile, special relativity and quantum mechanics aren't and doing so has produced [[Quantum electrodynamics|the most accurate theory in physics]].
:: * No one is saying "invariance" means "relativity". For example, Galilean invariance contradicts relativity. However, a special type of invariance, Lorentz invariance, is fundamental to both special and general relativity (it holds locally in general relativity). String theory is Lorentz invariant.
:: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:38, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Actually, there were some people around 1910 who wanted to rename relativity theory as invariant theory. Einstein is sometimes said to have agreed with that opinion, but I am not sure he really said that. There is some disagreement about whether relativity is compatible with quantum mechanics. The two main problem areas are collapse of the wave function during an observation, and gravitational nonlinearities at the center of a black hole. But these are a little off the subject. The theories are completely compatible for nearly all considerations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it. Most of the counterexamples here relate to the claims about gravity and the curvature of space that are made by general relativity. Special relativity, according to the theory, is a "special case" of the general theory. If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me.

:::: The mathematical theory of general or special relativity permits no exceptions. So even a slight variation (outside of measurement error) between observation and prediction means the theory is wrong. It means the worldview embodied in relativity is wrong. And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::: ''"Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it."''
::::: We encountered phenomena that none of these people had before. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the Michelson–Morley experiment, gravitational lensing, etc. Changing your worldview in light of new evidence is quite a sensible thing to do.
::::: ''"If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me."''
::::: It's not so much that, but that one must be careful to separate the two.
::::: ''"And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed."''
::::: They haven't been ignored. The data has been analyzed and it agrees with relativity. Just here we've given you the examples of the Michelson–Morley experiment, the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments, Kennedy–Thorndike experiment, synchrotron radiation, etc. We've also answered here your alleged counterexamples to relativity and the problems with them. If you have any more I'd be happy to address them.
::::: I'm not sure what data you're talking about that hasn't being publicly disclosed. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Special relativity is not so much a special case, but rather the linearized version of the general theory. The special theory has been tested in many more different ways, and it could be true without the general theory being true. I really don't think that relativity requires any different view from Maxwell's. Relativity is consistent with what Maxwell said. I really don't see why you would say that relativity does not permit any exceptions any more than Maxwells theory does not permit any exceptions. What's the difference? Theories have formulas. If observations don't agree with the formulas, then something is wrong. Why is relativity any different from any other theory in the hard sciences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:41, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Relativity should not be treated any differently compared with any other theory in the hard sciences. But Relativity obviously is:

::::::*physics journals will not accept for publication anything that conflicts with the theory of relativity
::::::*the Nobel Prize will not be given to anyone who has criticized the theory of relativity
::::::*no science graduate student or science professor dare even criticize the above two forms of censorship.

::::::As to the data, the two leading supposed verifications of the theory are the binary pulsar (for which a Nobel Prize was given) and the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it. Yet additional data have not been made fully available to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::: I have to say I had no idea of this bias until reading Conservapedia. It sounds shocking. Can you tell me which physicists have been denied awards, or refused publication on this basis? It would be really useful in arguments I'm having off-site. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:54, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: ''"But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it."''
:::::::: Can you please provide a source for this claim? What data are you talking about? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: A "source"? No source is needed, or possible given the censorship by physics journals I just described.

::::::::: Wouldn't you be at least interested yourself in looking up what the precession for the Mercury perihelion is, and comparing it to what Relativity predicts? I think that would be the first step before one made up his mind, not something that must be raised by someone else.

::::::::: The Mercury perihelion precession is 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, plus/minus 0.1. General Relativity predicts 5599.98, plus/minus 0.04. The observed precession is clearly outside of prediction by more than the standard of error. But beginning in the early 1990s, probably because of this emerging divergence, physicists stopped publishing the data perhaps to avoid pinpointing the contradiction with even greater accuracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: So by your own admission general relativity is within 0.005% of the correct value?
:::::::::: Anyway, where are you getting your information for the precession rate? From what I gather the error is larger than 0.1 arc-seconds per century.
::::::::::Some values for the anomalous precession rate (i.e, deviation from what you expect from Newtonain gravity):
:::::::::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
:::::::::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
:::::::::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
:::::::::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
:::::::::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]
:::::::::: General relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04, while Newtonian gravity predicts 0. Clearly general relativity is superior here. It's within experimental error in three out of the four experiments above, and just barely out of it with the fourth. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:22, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: The theory of relativity is proven wrong by the data, '''''beyond measurement error'''''. If you're not going to address that directly, then I'm unlikely to respond further to your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I really don't know what to say. I just showed that for four experiments of the precession of Mercury's perihelion relativity was within experimental uncertainty in three of them and just barely out of it for one. This is better that Newtonian theory which was zero for four. Measuring outside experimental uncertainty ''once'' doesn't automatically make a theory wrong. They are many differences between a simple, clean model and a complex, messy reality that can account for this. Even just by statistics alone you'd expect a correct theory to be outside measurement error once in a while. It still stands that relativity is more accurate than any other theory.
:::::::::::: If you have any citations of experiments that show relativity's predictions fall outside experimental uncertainty I'll be happy to address them. However, just declaring that it's outside experimental uncertainty, but you don't have the data because a relativity cabal is keeping it secret is doesn't merit a response. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:54, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: The most recent -- and most precise -- Mercury perihelion precession data '''''demonstrate that the [[theory of relativity]] is wrong by more than the measurement error'''''. Case closed based on the data.

::::::::::::: [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site. If someone has more precise Mercury perihelion precession data than what has disproved the theory of relativity, then a discussion of that data is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Sigh... I just explained in detail why it wasn't "case closed". Being outside experimental error doesn't automatically make a theory wrong, especially when it isn't that far off. It could mean the theory is wrong or it could mean the theory is right, but by chance measured outside experimental uncertainty. By statistics we expect that to happen every now and then. '''''You can't just cherry pick the one experiment that fits your preconceptions and declare it case closed. You have to take all the other experimental data into account.''''' When you do that here (that is, you also look at the other three experiments) the results look in favor for relativity.

:::::::::::::: You can have the last word if you want. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:31, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: It is not true that the data demonstrate that the theory of relativity is wrong by more than the measurement error. What you have is a difference of opinion, and one scientist claiming that the combination of relativity and other assumptions and observations results in a discrepancy that exceeds the ''estimated'' measurement error. The problem could be with those other assumptions and observations, or with the estimate of the measurement error. As with the Pioneer anomaly, there are explanations that do not violate relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: Any and all attempts to reconcile the observed data with the theory of relativity are welcome. Instead, I not aware of the publication of observed data for this fundamental claim of the theory since 1992 (see above), despite improvements in technology and precision since then. Anyone think that it became impossible to observe the data after that time??? Notice what the data were showing leading up that point: increasing divergence (and contradiction) with the well-settled prediction made by the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:37, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Here is the [http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf Mercury Radar Ranging Data from 1987 to 1997]. The work was carried out by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under NASA. You are absolutely free to analyze the data in depth to see if the relativists are hiding anything. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:32, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Somehow I doubt the data above (going five years after the supposed suppression of data began) is going appease you. Well, you can go send NASA a letter and ask them for the most recent data about Mercury's orbit. They might give it to you if you ask nicely and they almost certainly have it, since [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/index.html they currently have a space probe orbiting Mercury] (I guess they didn't get the memo from the relativists telling everyone to ignore Mercury because it contradicted relativity). Anyway, once you get the data you'll have definitive proof that liberals have been suppressing important information about Mercury's orbit (or something). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:18, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: Looking back, I made a mistake. I said general relativity's prediction was outside the measurement uncertainty for the fourth experiment (Anderson et al., 1992). I misread it. GR prediciton: 42.98 ±0.04, Observation: 43.13 ± 0.14. They actually do overlap. So general relativity is four for four. My bad. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:41, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::: I took a look at the JPL link above but did not find any reference to the perihelion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::::: I'm pretty sure there's no reference to the perihelion because it's the raw data, without analysis. If the data was mapped to show Mercury's location, it would (presumably) show a perihelion. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

=== More counterexamples ===
I found another page with a long list of supposed counterexamples. It looks like nonsense to me, but you can check it out for yourself. He says, "Fossil records indicate the Earth’s gravity was far less during the time of the dinosaurs." He does have references of many of his alleged anomalies. [http://knol.google.com/k/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence-presented] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

=== Denial of [[Nobel Prize]] to anyone who criticizes relativity ===

:::::::: [[Robert Dicke]], the finest American physicist of the 20th century, criticized the theory of relativity and was then never given a Nobel Prize. In fact, in a pattern also used to punish [[Fred Hoyle]] for his criticism of the theory of evolution, a Nobel Prize was given for Dicke's insight to other scientists less deserving of the award than Dicke, within years of Dicke's criticism of the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: According to the [http://www.nap.edu/readingroom.php?book=biomems&page=rdicke.html National Academies Press] Dicke was given:
::::::::: ''"the National Medal of Science (1971), the Comstock Prize of the National Academy of Sciences (1973), and the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (1973). He was a member of the National Science Board from 1970 to 1976. Bob was appointed to the Princeton University Department of Physics in 1946, served as chair from 1967 to 1970, moved to emeritus in 1984''.
::::::::: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:11, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Right ... and no [[Nobel Prize]], despite being the finest American physicist of the 20th century. Note also that it was his criticism of relativity in the mid-1970s -- after the awards you cite -- that caused him to be punished by the Nobel Prize committee. No one in grad school or on university faculties dare criticize Relativity again, no matter what the data say. No relativist will even criticize the policy of excluding anyone who criticizes the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: I am sure the Nobel committee has its prejudices. Hoyle once wrote a letter to the London Times criticizing a Nobel physics prize. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/03/fred-hoyle-nobel-prize/print] So maybe they did not like him for that. By the time they gave the big bang prize in 1978, Gamow and others were dead. I would have rather given the prize to the theorists, but those are the biases of the folks in Sweden. I am not sure it has anything to do with the acceptability of relativity. There is a lot of excellent theoretical work that never got a prize, such as the work of Poincare and Minkowski on relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:56, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: You link to an interesting, in-depth article that gives other possible examples of Nobel Prize bias. But the article misses the timing on the insult to Fred Hoyle -- fall 1983 -- which was around the time that he was challenging a tenet of evolution (I'd like to obtain further details on the timing - his partner in the research apparently raised the criticism as early as 1980). Such a coincidence in timing for a prize that was given for 1957 work can hardly be ignored. Note that the article also says Fowler was "stunned" by the award's passing over Hoyle.

:::::::::::: The article also omits the insults to Teller and Wheeler, to Robert Dicke, and to Raymond Damadian (see explanation in [[Nobel Prize]]).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: I am not sure I understand your bias theory, but even supposing that some Swedes have some prejudices, how does this relate to the merits of relativity? You criticize the 1978 prize. But that was for discovery of the cosmic microwave radiation that was predicted by relativity theorists and confirmed by a couple of telephone company engineers who were just trying to measure their satellite reception interference. They did not even believe in the relativity explanation. So why did the Swedes give the prize to the Bell engineers instead of the relativists? Maybe you should start a page on Counterexamples to Swedish Wisdom. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:00, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: "Swedes" are not picking the Nobel Prize-winners. They just act on the recommendations of [[liberal]] professors who don't like criticism of the theories of evolution, relativity, or [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Really, the bias is not that complicated. It's no different from the bias in [[Academy Award]]s, [[Pulitzer Prize]]s, [[Rhodes Scholar]]s, or any other award system that is heavily influenced by leftists.

:::::::::::::: Once [[Fred Hoyle]] and [[Robert Dicke]] criticized liberal theories, they had to be punished. The greatest punishment is to award the Nobel Prize for their work '''''to someone less deserving'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:08, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

== Standard kilogrammes? ==
I'm not sure how good an argument this is. ONE out of a batch of 40 identical standard kilogrammes has diverged in weight from the others. Common sense says that there's something wrong with that one weight, which is after all stored in France. It's not likely that the answer has anything to do with relativity, which if correct would have caused an identical change in mass in all 40. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:06, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: I have a drawer full of socks. I cannot find a match for one of them. Can I blame relativity? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::Is it a French sock? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 08:14, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Maybe so. Or from some other country where "kilogram" is spelled "kilogramme". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::That would be everywhere except the USA. I'm English. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:I believe that it has something to do with the metals used are slightly radioactive and are emitting either alpha or beta particles causing a very slight decrease in weight. The answer doesn't have anything to do with relativity and is a well know issue. Scientists are currently trying to come up with a better way of standardizing mass. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:56, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::There's a difference between relativity and quantum mechanics (which explains the above observation). If you only took high school physics--you have about two hundred years of catching up to do on the field. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

==Ummmm...==

Physics has come a long way since Albert Einstein published his theories of relativity. Actually, there are quite a few hypothetical paradigms within modern physics that would allow a particle of sufficiently high energy to apparently travel faster than light. I'm not a physicist (as I've said on other pages, I'm a biologist), but I am peripherally familiar with a few of the better-supported ideas. I suggest you read up on M theory and string theory. At the risk of butchering the explanation (I am NOT a physicist), I will say that within the paradigm of M theory and string theory, observing high-energy particles moving slightly faster than light is not all that surprising. That said, the authors of the paper describing the "faster than light" neutrinos, admit up front that the numbers they got was probably the result of some sort of experimental error--the results need to be repeatable in order to be scientific. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

: Science can advance with one observation, and it's not necessary to wait until it is repeated before discussing and learning from it. How quickly (if ever) was the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] repeated?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:: The Michelson-Morley experiment was first done in 1887. It was repeated by them and by others many times in the next few years. Illingworth and Kennedy came up with a variant that was more sensitive and could test for certain exotic explanations. They did that very soon after the initial experiment. Dayton Miller also did such experiments and continued to do them even after Einstein's work was completed. Miller acknowledged the results of the experiments but remained a committed opponent to special relativity. One of Miller's experiments did actually turn up some interesting results but his later experiments and other work failed to replicate it and it seems to have been a statistical anomaly. Others continued to duplicate versions of the MM experiment because the data from it can be used to test aspects of special relativity and other ideas. So duplicated forms have continued right up to the present day although generally using carefully tuned lasers as the light sources which give much more precision. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Some experiments done following the MM experiment (not all listed, only some early ones and some recent ones): Morley-Miller 1902-1904 (published 1904), Miller 1921, Miller 1923-1924, Antonini et al 2005, Stanwix et al 2006, Eisele et al 2009, Herrmann et al 2009. Plus others between them, just listing some early ones and some recent ones. And it is usually necessary to wait until an experiment is repeated before accepting it to be accurate. A single observation, that can't be repeated, usually has an explanation within the current understanding of physics. For example, a network of ravines and gullies was observed in the 1870s on the surface of Mars, and there was wide speculation about their origin. An explanation suggested in the early 1900s wasn't proved until the 1960s, that the ravines and gullies were in actuality an optical illusion caused by streaks of dust blowing across the surface in the strong winds. Another example of a 'discovery' that later turned out to be false was the existence of Vulcan, a planet between Mercury and the Sun. A single observation, unconfirmed by repetition, does not indicate a discovery. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:22, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::: Yes, the M-M experiment was repeated many times. It had to be done at different times of the year, at different altitudes, with different materials, etc. Eg, maybe the length contraction might have been different for wood and brass.
::: There are physicists who have suggested faster than light particles, but string theory and M theory are Lorentz invariant and useless on the issue. The string theorists would definitely be surprised by anything faster than light. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:24, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::: Claimed results from a single experiment have been proven wrong before (e.g, the claims of producing [[cold fusion]] in 1989). It makes sense to see if an experiment is replicated before throwing out an extremely well tested theory. It's very suspicious that we haven't seen neutrinos going faster than the speed of light before this. Experimenters are only human beings and could easily have made a mistake or forget to include something in their calculations. The claimed velocity is only a tiny fraction lager than c and might easily be explained by not taking into account some systematic error.
:::: If Mr. Schlafly's other 36 "counterexamples" are so strong then I don't see why he so badly needs the example of an unreplicated experiment whose data is still in the process of being analyzed. (When Einstein was asked about the book '100 Authors Against Einstein' he responded: "If I were wrong, it would only have taken one".) --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 11:27, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::::: If the experiment is disproved by subsequent experiments, then that particular counterexample can be removed. But the insistence on clinging to the [[theory of relativity]] when the available evidence is to the contrary is unjustified. Einstein's quote is inapplicable to this issue: the context of Einstein's quote refers to a government attempt to discredit his theory. His quote does apply to government efforts to deny scientific evidence today, such as the attempt by the [[NCI]] to deny the [[abortion]]-[[breast cancer]] link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Gee, the experiment counts as a counterexample even before the facts are in. What a surprise....
:::::: I'm not sure if the German government was behind '100 Authors Against Einstein', but even if it were it's completely irrelevant. The folly wasn't that it was done by the government; it was that if relativity was wrong one good argument would suffice. The inclusion of this unconfirmed experimental result just shows how this list of "counterexamples" values quantity over quality. Rather than making a few strong arguments it's a list of 37 random tidbits. '''You're expecting to overturn one of science's best theories with something that can fit inside a Twitter post?''' The reasoning for many points' inclusion are not well explained and counterarguments are not addressed (e.g, Hawking radiation is called a "[c]ontrived explanation" with no justification whatsoever). I suspect the "conciseness" of the points is just a reflection of its author's short attention span. I'll report to the Worldwide Relativity Cabal that we have nothing to fear from... oops. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:46, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Thank you MatthewQ! Oh, and Mr. Schlafly, the evidence does not support a link between abortion and breast cancer. You may find good sources on the topic [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1733063/?tool=pmcentrez here], [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)15835-2/fulltext here], and [http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814 here]. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 08:11, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::: As for redoing the M-M experiment, the [[LIGO]] experiment can be seen as a $400M modern M-M experiment. While the M-M failed to detect the motion of the Earth, LIGO has failed to detect motion in other galaxies. You may be interested in this new paper reporting on an NSF grant to teach high school students about LIGO detecting gravity waves. This is just to be ready in case LIGO ever succeeds in detecting anything, I guess. [http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.3720] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 06:08, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

== A few sections that should be removed... ==

12: For this point to be right, things need to have started VERY VERY small, which is impossible if Creationism is right. This creates an inconsistency within Conservapedia and should be removed.
26: The first part is wrong due to GPSs. In order to be more accurate, they take into account relativity, and hence relativity has produced something useful. The rest of it is repeated in 18. Hence, as everything in 26 is either wrong or repeated, it should be removed.
28: Relativity does not require everything with 0 mass to have 0 momentum. It actually takes into account that light, despite having 0 mass, has momentum.
29: This is actually wrong. The age of each twin is independent of the path travel, it is dependent only on the acceleration they experience. Therefore, this point is wrong.
Any comments or disagreements? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 22:02, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:On point 12, physicists themselves admit that relativity contradicts quantum mechanics shortly after the Big Bang. So even relativists would (or should) concede the validity of this counterexample.

:On point 26, GPS's were not developed as a result of relativity. This has been discussed at length on this site in the past. No relativists were involved in the engineering of GPS's; any differences in timing on the satellites relative to ground are more easily corrected by synchronization rather than theoretical predictions.

:Will review the other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:45, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

::I fully agree with all this. Some of the stuff in this page literally left my head hurting pretty badly from facepalming so hard.

::And, Schlafly, how does this make relativity wrong? Newtonian physics is wrong at quantum levels too. Should we add a "Counterexamples to Newtonian Mechanics" page and put something like that in there too? Of course not--it's an excellent approximation for things on the everyday scale. Same thing with GR.

::No, they were not developed because of relativity, but they were developed taking relativity into account. The people who built it didn't know the specifics, but they knew the corrections from relativity were there and they took them into account. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:53, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

::::I concur. Rather, arguing "counterexamples" is a fine way to demonstrate the weaknesses, inconsistencies, or future directions of inquiry regarding any scientific paradigm. However, it is a logical fallacy to say that "these are the problems with hypothesis A, therefore hypothesis B ''must'' be true". For a position to be effectively argued, one must present empirical evidence in support of an alternative hypothesis. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 00:56, 12 November 2011 (EST)

:::::A bigger logical fallacy occurs when someone insists or thinks that an alternative hypothesis B must exist before disproving a hypothesis A.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:14, 12 November 2011 (EST)

:::::::Good point. However, when a hypothesis is not supported the scientific process usually then entails asking the question of why it was not supported, and then forming a new hypothesis that once again fits all of the available data. This is why scientific understanding of even the most hard and fast paradigms can change so dramatically from one generation to the next (or, occasionally, from one experiment to the next). The most exciting science gets done when a well-reasoned hypothesis is rejected--simply because it opens the door to so many new possibilities.--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 13:01, 14 November 2011 (EST)

== A couple more problems ==

These went up after I posted the other section so I didn't know what to do. If you would prefer I post it there, then sorry. I'm new to wikis so I don't know proper etiquette and perhaps a missed something in the guidelines :)

Anyway, first thing, you state: "It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world."

...Honestly, I am speechless about this. Again, this was taken down but now someone put it back up... You guys honestly think this statement is true? There is no connection between the two--the only thing they have in common is the name "relativity." What, you think that people's morals depend on their frame of reference and change by the relativistic <math> \gamma (\equiv 1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2})</math> factor or something?! I am truly shocked by this...What connection is there? Where is the equation that predicts this?

Secondly: "Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light." Nope. Things can't travel at the speed of light, according to SR. Relativity explicitly states that things cannot go faster than light. If you drop this, then of course there are going to be going to be inconsistencies with SR...And that thread only talks about things going at the speed of light. What's the problem with solenoids travelling near c? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 16:52, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
:Can someone please tell me what the link between moral relativism and GR/SR is...? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:04, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::Because <s>God</s> <s>psychotic rambling homophobic momma's boy</s> Andy Schlafly said so. You have to turn off your <s>indoctrinated</s> educated mind... --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:36, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

== At first glance ==

There are so many problems with this page I don't know where to start. Whomever wrote it is obviously clueless about science and its

methods. A few of the problems include:

1. Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found.

The lack of experimental confirmation ''so far'' of gravity waves does NOT falsify the theory. Absence of evidence is not evidence of

absence.

3. Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of

Relativity.

Only in experiments that have yet to be confirmed.

7. The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds relativity

Untrue. The EFEs contain a term (the cosmological constant) that fully accounts for accelerated expansion.

10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass

What logical problem? I studied physics at the graduate level and have never heard of any logical problem. ?

13. The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement

AAAD is a matter of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In any case, it does NOT Falsify GRT as no information is propagated faster

than light.

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

See 13 (above). This statement also assumes that the action-at-a-distance by Jesus described in the Bible actually happened. It is not

"true and verifiable".

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

Gravitons are the quanta of gravity waves. See #1.

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

The ability to lead to other insights has never been a test of the validity of a scientific theory, and lack of consequent insight does not

falsify a theory.

26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the

theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.

Development of useful devices is a matter of engineering, and is not a test of a scientific theories validity.

27. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction.

This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.

The priniciple of isotropy does not falisfy Relativity. The theory itself accounts for, and predicts, the difference in observed inertia.

28. Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws

of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.

And Relativity also predicts that photons have non-zero momentum. Relativistic systems can have non-zero momentum even with no

rest mass, due to ''mass-energy equivalence''. Relativity correctly predicts the momentum of a massless particle as p = h*f/c = h/λ.

31. The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows

down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to

be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity

Incorrect, as this only takes Special Relativity into account. This is a common fallacy. It is the acceleration required to return the twin

that accounts for the difference in clocks and is explained/predicted by General Relativity. One must take both SRT and GRT into

account.

32. Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right,

theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.

Fields do not constitute an "aether". The EM field exists (and was explained/predicted by Maxwell long before Eistein).

34 (a). In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens.

How is such an account "true and verifiable"?

34(b). This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.

Something that is "likely" does not falsify a scientific theory.

35. Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the

properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.

This is not an argument against applied mathematics, not against Relativity per se.

37. Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding.

This does not falsify the theory.

~~csmcmillion

:'''Reply''': by starting with an ''ad hominem'' attack, you lost credibility from the get-go. A quick review of your points confirms it:

:1. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." It is when billions are spent on many years of looking. Surely you wouldn't think a lost item is in your backpack if you spent time looking for it there and could not find it.

:3. "Only in experiments that have yet to be confirmed." Experiments '''''are''''' confirmation in themselves.

:7. "the cosmological constant... fully accounts for accelerated expansion." Reliance on a cosmological constant has failed before.

:10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass. "What logical problem? I studied physics at the graduate level and have never heard of any logical problem?" Oh please. None of these counterexamples is candidly addressed in physics departments because these counterexamples cast doubt on a theory preferred for political reasons. Anyone in a physics department who expresses doubt about the theory of relativity would be thereby ending his own academic career.

:13. The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement. "AAAD is a matter of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In any case, it does NOT Falsify GRT as no information is propagated faster than light." Relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance (which cannot seriously be disputed in QM) whether a type of information is transmitted or not.

:14. The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51. "See 13 (above). This statement also assumes that the action-at-a-distance by Jesus described in the Bible actually happened. It is not 'true and verifiable.'" There are no [[Counterexamples to the Bible]], so this conflict is a serious one.

:15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching. "Gravitons are the quanta of gravity waves. See #1." And see my answer to #1.

:18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics. "The ability to lead to other insights has never been a test of the validity of a scientific theory, and lack of consequent insight does not falsify a theory." The failure of the theory to produce is strong evidence against its validity.

:26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. "Development of useful devices is a matter of engineering, and is not a test of a scientific theories validity." A theory that inhibits technological progress, rather than enhance it, is almost certainly wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I'll address your other responses as my time permits. For now:

"by starting with an ''ad hominem'' attack"

Stating the obvious is not an ad hominem attack. I didn't say the author was an "idiot". Anyone who honestly thinks that because "devices" have not been engineered based upon a scientific theory somehow ''falsifies'' that theory ''is'' truly clueless (maybe ignorant would have been a better word) of science and the scientific method. A correct scientific theory must explain previous observations and correctly predict those to come. No where is there a requirement that it lead to engineered "devices".

14. "The action-at-a-distance by Jesus"

I should have added: The AAAD by Jesus is (usually) considered a miracle - a suspension of natural law. So I'm not clear on how the suspension of natural law could be considered a counterexample to a natural law to begin with.

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

I should have asked a simple question on this one: Have you ever asked an astronomer, cosmologist or theoretical physicist if s/he has had insights from Relativity? Please - find ''one'' that hasn't had deep insight as a result.

"A theory that inhibits technological progress, rather than enhance it, is almost certainly wrong.--Andy Schlafly 00:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)"

So, adherence to a literal interpretation of the Bible, which hindered technical progress for more than a thousand years, indicates that the Bible is almost certainly wrong. Thank you '''so much''' for clearing that up. ~~csmcmillion

:Take a look at [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]. When you post more substantive comments, then I'll respond to them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:37, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I agree that "relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance", but not that AAAD "cannot seriously be disputed in QM". There is no QM experiment that show AAAD. There are interpretations of QM that seem to imply AAAD, and respected physicists who believe in those interpretations and hence in AAAD. But QM does not imply AAAD as there are also relativistic interpretations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:27, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:QM experiments have shown that a pair of spinning, entangled photons can be separated a great distance, and that the mere observation of the spin of one of those photons immediately removes the uncertainty about the spin of the other photon a far distance away. All attempts to deny that [[action-at-a-distance]] reality have failed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:42, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:: Yes, the photon experiment is correct. Some people do interpret the observation of one photon as affecting the other photon. But there is no proof of that. You could prove it if the observation transmitted information, but no one can do that. Other interpretations do not require AAAD. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:47, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Andy: Why did you delete RSchlafly's most recent comment? RSchlafly: I believe you are correct. A little research on my part shows numerous refutations to the assertions made on this page, going back a couple of years:

http://skullsinthestars.com/2010/08/09/right-wing-refutations-of-relativity-really-really-wrong/

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/6253

I'm beginning to see why people are telling me not to waste my time trying to contribute to this site.
:All you're doing is making your own "assertions without clarification". We've had these arguments before, and these arguments were created by people who refuse to listen to what we say or refuse to read any of the sources we provide. And it's tiresome. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:44, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:User:csmcmillion, it's not a discussion when someone won't use his own words to explain his views.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:49, 13 November 2011 (EST)

::And it's not a discussion when sysops repeatedly delete comments, as you just did. ~~csmcmillion
:::And what exactly did I delete? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:42, 13 November 2011 (EST)
Just wanted to add to this: When has <math>\Lambda</math> failed? It's a perfectly legitimate term in the EFE's, as csmcmillion has stated. The righthand side of it is (in <math>G=c=1</math> units) is <math>8 \pi T^{\alpha \beta }</math>. You need something on the left which is a measure of curvature, i.e., the Einstein tensor <math>G^{\alpha \beta}</math>. Why the Einstein tensor? Why not the Ricci tensor? Why not the scalar curvature times the metric? The reason is that the stress-energy tensor (T) has to have zero divergence: <math>\nabla_{\beta} T^{\alpha \beta} = 0 </math>. The Einstein tensor has zero divergence as well. But, we also have <math> \nabla_{\gamma} g^{\alpha \beta} = 0</math>. So we can safely add in <math>\Lambda g^{\alpha \beta}</math> to the left hand side of the EFE without violating local conservation of energy-momentum. Using this gives <math>G^{\alpha \beta}+\Lambda g^{\alpha \beta} = 8 \pi T^{\alpha \beta}. </math> [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:46, 15 November 2011 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The "The observed lack of curvature in overall space" is not an "unobserved" phenomenon. Accordingly, it has been reverted along with the others. Looking for something that should be there under a theory, but not finding it there as predicted, is a counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:50, 30 November 2011 (EST)

:[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], sorry, yes, I was being a bit overzealous on that one. However, I think the principle holds - many of the concepts listed are not counterexamples. Starting with number one: relativity predicts gravity waves and predicts that they will be extremely difficult to detect. Now I hear you say that's a pretty lousy kind of prediction - and you're right - but it still doesn't make it a counterexample. The same goes for the entry on gravitons (additionally, they're a prediction of quantum theory, not relativity, but that's for another phase of editing).
:It may be that further categorizing is necessary. For example, issues like the Twin Paradox and the Ehrenfest Paradox are not strictly unobserved phenomena either. Item 37, failure to solve the equations, is a problem for mathematics, not necessarily for relativity.
:Perhaps a simpler solution would be to rename the whole article, perhaps to 'Counterarguments to Relativity'. That way the article doesn't look silly by listing things that clearly aren't counterexamples, and also is open to inclusion of a broader range of criticisms of the theory. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:50, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:: I agree with QPR, as upon thinking about it, 'counterexamples' does not accurately describe the things on the list. And looking for something predicted and not finding it is only a counterexample/counterargument if it is predicted to be in a specific place, and when looking there, it isn't found. Hence, not finding gravity waves despite looking for them doesn't mean they don't exist. Many things were thought to be myths or non-existent until they were found, including giraffes. But I also disagree with QPR in that categorizing the list is unnecessary, and would result in needless discussions about where certain points belong, rather than more productive discussions. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:56, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::: I don't think that counterexamples is the best word either. My suggestion would be to leave the title as is, but to split the list into ''paradoxes'' and ''anomalies''. They maybe people would have a better idea what to expect from each item. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:43, 2 December 2011 (EST)

Response to the above: the list is of "counterexamples". These are examples that are counter to the theory. Other terms, like "paradox" or "anomaly", capture neither the concept of "example" nor of it being "counter" to the theory. The term "paradox" arises in philosophy, but this isn't philosophy. Relativity is a theory that pretends to be correct in every case, but it isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:24, 3 December 2011 (EST)

== Deleted example to releativity ==

Hello, I added a counter example to relativity that was removed, despite it being valid. My counter example was that the special theory of relativity predicts that mass is a form of energy and they are interchangeable. But if this were true the huge amount of energy stored in common matter would have been utilised by now in power stations and weaponry.

The problem is, it's been over 100 years since this theory was published and not one power station that utilises the interchange of mass and energy predicted by relativity has actually been built.

However, this counter example was removed because a member claimed that these do exist. Now this leaves us with a dichotomy. Do we...
A) Admit that these power stations exist (which they don't) and therefore acknowledge the special theory of relativity is accurate and true, or
B) We keep the counter example included that no power station that utilises special relativity exists, and therefore it is a sign that relativity is false.

I think we should vote for B on this issue. It would be like inventing the motor engine, but not building cars! --[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 12:36, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:Actually these power stations DO exist and have done for decades; they're called "nuclear reactors" and they generate heat by turning mass into energy. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 12:45, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::If these stations do exist, then how come Albert Einstein admitted of the inability to apply the predictions of his OWN theory? I quote "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable".

:Next you'll be telling me that we can do the physically impossible and generate electricity by fusing atoms to form heavier atoms too.

:Let's face it, special relativity has no practical application in providing energy. If it were, mass and energy would be seen interchanging all the time. F will ''always'' equal MA, it can neither increase or decrease by being converted into energy; observations of non-zero mass particles accelerated to exactly the speed of light prove this.

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-12-03T17:59:39Z

GMilhouse: /* Deleted example to releativity */

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

==Path Independence and Photons==
Wait, so time is some sort of vector field such that when you integrate it you get time? And that vector field is conservative? I've never heard of such a thing... 
As well, you state: "Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum." Yes, if you plug in the formula for non-relativistic, Newtonian momentum, you get zero, but SR gives you the equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2. Plug m=0 in. You get E=pc. So, the momentum is nonzero. That's a very well-known result... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 12:06, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:So should I take the "counter example" down...? Not to be rude but can someone at least respond to me? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:54, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
::Take it down, then if someone reverts (which is likely) it'll provoke a short discussion that probably won't reach a consensus. Regardless, you're unlikely to succeed in keeping it changed. I'm not trying to discourage, go ahead and try changing it, I'm just letting you know what to expect. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:33, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:::These are interesting points worthy of further discussion. As to the first point, however, merely asking two questions is not persuasive to me.

:::As to the second point, I find the argument somewhat circular. Is the energy equation cited verified by any experiment, or is it merely definitional? If merely definitional, then it does not provide a way for calculating actual momentum.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:54, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Well answer them. The point I'm making is that there is no vector field such that when integrates it, one gets time. I had never heard of it until then. I am asking you to enlighten me.
 
::::And as a matter of fact there is! The equation is E=hf where E is the energy of the photon, f is the frequency of the photon, and h is just a proportionality constant (known as Planck's constant). And it has been experimentally verified. It explains the spectrum from blackbody radiation and it explains the photoelectric effect. And if I recall correctly, your camera uses the photoelectric effect. These things are quite well known... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 14:55, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::Oh, and I forgot to mention--the Compton effect is explained by photons. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:00, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::::Please address my more substantive point: has your equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2 been experimentally verified, or is it simply definitional?

:::::::First of all, will you please answer my question...? What is the vector field such that when one integrates over it, one gets time? And oops. Misread your question. And no, it's not "definitional," it's from the relativistic expressions of energy and momentum... (And yes, those have been experimentally verified--if I recall correctly, using those equations, you can predict what can happen (i.e. speeds) when elementary particles are created. But I'm not particle physicist) Once you have those, just do a little algebra and you get that equation. And I hope you're not going to deny basic algebra....
 
:::::::Again, all this is well known.... Out of curiosity have you ever actually studied relativity or this photon stuff? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 13:39, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::OK, I've removed the counter-example of photons...I think I've provided a satisfactory explanation to Schlafly (and he's not responding for some reason...) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:50, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Schlafly, I saw you re-added the "counter-example." Will you please respond to me? Are you seriously just going to keep it there and refuse to discuss this at all? Wow and you claim that we're not open-minded.... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:45, 9 November 2011 (EST)

::::::::::Andy, there is no "counter-example of photons." Photons are not mentioned in the list. But are you referring to this counterexample:

:::::::::::28.Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.

::::::::::Let's be clear about what the dispute is first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 11 November 2011 (EST)

:::::::::::Yeah, that's the one. Sorry. Poorly-worded. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:29, 14 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::::::Will someone please tell me why (a) SR/GR promotes (moral) relativism, (b) photons aren't legit even though I've just pointed that your argument was wrong (maybe that's a bit generous. To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, I can't even say it's wrong...) and (c) what is the vector field such that when one integrates over it, one gets time? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 10:26, 27 November 2011 (EST)

==FTL Neutrinos at LHC ==

It may be jumping the gun to put the finding from Friday as evidence against GR. The results have yet to be duplicated - duplicability is needed for a claim to have scientific merit - and have yet to be carefully peer reviewed. The results are significant at the 95% CI but that means there's a 1 in 20 chance they're actually inaccurate. Given how many measurements are made at the LHC some are going to be both statistically significant and incorrect. It may be more prudent to wait to see if it's a one off or measurement error. I propose waiting at least until other particle acceleration labs can attempt to duplicate the results to make any judgement; after all, that's what CERN is doing
--[[User:BillyWest|BillyWest]] 00:18, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:I disagree. The opposition to the results from CERN -- which confirm prior results from another laboratory which were not as precise -- is unreasonable. It's not necessary to continue to pretend that Relativity is true when there is so much evidence against it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:35, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::CERN itself hasn't even confirmed the results. The data was published a lot quicker than data usually is because if it is accurate, then it changes the majority of physics laws discovered in the past century. The theory of relativity is not the only theory/law which involves the speed of light, electromagnetism does as well. Because of this, CERN wanted other scientists to try and find a flaw in the experiment quickly so that if there is a flaw, it is found quickly, and if there isn't, then scientists can begin determining what needs to change in order to accomodate this. Once the data has been properly analysed, without prematurely jumping to conclusions, then it would be fair to say that the neutrinos traveled faster than the speed of light. But something to keep in mind: this is not the first experiment done with neutrinos, all of the prior ones having travelled slower than the speed of light. If you do an experiment 500 times, and each results has a 1/1000 chance of being inaccurate, there is a 40% chance that at least one result will be inaccurate. If they find an error in the experiment (such as a piece of the measuring equipment being broken, or poor calibration of equipment, or leftover neutrinos from previous experiments, or any other impacting error), then wouldn't it make conservapedia look silly for jumping to a conclusion too quickly? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The CERN experiment is not the only one suggesting faster-than-c travel. Moreover, there is no basis for doubting the news that something travels faster than c. Most of the objections in the media are based in an irrational clinging to Relativity. Hence the counterexample is being restored ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Looks like they've found the problem already: there was a flaw with the experiment.http://www.dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php This article basically says that they used GPS to measure the locations and the times. However, because the satellite used moves at a different speed to the Earth, relativity needs to be taken into account. Usually, relativity has no significant effect until speeds get nearish the speed of light. However, the neutrinos travelled 60 nanoseconds faster than light. Because it's nanoseconds, the speed difference of the Earth and the satellite is enough that relativity affects the experiment at the nanosecond level. Scientists have done calculations to determine how this changes the results (as because of the flaw, the results they got weren't actually accurate), and found that the neutrinos actually travelled for 64 seconds longer than they previously thought, making their speed very slightly less than the speed of light. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 18:02, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

: No, this explanation has not been accepted. There have been many other papers with other explanations. The jury is still out. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:33, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Paul Johnson, the renowned historian, explains the link -- and the significance of the link -- between relativity and moral relativism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:57, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
:Do you have a link for that? It seems pretty flimsy to me. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:10, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::Ah right, I found some stuff! It appears that Johnson acknowledged that there was no ACTUAL link between the two, but pointed out how many liberals CLAIM a link. That seems pretty close to what the article is saying, so my edit probably wasn't the best idea I've ever had, and as a bonus I've learned something interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain rather than just blocking me :-S --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:17, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Have you read Tribe's article applying the curvature of space to support liberal views?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, I haven't. Is it easy to find? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: You can find it here [http://blog1.darkbuzz.com/tribe-1989.htm] or a pdf here [http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/~wat4y/103_Harv._L._Rev._1,_.PDF][http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~daw/D_Realism/Tribe.pdf]. On a college campus, you might be able to get it here.[http://www.jstor.org/pss/1341407] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Relativity and Electromagnetism ==
It is often claimed that Relativity is proven by its ability to explain aspects of electromagnetism. But those aspects do not relate to physical mass, gravity or various frames of reference throughout the universe -- the basic claims of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: Lorentz used electromagnetic relativity to predict relativistic mass in 1899, and it was experimentally confirmed a couple of years later. Poincare used E=mc2 for radiation in 1900. So I think that electromagnetic aspects of relativity do relate to physical mass. They also relate to various frames of reference, as electromagnetic experiments were done at different times of the year to test different frames of reference in the Earth's orbit. Gravity and electromagnetism are separate forces, and I guess it is fair to say that relativistic aspects had to be tested separately. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Most of the counterexamples to Relativity relate to gravity; some relate to the claim that all (non-accelerating) frames of reference are the same everywhere in the universe. The essence of Relativity is its claims about gravity and space. Electromagnetism experiments have nothing to do with this, and do not confirm any of these "grand unified" assertions of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:12, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: You have to distinguish between general relativity, which is about gravity, and special relativity, which isn't.
::: Anyway, Newtonian mechanics is not consistent with Maxwell's equations while relativity (both special and general) is. Do you deny Maxwell's equations, Aschlafly? If you accept Newtonian mechanics, you have to. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: Also, it should be noted that Einstein's famous 1905 paper (which was very important in the history of relativity) is entitled ''On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies''. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:30, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Again, a big part of the objection to Relativity is its "grand unified" approach. The insistence on that view is simply not scientific, and is contrary to the data.

::::: There are different forces in nature. There really are, and they really are different. That's what the data show.

::::: Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light. None of that exists in electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: ''Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light'' -> No. Light travels the speed of light in special relativity. Any massless particle does as well.
:::::: ''None of that exists in electromagnetism'' -> A charged particle with a velocity less than the speed of light definitely falls under the domain of electromagnetism.
:::::: Again, Maxwell's equations and Newtonian mechanics are inconsistent. You can't have both. The fact that other forces exist is irrelevant. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:56, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Special relativity makes no predictions, and only assumptions, about the speed of light. Instead, special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light.
::::::: When the claim is made that Relativity explains electromagnetism, the claim is not referring to charged particles traveling less then the speed of light.
::::::: Your statement that Maxwell's equations and Newtownian mechanics are somehow inconsistent needs explanation. They describe completely different forces.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Special relativity predicts the speed of light is the same regardless of orientation of the observer, which is consistent with the Michelson–Morley experiment. It also predicts that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer, which is consistent with the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment.
:::::::: You said velocities less than the speed of light not exist in electromagnetism. This was clearly false.
:::::::: I already mentioned that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under Galilean transformation, yet are under Lorentz transformations. This is very well known. If you want the exact details see [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.165.5841&rep=rep1&type=pdf On the Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=19TCz0cxAFMC&pg=PA484&lpg=PA484&dq=%22maxwell's+equations%22+invariant+under+%22lorentz+transformation%22&source=bl&ots=gudaGknbwi&sig=9idd1t_o89t5RUSLcemoMq7hNjc&hl=en&ei=eq9SToXdHuTH0QHig62-Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CHQQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=%22maxwell's%20equations%22%20invariant%20under%20%22lorentz%20transformation%22&f=false Understanding Physics, Invariance of electromagnetism under Lorentz transformation]. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: Special relativity says that the speed of light is constant. Maxwell's theory says that same thing, as does the Michelson-Morley experiment. It can be said to be an assumption or a prediction, depending on what textbook you are reading. At any rate, it is testable, and has been confirmed in many ways (for light in a vacuum). It was tested in outer space before testing on Earth. Relativity certainly also makes predictions about charged particles traveling less then the speed of light. The biggest prediction is the formula known as the Lorentz force law. This was an important part of relativity as decribed by Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein. The Lorentz force law used to be considered part of Maxwell's equations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:49, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: These are interesting mathematical observations, having aesthetic value. They can suggest the existence of an intelligent designer.

::::::::: But the physical significance of these mathematical observations is scant or non-existence. Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light, and claims made by special relativity with respect to such motion are not verified by electromagnetism. Claims made by general relativity are not verified at all by electromagnetism.

::::::::: I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics. I'm not saying that Newtonian mechanics must be correct, but some criticisms of it do not withstand scrutiny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Yes, electromagnetism does involve particles moving close enough to the speed of light for relativistic effects to be important. Examples include the electron gun in an ordinary CRT TV set, electric motors, speakers, and just about any electronic device. These are not new. The earliest non-optical tests of special relativity were the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments] They started in 1901 based on Lorentz's relativity, and pre-date Einstein. They show that mass increases with velocity so that nothing goes faster than light. In Newtonian mechanics, the speed of light is not an obstacle. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:13, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::: ''"Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light."'' -> [[Particle accelerator]] use electromagnetic fields to move particles close to the speed of light.
::::::::::: ''"I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics."'' -> The observed constancy of speed of the speed of light (an electromagnet wave) does. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:16, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I have an open mind about this, and would like to learn more. I wasn't familiar with the Kaufmann-Bucherer-Neumann experiments but didn't get much out of the Wikipedia description of them in the above link. Is there a clearer, more objective explanation that doesn't end with a sweeping, unsupported claim of proof of Relativity?

:::::::::::: The two most prominent claims of proof of Relativity -- the perihelion advance of Mercury and the binary pulsar -- are now counterexamples and the most precise data are not being made available to the public. So something isn't adding up in favor of Relativity.

:::::::::::: The lack of scientific basis for Relativity leaves it defenseless against another unscientific theory: string theory. Before long it may become important to list counterexamples to string theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Can I start [[counterexamples to string theory]] now? Its a good excuse for me to learn! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:57, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Please do! Also, Max, did you see the answer to your question about how Relativity is used by [[liberals]] to advance their belief system? I can repost the links if you didn't see them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Great, I'll look into String Theory (I don't know much about it) and get on to writing something. Having a project to work on is a great incentive to learn new topics. please do post those links, thanks!

::::::::::::::::I see the links are posted just above this subheading, under "You can find it here"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Ah yes, now I see. I'll read those tonight. Thanks! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:46, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: The Mercury and binary pulsar observations were used to support the gravity theory, and relativity remains the most accurate explanation. Andy, you asked about electromagnetism, not gravity. There is no way to understand electromagnetism without relativity, as far as I know. The Kaufmann experiments were supposed to disprove relativity. More precise experiments were consistent with relativity, as with all the other electromagnetic experiments. Just turn on an old-style TV set with a tube. How do you think that those pixels get lit up? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:16, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: There is some overlap between the invariant equations for electromagnetism and for relativity. The electromagnetism invariant equations came first, so I think the better description would be that one cannot understand relativity without understanding electromagnetism, not vice versa. But what that has to do with gravity is far from clear. In fact, it probably has nothing to do with gravity. Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism, because no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism.

::::::::::::: It's not relativity that lit up the pixels on an old TV screen. Quantum mechanics has more to do with that than relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:32, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ''Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism'' -> Untrue. Quantum electrodynsmics (QED) combines special relativity, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. A Nobel Prize for its discovery was awarded to Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga in 1965.

:::::::::::::: ''no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism'' -> Also untrue. QED predictions are accurate within 12 significant digits, making it the most accurate theory we have. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:17, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: By my count, Nobel prizes were given for relativistic electromagnetism were given in 1902, 1907, 1933, 1945, 1965, 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1999. Prizes for relativistic gravity were given in 1978, 1983, and 1993. The list is here.[http://www.almaz.com/nobel/physics/physics.html] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

@Andy Schlafly: Relativity predicts that no particle with mass can go the speed of light or faster. How do you explain that no particle accelerator has been able to get a massive particle at or above the speed of light? How do you explain the results that the inertial mass increases with velocity, as relativity predicts? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:00, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:PArticle accelerators don't. CERN (the biggest one) gets them exceedingly close, but not above. It's something like 99.999% of C. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:59, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: Relativity assumes that, rather than predicts it. I think relavitist purists would actually say all that is needed is a maximum velocity, whether that is "c" or something else. Many would not be genuinely surprised if velocities slightly faster than ''c'' are ultimately attained, and ''c'' itself may be changing over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:36, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

: Historically, the constant speed of light was an empirical observation, and not just an assumption. Maxwell's theory predicted that electromagnetic waves traveled at the speed of light, and that was observed. It was one of the big reasons for concluding that light was an electromagnetic wave. Experiments like Michelson-Morley (1887) found a constant speed of light. Also, there were astronomical reasons for believing in a constant speed of light. Distances were measured in light-minutes or light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant. Yes, Einstein declared the constant speed of light to be postulate in 1905, but by then it was a well-accepted empirical fact. Going faster than ''c'' or finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics that it would be like finding a perpetual motion machine. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:27, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Empirical data suggest that the speed of light has changed over time, and as recently as 1/6th of the universe's lifetime. [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html]

:: You comments, like "distances were measured in ... light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant," is a political statement, not a scientific one. Likewise for stating that "finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics ...." Is this what university science has become - ignoring the data to preserve the reputation of some current and past professors?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The article you linked to claims that "The speed of light...may have been lower as recently as two billion years ago." How do you reconcile that time frame with a Young Earth Creationist model where the universe is only 6000 years old? You cant reject that study on the one hand because it directly contradicts the Bible but embrace it on the other when it supports the idea of a shifting c. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 18:45, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: The linked article says there may have been a change in the fine structure constant, α, not necessarily the speed of light, c. Also, it hardly seems like a variable α is currently well-established. It's just the result from one set of data. But even accepting that there has been a change in α and that this means a change in c, the amount seems minuscule. The article says that α "had increased by a few parts in 105 in the past 12 billion years", which would correspond to a similar change in c. Therefore, even if c is not exactly constant it would be very nearly constant and relativity would still be a great approximation. That's ignoring that there may be a mundane explanation for this apparent change.
:::: Also, as BrentH mentions above, if you accept these results you have to accept that the universe is billions of years old. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: I was explaining historically why the speed of light was thought to be constant. It was not just some unproved Einstein relativity assumption. There was solid experimental and theoretical evidence before Einstein. There is no evidence for a variable speed of light. That 2004 paper claiming alpha changed has been superseded with a more accurate study in 2007, with no variation. [http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/the-oklo-reactor-and-varying-physical-constants/][http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0701019] Even if alpha changed, it would not necessarily mean that ''c'' changed. I am not sure why any of this is political. We can measure the speed of light to about 10 decimal places. If the speed were not constant, then an experiment would be likely to detect it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I wish you, Andy and I could have a drunken dinner together some time. That would be an epic debate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:17, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, what do you make of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation syncrotron radiation]? Here you have effects which can't be explained without relativity and which are used in many fields of research, e.g. in medicine... 08:28, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Wikipedia]] has many dubious claims that relativity explains something ... as one might expect from a [[liberal]] website. This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L] It appears that this may be unresolved and I welcome more discussion about it. I don't see evidence that relativity played a role in discovering it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Nearly everything about charged particles requires relativity and quantum mechanics. There is no alternative way to understand charged particles, as far as I know. I do not even know what it would mean to reject relativity for this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:12, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Relativity is an unproductive belief system, disproved by more precise measurements in the tests that supposedly verified it. String theory is taking over university physics programs because Relativity is so obviously flawed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 27 August

-
::::::: [[String theory]] assumes that relativity is 100% correct. Physicists pursue string theory because they are sold on Einstein's dream of using relativistic ideas to unify physics, without having to pay attention to experiments. They are ''not'' pursuing string theory because they are persuaded by your list of relativity counterexamples. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:47, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
:::::::: String theory's motivation is to provide a way to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity, so it assumes general relativity is a good description of nature. In fact, string theory becomes general relativity in the low energy limit. In addition, string theories are Lorentz invariant. Whatever the merits of string theory, relativity is incorporated fundamentally to it, so if anything this example speaks to the strength of relativity. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:11, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
::::::::: Andy Schlafly: ''"This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L]"''-> It also says (right in the abstract) that relativity ''must'' be taken into account:

-
::::::::::"However, '''when ɣB ≅ 1014 Gauss, where ɣ is the electron Lorentz factor, Compton scattering becomes important'''. The result is a reduction in the synchrotron loss rate which '''agrees closely with quantum electrodynamics'''." [Emphasis added]

-
::::::::: Both Compton scattering and quantum electrodynamics make use of special relativity. If you take a look at the equations in the paper you can see that special relativity is used explicitly. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:32, 27 August 2011 (EDT)2011 (EDT)

This discussion is interesting, and I'm learning from it. I have an open mind about this. But it seems to me that term "relativity" is being used in comments above to mean anything from "invariance" (which, of course, predates relativity), electromagnetism (which, of course, predates relativity), and even quantum mechanics (which many say conflicts with relativity). The only thing that "relativity" does not seem to mean in many of the above comments is its description of gravity -- which is what is unique to relativity and what most associate it with.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: The word "relativity" was coined by Maxwell, and it became popular from Poincare calling the "principle of relativity" the idea that different inertial frames are indistinguishable. When I said that string theory assumes relativity, I meant primarily that it assumes Lorentz/Poincare invariance. The influence of relativity on physics has been primarily in electromagnetism, not gravity. The nonlinear gravity effects are barely detectable. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:45, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:: * Again, general relativity is about gravity. Special relativity is not.
:: * No one is saying "quantum mechanics" means "relativity". However, the article you linked to referenced quantum electrodynamics (a subset of quantum mechanics) which does incorporate special relativity. Moreover, while general relativity and quantum mechanics are difficult to reconcile, special relativity and quantum mechanics aren't and doing so has produced [[Quantum electrodynamics|the most accurate theory in physics]].
:: * No one is saying "invariance" means "relativity". For example, Galilean invariance contradicts relativity. However, a special type of invariance, Lorentz invariance, is fundamental to both special and general relativity (it holds locally in general relativity). String theory is Lorentz invariant.
:: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:38, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Actually, there were some people around 1910 who wanted to rename relativity theory as invariant theory. Einstein is sometimes said to have agreed with that opinion, but I am not sure he really said that. There is some disagreement about whether relativity is compatible with quantum mechanics. The two main problem areas are collapse of the wave function during an observation, and gravitational nonlinearities at the center of a black hole. But these are a little off the subject. The theories are completely compatible for nearly all considerations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it. Most of the counterexamples here relate to the claims about gravity and the curvature of space that are made by general relativity. Special relativity, according to the theory, is a "special case" of the general theory. If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me.

:::: The mathematical theory of general or special relativity permits no exceptions. So even a slight variation (outside of measurement error) between observation and prediction means the theory is wrong. It means the worldview embodied in relativity is wrong. And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::: ''"Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it."''
::::: We encountered phenomena that none of these people had before. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the Michelson–Morley experiment, gravitational lensing, etc. Changing your worldview in light of new evidence is quite a sensible thing to do.
::::: ''"If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me."''
::::: It's not so much that, but that one must be careful to separate the two.
::::: ''"And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed."''
::::: They haven't been ignored. The data has been analyzed and it agrees with relativity. Just here we've given you the examples of the Michelson–Morley experiment, the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments, Kennedy–Thorndike experiment, synchrotron radiation, etc. We've also answered here your alleged counterexamples to relativity and the problems with them. If you have any more I'd be happy to address them.
::::: I'm not sure what data you're talking about that hasn't being publicly disclosed. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Special relativity is not so much a special case, but rather the linearized version of the general theory. The special theory has been tested in many more different ways, and it could be true without the general theory being true. I really don't think that relativity requires any different view from Maxwell's. Relativity is consistent with what Maxwell said. I really don't see why you would say that relativity does not permit any exceptions any more than Maxwells theory does not permit any exceptions. What's the difference? Theories have formulas. If observations don't agree with the formulas, then something is wrong. Why is relativity any different from any other theory in the hard sciences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:41, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Relativity should not be treated any differently compared with any other theory in the hard sciences. But Relativity obviously is:

::::::*physics journals will not accept for publication anything that conflicts with the theory of relativity
::::::*the Nobel Prize will not be given to anyone who has criticized the theory of relativity
::::::*no science graduate student or science professor dare even criticize the above two forms of censorship.

::::::As to the data, the two leading supposed verifications of the theory are the binary pulsar (for which a Nobel Prize was given) and the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it. Yet additional data have not been made fully available to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::: I have to say I had no idea of this bias until reading Conservapedia. It sounds shocking. Can you tell me which physicists have been denied awards, or refused publication on this basis? It would be really useful in arguments I'm having off-site. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:54, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: ''"But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it."''
:::::::: Can you please provide a source for this claim? What data are you talking about? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: A "source"? No source is needed, or possible given the censorship by physics journals I just described.

::::::::: Wouldn't you be at least interested yourself in looking up what the precession for the Mercury perihelion is, and comparing it to what Relativity predicts? I think that would be the first step before one made up his mind, not something that must be raised by someone else.

::::::::: The Mercury perihelion precession is 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, plus/minus 0.1. General Relativity predicts 5599.98, plus/minus 0.04. The observed precession is clearly outside of prediction by more than the standard of error. But beginning in the early 1990s, probably because of this emerging divergence, physicists stopped publishing the data perhaps to avoid pinpointing the contradiction with even greater accuracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: So by your own admission general relativity is within 0.005% of the correct value?
:::::::::: Anyway, where are you getting your information for the precession rate? From what I gather the error is larger than 0.1 arc-seconds per century.
::::::::::Some values for the anomalous precession rate (i.e, deviation from what you expect from Newtonain gravity):
:::::::::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
:::::::::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
:::::::::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
:::::::::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
:::::::::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]
:::::::::: General relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04, while Newtonian gravity predicts 0. Clearly general relativity is superior here. It's within experimental error in three out of the four experiments above, and just barely out of it with the fourth. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:22, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: The theory of relativity is proven wrong by the data, '''''beyond measurement error'''''. If you're not going to address that directly, then I'm unlikely to respond further to your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I really don't know what to say. I just showed that for four experiments of the precession of Mercury's perihelion relativity was within experimental uncertainty in three of them and just barely out of it for one. This is better that Newtonian theory which was zero for four. Measuring outside experimental uncertainty ''once'' doesn't automatically make a theory wrong. They are many differences between a simple, clean model and a complex, messy reality that can account for this. Even just by statistics alone you'd expect a correct theory to be outside measurement error once in a while. It still stands that relativity is more accurate than any other theory.
:::::::::::: If you have any citations of experiments that show relativity's predictions fall outside experimental uncertainty I'll be happy to address them. However, just declaring that it's outside experimental uncertainty, but you don't have the data because a relativity cabal is keeping it secret is doesn't merit a response. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:54, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: The most recent -- and most precise -- Mercury perihelion precession data '''''demonstrate that the [[theory of relativity]] is wrong by more than the measurement error'''''. Case closed based on the data.

::::::::::::: [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site. If someone has more precise Mercury perihelion precession data than what has disproved the theory of relativity, then a discussion of that data is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Sigh... I just explained in detail why it wasn't "case closed". Being outside experimental error doesn't automatically make a theory wrong, especially when it isn't that far off. It could mean the theory is wrong or it could mean the theory is right, but by chance measured outside experimental uncertainty. By statistics we expect that to happen every now and then. '''''You can't just cherry pick the one experiment that fits your preconceptions and declare it case closed. You have to take all the other experimental data into account.''''' When you do that here (that is, you also look at the other three experiments) the results look in favor for relativity.

:::::::::::::: You can have the last word if you want. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:31, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: It is not true that the data demonstrate that the theory of relativity is wrong by more than the measurement error. What you have is a difference of opinion, and one scientist claiming that the combination of relativity and other assumptions and observations results in a discrepancy that exceeds the ''estimated'' measurement error. The problem could be with those other assumptions and observations, or with the estimate of the measurement error. As with the Pioneer anomaly, there are explanations that do not violate relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: Any and all attempts to reconcile the observed data with the theory of relativity are welcome. Instead, I not aware of the publication of observed data for this fundamental claim of the theory since 1992 (see above), despite improvements in technology and precision since then. Anyone think that it became impossible to observe the data after that time??? Notice what the data were showing leading up that point: increasing divergence (and contradiction) with the well-settled prediction made by the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:37, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Here is the [http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf Mercury Radar Ranging Data from 1987 to 1997]. The work was carried out by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under NASA. You are absolutely free to analyze the data in depth to see if the relativists are hiding anything. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:32, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Somehow I doubt the data above (going five years after the supposed suppression of data began) is going appease you. Well, you can go send NASA a letter and ask them for the most recent data about Mercury's orbit. They might give it to you if you ask nicely and they almost certainly have it, since [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/index.html they currently have a space probe orbiting Mercury] (I guess they didn't get the memo from the relativists telling everyone to ignore Mercury because it contradicted relativity). Anyway, once you get the data you'll have definitive proof that liberals have been suppressing important information about Mercury's orbit (or something). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:18, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: Looking back, I made a mistake. I said general relativity's prediction was outside the measurement uncertainty for the fourth experiment (Anderson et al., 1992). I misread it. GR prediciton: 42.98 ±0.04, Observation: 43.13 ± 0.14. They actually do overlap. So general relativity is four for four. My bad. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:41, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::: I took a look at the JPL link above but did not find any reference to the perihelion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::::: I'm pretty sure there's no reference to the perihelion because it's the raw data, without analysis. If the data was mapped to show Mercury's location, it would (presumably) show a perihelion. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

=== More counterexamples ===
I found another page with a long list of supposed counterexamples. It looks like nonsense to me, but you can check it out for yourself. He says, "Fossil records indicate the Earth’s gravity was far less during the time of the dinosaurs." He does have references of many of his alleged anomalies. [http://knol.google.com/k/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence-presented] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

=== Denial of [[Nobel Prize]] to anyone who criticizes relativity ===

:::::::: [[Robert Dicke]], the finest American physicist of the 20th century, criticized the theory of relativity and was then never given a Nobel Prize. In fact, in a pattern also used to punish [[Fred Hoyle]] for his criticism of the theory of evolution, a Nobel Prize was given for Dicke's insight to other scientists less deserving of the award than Dicke, within years of Dicke's criticism of the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: According to the [http://www.nap.edu/readingroom.php?book=biomems&page=rdicke.html National Academies Press] Dicke was given:
::::::::: ''"the National Medal of Science (1971), the Comstock Prize of the National Academy of Sciences (1973), and the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (1973). He was a member of the National Science Board from 1970 to 1976. Bob was appointed to the Princeton University Department of Physics in 1946, served as chair from 1967 to 1970, moved to emeritus in 1984''.
::::::::: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:11, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Right ... and no [[Nobel Prize]], despite being the finest American physicist of the 20th century. Note also that it was his criticism of relativity in the mid-1970s -- after the awards you cite -- that caused him to be punished by the Nobel Prize committee. No one in grad school or on university faculties dare criticize Relativity again, no matter what the data say. No relativist will even criticize the policy of excluding anyone who criticizes the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: I am sure the Nobel committee has its prejudices. Hoyle once wrote a letter to the London Times criticizing a Nobel physics prize. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/03/fred-hoyle-nobel-prize/print] So maybe they did not like him for that. By the time they gave the big bang prize in 1978, Gamow and others were dead. I would have rather given the prize to the theorists, but those are the biases of the folks in Sweden. I am not sure it has anything to do with the acceptability of relativity. There is a lot of excellent theoretical work that never got a prize, such as the work of Poincare and Minkowski on relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:56, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: You link to an interesting, in-depth article that gives other possible examples of Nobel Prize bias. But the article misses the timing on the insult to Fred Hoyle -- fall 1983 -- which was around the time that he was challenging a tenet of evolution (I'd like to obtain further details on the timing - his partner in the research apparently raised the criticism as early as 1980). Such a coincidence in timing for a prize that was given for 1957 work can hardly be ignored. Note that the article also says Fowler was "stunned" by the award's passing over Hoyle.

:::::::::::: The article also omits the insults to Teller and Wheeler, to Robert Dicke, and to Raymond Damadian (see explanation in [[Nobel Prize]]).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: I am not sure I understand your bias theory, but even supposing that some Swedes have some prejudices, how does this relate to the merits of relativity? You criticize the 1978 prize. But that was for discovery of the cosmic microwave radiation that was predicted by relativity theorists and confirmed by a couple of telephone company engineers who were just trying to measure their satellite reception interference. They did not even believe in the relativity explanation. So why did the Swedes give the prize to the Bell engineers instead of the relativists? Maybe you should start a page on Counterexamples to Swedish Wisdom. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:00, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: "Swedes" are not picking the Nobel Prize-winners. They just act on the recommendations of [[liberal]] professors who don't like criticism of the theories of evolution, relativity, or [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Really, the bias is not that complicated. It's no different from the bias in [[Academy Award]]s, [[Pulitzer Prize]]s, [[Rhodes Scholar]]s, or any other award system that is heavily influenced by leftists.

:::::::::::::: Once [[Fred Hoyle]] and [[Robert Dicke]] criticized liberal theories, they had to be punished. The greatest punishment is to award the Nobel Prize for their work '''''to someone less deserving'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:08, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

== Standard kilogrammes? ==
I'm not sure how good an argument this is. ONE out of a batch of 40 identical standard kilogrammes has diverged in weight from the others. Common sense says that there's something wrong with that one weight, which is after all stored in France. It's not likely that the answer has anything to do with relativity, which if correct would have caused an identical change in mass in all 40. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:06, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: I have a drawer full of socks. I cannot find a match for one of them. Can I blame relativity? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::Is it a French sock? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 08:14, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Maybe so. Or from some other country where "kilogram" is spelled "kilogramme". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::That would be everywhere except the USA. I'm English. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:I believe that it has something to do with the metals used are slightly radioactive and are emitting either alpha or beta particles causing a very slight decrease in weight. The answer doesn't have anything to do with relativity and is a well know issue. Scientists are currently trying to come up with a better way of standardizing mass. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:56, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::There's a difference between relativity and quantum mechanics (which explains the above observation). If you only took high school physics--you have about two hundred years of catching up to do on the field. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

==Ummmm...==

Physics has come a long way since Albert Einstein published his theories of relativity. Actually, there are quite a few hypothetical paradigms within modern physics that would allow a particle of sufficiently high energy to apparently travel faster than light. I'm not a physicist (as I've said on other pages, I'm a biologist), but I am peripherally familiar with a few of the better-supported ideas. I suggest you read up on M theory and string theory. At the risk of butchering the explanation (I am NOT a physicist), I will say that within the paradigm of M theory and string theory, observing high-energy particles moving slightly faster than light is not all that surprising. That said, the authors of the paper describing the "faster than light" neutrinos, admit up front that the numbers they got was probably the result of some sort of experimental error--the results need to be repeatable in order to be scientific. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

: Science can advance with one observation, and it's not necessary to wait until it is repeated before discussing and learning from it. How quickly (if ever) was the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] repeated?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:: The Michelson-Morley experiment was first done in 1887. It was repeated by them and by others many times in the next few years. Illingworth and Kennedy came up with a variant that was more sensitive and could test for certain exotic explanations. They did that very soon after the initial experiment. Dayton Miller also did such experiments and continued to do them even after Einstein's work was completed. Miller acknowledged the results of the experiments but remained a committed opponent to special relativity. One of Miller's experiments did actually turn up some interesting results but his later experiments and other work failed to replicate it and it seems to have been a statistical anomaly. Others continued to duplicate versions of the MM experiment because the data from it can be used to test aspects of special relativity and other ideas. So duplicated forms have continued right up to the present day although generally using carefully tuned lasers as the light sources which give much more precision. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Some experiments done following the MM experiment (not all listed, only some early ones and some recent ones): Morley-Miller 1902-1904 (published 1904), Miller 1921, Miller 1923-1924, Antonini et al 2005, Stanwix et al 2006, Eisele et al 2009, Herrmann et al 2009. Plus others between them, just listing some early ones and some recent ones. And it is usually necessary to wait until an experiment is repeated before accepting it to be accurate. A single observation, that can't be repeated, usually has an explanation within the current understanding of physics. For example, a network of ravines and gullies was observed in the 1870s on the surface of Mars, and there was wide speculation about their origin. An explanation suggested in the early 1900s wasn't proved until the 1960s, that the ravines and gullies were in actuality an optical illusion caused by streaks of dust blowing across the surface in the strong winds. Another example of a 'discovery' that later turned out to be false was the existence of Vulcan, a planet between Mercury and the Sun. A single observation, unconfirmed by repetition, does not indicate a discovery. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:22, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::: Yes, the M-M experiment was repeated many times. It had to be done at different times of the year, at different altitudes, with different materials, etc. Eg, maybe the length contraction might have been different for wood and brass.
::: There are physicists who have suggested faster than light particles, but string theory and M theory are Lorentz invariant and useless on the issue. The string theorists would definitely be surprised by anything faster than light. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:24, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::: Claimed results from a single experiment have been proven wrong before (e.g, the claims of producing [[cold fusion]] in 1989). It makes sense to see if an experiment is replicated before throwing out an extremely well tested theory. It's very suspicious that we haven't seen neutrinos going faster than the speed of light before this. Experimenters are only human beings and could easily have made a mistake or forget to include something in their calculations. The claimed velocity is only a tiny fraction lager than c and might easily be explained by not taking into account some systematic error.
:::: If Mr. Schlafly's other 36 "counterexamples" are so strong then I don't see why he so badly needs the example of an unreplicated experiment whose data is still in the process of being analyzed. (When Einstein was asked about the book '100 Authors Against Einstein' he responded: "If I were wrong, it would only have taken one".) --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 11:27, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::::: If the experiment is disproved by subsequent experiments, then that particular counterexample can be removed. But the insistence on clinging to the [[theory of relativity]] when the available evidence is to the contrary is unjustified. Einstein's quote is inapplicable to this issue: the context of Einstein's quote refers to a government attempt to discredit his theory. His quote does apply to government efforts to deny scientific evidence today, such as the attempt by the [[NCI]] to deny the [[abortion]]-[[breast cancer]] link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Gee, the experiment counts as a counterexample even before the facts are in. What a surprise....
:::::: I'm not sure if the German government was behind '100 Authors Against Einstein', but even if it were it's completely irrelevant. The folly wasn't that it was done by the government; it was that if relativity was wrong one good argument would suffice. The inclusion of this unconfirmed experimental result just shows how this list of "counterexamples" values quantity over quality. Rather than making a few strong arguments it's a list of 37 random tidbits. '''You're expecting to overturn one of science's best theories with something that can fit inside a Twitter post?''' The reasoning for many points' inclusion are not well explained and counterarguments are not addressed (e.g, Hawking radiation is called a "[c]ontrived explanation" with no justification whatsoever). I suspect the "conciseness" of the points is just a reflection of its author's short attention span. I'll report to the Worldwide Relativity Cabal that we have nothing to fear from... oops. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:46, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Thank you MatthewQ! Oh, and Mr. Schlafly, the evidence does not support a link between abortion and breast cancer. You may find good sources on the topic [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1733063/?tool=pmcentrez here], [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)15835-2/fulltext here], and [http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814 here]. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 08:11, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::: As for redoing the M-M experiment, the [[LIGO]] experiment can be seen as a $400M modern M-M experiment. While the M-M failed to detect the motion of the Earth, LIGO has failed to detect motion in other galaxies. You may be interested in this new paper reporting on an NSF grant to teach high school students about LIGO detecting gravity waves. This is just to be ready in case LIGO ever succeeds in detecting anything, I guess. [http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.3720] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 06:08, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

== A few sections that should be removed... ==

12: For this point to be right, things need to have started VERY VERY small, which is impossible if Creationism is right. This creates an inconsistency within Conservapedia and should be removed.
26: The first part is wrong due to GPSs. In order to be more accurate, they take into account relativity, and hence relativity has produced something useful. The rest of it is repeated in 18. Hence, as everything in 26 is either wrong or repeated, it should be removed.
28: Relativity does not require everything with 0 mass to have 0 momentum. It actually takes into account that light, despite having 0 mass, has momentum.
29: This is actually wrong. The age of each twin is independent of the path travel, it is dependent only on the acceleration they experience. Therefore, this point is wrong.
Any comments or disagreements? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 22:02, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:On point 12, physicists themselves admit that relativity contradicts quantum mechanics shortly after the Big Bang. So even relativists would (or should) concede the validity of this counterexample.

:On point 26, GPS's were not developed as a result of relativity. This has been discussed at length on this site in the past. No relativists were involved in the engineering of GPS's; any differences in timing on the satellites relative to ground are more easily corrected by synchronization rather than theoretical predictions.

:Will review the other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:45, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

::I fully agree with all this. Some of the stuff in this page literally left my head hurting pretty badly from facepalming so hard.

::And, Schlafly, how does this make relativity wrong? Newtonian physics is wrong at quantum levels too. Should we add a "Counterexamples to Newtonian Mechanics" page and put something like that in there too? Of course not--it's an excellent approximation for things on the everyday scale. Same thing with GR.

::No, they were not developed because of relativity, but they were developed taking relativity into account. The people who built it didn't know the specifics, but they knew the corrections from relativity were there and they took them into account. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:53, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

::::I concur. Rather, arguing "counterexamples" is a fine way to demonstrate the weaknesses, inconsistencies, or future directions of inquiry regarding any scientific paradigm. However, it is a logical fallacy to say that "these are the problems with hypothesis A, therefore hypothesis B ''must'' be true". For a position to be effectively argued, one must present empirical evidence in support of an alternative hypothesis. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 00:56, 12 November 2011 (EST)

:::::A bigger logical fallacy occurs when someone insists or thinks that an alternative hypothesis B must exist before disproving a hypothesis A.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:14, 12 November 2011 (EST)

:::::::Good point. However, when a hypothesis is not supported the scientific process usually then entails asking the question of why it was not supported, and then forming a new hypothesis that once again fits all of the available data. This is why scientific understanding of even the most hard and fast paradigms can change so dramatically from one generation to the next (or, occasionally, from one experiment to the next). The most exciting science gets done when a well-reasoned hypothesis is rejected--simply because it opens the door to so many new possibilities.--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 13:01, 14 November 2011 (EST)

== A couple more problems ==

These went up after I posted the other section so I didn't know what to do. If you would prefer I post it there, then sorry. I'm new to wikis so I don't know proper etiquette and perhaps a missed something in the guidelines :)

Anyway, first thing, you state: "It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world."

...Honestly, I am speechless about this. Again, this was taken down but now someone put it back up... You guys honestly think this statement is true? There is no connection between the two--the only thing they have in common is the name "relativity." What, you think that people's morals depend on their frame of reference and change by the relativistic <math> \gamma (\equiv 1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2})</math> factor or something?! I am truly shocked by this...What connection is there? Where is the equation that predicts this?

Secondly: "Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light." Nope. Things can't travel at the speed of light, according to SR. Relativity explicitly states that things cannot go faster than light. If you drop this, then of course there are going to be going to be inconsistencies with SR...And that thread only talks about things going at the speed of light. What's the problem with solenoids travelling near c? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 16:52, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
:Can someone please tell me what the link between moral relativism and GR/SR is...? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:04, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::Because <s>God</s> <s>psychotic rambling homophobic momma's boy</s> Andy Schlafly said so. You have to turn off your <s>indoctrinated</s> educated mind... --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:36, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

== At first glance ==

There are so many problems with this page I don't know where to start. Whomever wrote it is obviously clueless about science and its

methods. A few of the problems include:

1. Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found.

The lack of experimental confirmation ''so far'' of gravity waves does NOT falsify the theory. Absence of evidence is not evidence of

absence.

3. Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of

Relativity.

Only in experiments that have yet to be confirmed.

7. The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds relativity

Untrue. The EFEs contain a term (the cosmological constant) that fully accounts for accelerated expansion.

10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass

What logical problem? I studied physics at the graduate level and have never heard of any logical problem. ?

13. The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement

AAAD is a matter of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In any case, it does NOT Falsify GRT as no information is propagated faster

than light.

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

See 13 (above). This statement also assumes that the action-at-a-distance by Jesus described in the Bible actually happened. It is not

"true and verifiable".

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

Gravitons are the quanta of gravity waves. See #1.

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

The ability to lead to other insights has never been a test of the validity of a scientific theory, and lack of consequent insight does not

falsify a theory.

26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the

theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.

Development of useful devices is a matter of engineering, and is not a test of a scientific theories validity.

27. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction.

This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.

The priniciple of isotropy does not falisfy Relativity. The theory itself accounts for, and predicts, the difference in observed inertia.

28. Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws

of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.

And Relativity also predicts that photons have non-zero momentum. Relativistic systems can have non-zero momentum even with no

rest mass, due to ''mass-energy equivalence''. Relativity correctly predicts the momentum of a massless particle as p = h*f/c = h/λ.

31. The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows

down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to

be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity

Incorrect, as this only takes Special Relativity into account. This is a common fallacy. It is the acceleration required to return the twin

that accounts for the difference in clocks and is explained/predicted by General Relativity. One must take both SRT and GRT into

account.

32. Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right,

theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.

Fields do not constitute an "aether". The EM field exists (and was explained/predicted by Maxwell long before Eistein).

34 (a). In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens.

How is such an account "true and verifiable"?

34(b). This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.

Something that is "likely" does not falsify a scientific theory.

35. Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the

properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.

This is not an argument against applied mathematics, not against Relativity per se.

37. Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding.

This does not falsify the theory.

~~csmcmillion

:'''Reply''': by starting with an ''ad hominem'' attack, you lost credibility from the get-go. A quick review of your points confirms it:

:1. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." It is when billions are spent on many years of looking. Surely you wouldn't think a lost item is in your backpack if you spent time looking for it there and could not find it.

:3. "Only in experiments that have yet to be confirmed." Experiments '''''are''''' confirmation in themselves.

:7. "the cosmological constant... fully accounts for accelerated expansion." Reliance on a cosmological constant has failed before.

:10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass. "What logical problem? I studied physics at the graduate level and have never heard of any logical problem?" Oh please. None of these counterexamples is candidly addressed in physics departments because these counterexamples cast doubt on a theory preferred for political reasons. Anyone in a physics department who expresses doubt about the theory of relativity would be thereby ending his own academic career.

:13. The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement. "AAAD is a matter of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In any case, it does NOT Falsify GRT as no information is propagated faster than light." Relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance (which cannot seriously be disputed in QM) whether a type of information is transmitted or not.

:14. The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51. "See 13 (above). This statement also assumes that the action-at-a-distance by Jesus described in the Bible actually happened. It is not 'true and verifiable.'" There are no [[Counterexamples to the Bible]], so this conflict is a serious one.

:15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching. "Gravitons are the quanta of gravity waves. See #1." And see my answer to #1.

:18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics. "The ability to lead to other insights has never been a test of the validity of a scientific theory, and lack of consequent insight does not falsify a theory." The failure of the theory to produce is strong evidence against its validity.

:26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. "Development of useful devices is a matter of engineering, and is not a test of a scientific theories validity." A theory that inhibits technological progress, rather than enhance it, is almost certainly wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I'll address your other responses as my time permits. For now:

"by starting with an ''ad hominem'' attack"

Stating the obvious is not an ad hominem attack. I didn't say the author was an "idiot". Anyone who honestly thinks that because "devices" have not been engineered based upon a scientific theory somehow ''falsifies'' that theory ''is'' truly clueless (maybe ignorant would have been a better word) of science and the scientific method. A correct scientific theory must explain previous observations and correctly predict those to come. No where is there a requirement that it lead to engineered "devices".

14. "The action-at-a-distance by Jesus"

I should have added: The AAAD by Jesus is (usually) considered a miracle - a suspension of natural law. So I'm not clear on how the suspension of natural law could be considered a counterexample to a natural law to begin with.

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

I should have asked a simple question on this one: Have you ever asked an astronomer, cosmologist or theoretical physicist if s/he has had insights from Relativity? Please - find ''one'' that hasn't had deep insight as a result.

"A theory that inhibits technological progress, rather than enhance it, is almost certainly wrong.--Andy Schlafly 00:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)"

So, adherence to a literal interpretation of the Bible, which hindered technical progress for more than a thousand years, indicates that the Bible is almost certainly wrong. Thank you '''so much''' for clearing that up. ~~csmcmillion

:Take a look at [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]. When you post more substantive comments, then I'll respond to them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:37, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I agree that "relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance", but not that AAAD "cannot seriously be disputed in QM". There is no QM experiment that show AAAD. There are interpretations of QM that seem to imply AAAD, and respected physicists who believe in those interpretations and hence in AAAD. But QM does not imply AAAD as there are also relativistic interpretations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:27, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:QM experiments have shown that a pair of spinning, entangled photons can be separated a great distance, and that the mere observation of the spin of one of those photons immediately removes the uncertainty about the spin of the other photon a far distance away. All attempts to deny that [[action-at-a-distance]] reality have failed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:42, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:: Yes, the photon experiment is correct. Some people do interpret the observation of one photon as affecting the other photon. But there is no proof of that. You could prove it if the observation transmitted information, but no one can do that. Other interpretations do not require AAAD. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:47, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Andy: Why did you delete RSchlafly's most recent comment? RSchlafly: I believe you are correct. A little research on my part shows numerous refutations to the assertions made on this page, going back a couple of years:

http://skullsinthestars.com/2010/08/09/right-wing-refutations-of-relativity-really-really-wrong/

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/6253

I'm beginning to see why people are telling me not to waste my time trying to contribute to this site.
:All you're doing is making your own "assertions without clarification". We've had these arguments before, and these arguments were created by people who refuse to listen to what we say or refuse to read any of the sources we provide. And it's tiresome. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:44, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:User:csmcmillion, it's not a discussion when someone won't use his own words to explain his views.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:49, 13 November 2011 (EST)

::And it's not a discussion when sysops repeatedly delete comments, as you just did. ~~csmcmillion
:::And what exactly did I delete? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:42, 13 November 2011 (EST)
Just wanted to add to this: When has <math>\Lambda</math> failed? It's a perfectly legitimate term in the EFE's, as csmcmillion has stated. The righthand side of it is (in <math>G=c=1</math> units) is <math>8 \pi T^{\alpha \beta }</math>. You need something on the left which is a measure of curvature, i.e., the Einstein tensor <math>G^{\alpha \beta}</math>. Why the Einstein tensor? Why not the Ricci tensor? Why not the scalar curvature times the metric? The reason is that the stress-energy tensor (T) has to have zero divergence: <math>\nabla_{\beta} T^{\alpha \beta} = 0 </math>. The Einstein tensor has zero divergence as well. But, we also have <math> \nabla_{\gamma} g^{\alpha \beta} = 0</math>. So we can safely add in <math>\Lambda g^{\alpha \beta}</math> to the left hand side of the EFE without violating local conservation of energy-momentum. Using this gives <math>G^{\alpha \beta}+\Lambda g^{\alpha \beta} = 8 \pi T^{\alpha \beta}. </math> [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:46, 15 November 2011 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The "The observed lack of curvature in overall space" is not an "unobserved" phenomenon. Accordingly, it has been reverted along with the others. Looking for something that should be there under a theory, but not finding it there as predicted, is a counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:50, 30 November 2011 (EST)

:[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], sorry, yes, I was being a bit overzealous on that one. However, I think the principle holds - many of the concepts listed are not counterexamples. Starting with number one: relativity predicts gravity waves and predicts that they will be extremely difficult to detect. Now I hear you say that's a pretty lousy kind of prediction - and you're right - but it still doesn't make it a counterexample. The same goes for the entry on gravitons (additionally, they're a prediction of quantum theory, not relativity, but that's for another phase of editing).
:It may be that further categorizing is necessary. For example, issues like the Twin Paradox and the Ehrenfest Paradox are not strictly unobserved phenomena either. Item 37, failure to solve the equations, is a problem for mathematics, not necessarily for relativity.
:Perhaps a simpler solution would be to rename the whole article, perhaps to 'Counterarguments to Relativity'. That way the article doesn't look silly by listing things that clearly aren't counterexamples, and also is open to inclusion of a broader range of criticisms of the theory. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:50, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:: I agree with QPR, as upon thinking about it, 'counterexamples' does not accurately describe the things on the list. And looking for something predicted and not finding it is only a counterexample/counterargument if it is predicted to be in a specific place, and when looking there, it isn't found. Hence, not finding gravity waves despite looking for them doesn't mean they don't exist. Many things were thought to be myths or non-existent until they were found, including giraffes. But I also disagree with QPR in that categorizing the list is unnecessary, and would result in needless discussions about where certain points belong, rather than more productive discussions. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:56, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::: I don't think that counterexamples is the best word either. My suggestion would be to leave the title as is, but to split the list into ''paradoxes'' and ''anomalies''. They maybe people would have a better idea what to expect from each item. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:43, 2 December 2011 (EST)

Response to the above: the list is of "counterexamples". These are examples that are counter to the theory. Other terms, like "paradox" or "anomaly", capture neither the concept of "example" nor of it being "counter" to the theory. The term "paradox" arises in philosophy, but this isn't philosophy. Relativity is a theory that pretends to be correct in every case, but it isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:24, 3 December 2011 (EST)

== Deleted example to releativity ==

Hello, I added a counter example to relativity that was removed, despite it being valid. My counter example was that the special theory of relativity predicts that mass is a form of energy and they are interchangeable. But if this were true the huge amount of energy stored in common matter would have been utilised by now in power stations and weaponry.

The problem is, it's been over 100 years since this theory was published and not one power station that utilises the interchange of mass and energy predicted by relativity has actually been built.

However, this counter example was removed because a member claimed that these do exist. Now this leaves us with a dichotomy. Do we...
A) Admit that these power stations exist (which they don't) and therefore acknowledge the special theory of relativity is accurate and true, or
B) We keep the counter example included that no power station that utilises special relativity exists, and therefore it is a sign that relativity is false.

I think we should vote for B on this issue. It would be like inventing the motor engine, but not building cars! --[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 12:36, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:Actually these power stations DO exist and have done for decades; they're called "nuclear reactors" and they generate heat by turning mass into energy. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 12:45, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::If these stations do exist, then how come Albert Einstein admitted of the inability to apply the predictions of his OWN theory? I quote "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable".

Next you'll be telling me that we can do the physically impossible and generate electricity by fusing atoms to form heavier atoms too.

Let's face it, special relativity has no practical application in providing energy. If it were, mass and energy would be seen interchanging all the time. F will ''always'' equal MA, it can neither increase or decrease by being converted into energy; observations of non-zero mass particles accelerated to exactly the speed of light prove this.

Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2011-12-03T17:45:12Z

GMilhouse: /* Spherical Earth */ Corrected a mistake. I have used the verse as it is written in the King James edition of the Bible

[[File:Newton.png|thumb|alt=scientific foreknowledge in the bible|250px|[[Isaac Newton]], cornerstone of the [[scientific revolution]], based his research on the scientific authority of the Bible and sought enlightenment in scripture.]]‎
'''Biblical scientific foreknowledge''' is how the [[Bible]] shows a comprehension of [[science|scientific]] knowledge far ahead of its time. ''Biblical scientific foreknowledge illustrates what is possible.''

[[Bible denier]]s — such as [[atheist]]s and [[evolution]]ists — engage in [[liberal denial]] about the many truths in the Bible. '''''Their irrational [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|closed-mindedness]] against the Bible obstructs the advancement of science'''''.

'''Biblical scientific foreknowledge''' has another benefit: it facilitates improvements in the translation of verses that describe scientific-related events, such as [[Jesus]]'s [[Essay:Calming the Storm|Calming the Storm]].

== Geology ==

===Flood===
Modern scientists long opposed a young earth [[creation|created]] by God and the suggestion that cataclysmic flooding, such as the [[Great Flood]] as described in the Bible, shaped the landscape. However, ample [[counterexamples to an old earth]] exist and the discovery in the Northwest of "giant ripple marks, 50 feet high and 200-500 feet apart" proved that a cataclysmic flood did indeed occur. As a result, "[a]mong geologists, the concept of a catastrophic flood came to be accepted by the late 1950s."<ref>http://www.iafi.org/floods.html</ref>

===Continental drift===
[[Continental drift]] was first proposed by a creationist in 1859 based on Genesis 1:9-10, which implies that all of dry land was in one place.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c001.html#1</ref> [[Atheists]] mocked the concept for about 100 years, until finally accepting its truth.

=== Underwater springs ===

Only in moderns times have scientists become aware of enormous underwater springs feeding into the oceans, and the very deep valleys at the bottom of the oceans.

But the Bible repeatedly describes this thousands of years earlier: "on that very day '''''the deep subcrustal springs were broken open''''', and the windows of the sky were thrown open." ([[Genesis_1-8_%28Translated%29#Chapter_7|Genesis 7:11 (CBP)]], emphasis added). And again, in 2 Samuel 22:16, the Bible says, "And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered ...." ([[KJV]])

=== Agriculture ===

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, intellectuals insisted that the world's population would grow larger than the food supply, resulting in mass starvation. Yet there are examples in both the Old and New Testaments of the food supply increasing to be more plentiful than expected. Indeed, by 2011 obesity was far more prevalent and harmful than hunger.

== History ==

The Bible describes a [[Great Flood]] occurring around 3300 B.C., or about 5300 years ago. It involved a cataclysmic rainstorm of a magnitude never seen before or since. For centuries atheists have denied its possibility.

In 1991, an "ice mummy" was discovered: a remarkably preserved ancient body, including even the contents of his last meal, due to an extraordinary ice storm in the [[Alps]]. By scientific dating the occurrence of this massive ice storm in the mountains (and rainstorm below) was 5300 years ago.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/icemummies/iceman.html</ref>

==Health, Biology and Medicine==

===Eighth Day Blood Clotting Factors===

In Genesis 17:12, God mandated that Abraham circumcise his sons on the 8th day after birth. In 1935, it was discovered that Vitamin K, together with prothrombin, causes blood coagulation, (important in any surgical procedure). On the 8th day, the amount of prothrombin present is elevated above 100% of normal and is therefore the only day in the male’s life in which this will be the case (normally). If surgery is to be performed, day 8 is the perfect day to do it as vitamin K and prothrombin levels are at their peak.

===Lifespan===

The Bible put the maximum lifespan for man at 120 years (Genesis 6:3), the typical lifespan at 70 years and the typical for a good-living person at 80 years (Psalm 90:10).

Thousands of years after that was written, despite immense advances in medicine and technology, these figures remain remarkably accurate. The longest recorded life of a man is precisely 120 years (Shigechiyo Izumi), the average lifespan for a man is roughly 70 years, and the average for a good-living man is about 80 years.

[[Jeanne Calment]] lived to age 122, only two years past 120. She was said to have never worked and used olive oil on her skin, outliving many of of her [[feminist]] counterparts.

===Oldest Human Ancestor===

The Bible suggests that the oldest maternal ancestor — [[Eve]] — first lived slightly more than 6000 years ago.<ref>http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/ussher.html</ref> The mutation rate of [[mitochondria]] indicates roughly the same date for the oldest common human ancestor.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Mitochondrial_Eve_lived_only_6500_years_ago_%28Talk.Origins%29</ref>

===Anesthesia===

The first surgical operation described in the Bible was the removal of a rib from [[Adam]], which was performed by first putting Adam into an unconscious, "deep sleep-like trance."<ref>[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 2:21]]</ref> This was the equivalent of anesthesia — thousands of years before anesthesia using inhaled ether was developed by William Morton in 1846. Had scientists and physicians been more [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|openminded]] about Genesis 2:21 (perhaps they had considered it a miracle, and thus impossible for humans to achieve), they may have discovered anesthesia far sooner, and saved many more lives.

===Bloodletting hastens death===

At the time of Jesus and for centuries afterward, arteries and veins were thought to be filled with air, and blood was viewed as something to be used up rather than recirculate. Bloodletting -- the practice of intentionally draining blood from a patient -- was common medical practice through the time of [[George Washington]], hastening his death prematurely for reasons not understood until years later.<ref>http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/37212.php</ref>

Most victims of crucifixion in Roman times languished on the cross for days. But the Bible describes how Pilate, who crucified many, was surprised at how quickly Jesus passed away. 2000 years later, scientific knowledge has advanced to understand that this was caused by his prior loss of blood during his scourging (being brutally whipped), a punishment typically given ''instead of'' crucifixion.

===Homosexuality and disease===
The Bible's prohibition against [[homosexuality]] predated knowledge about the [[Homosexuality and Health|many diseases and disorders associated with homosexuality]], and thus showed scientific wisdom prescient for its time.

=== Eyesight ===

The description in the [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Gospel of Mark 8:24]] for the sensation when one's eyesight is restored includes his perception of "trees walking." This perception was first confirmed nearly 2000 years later as physicians developed medical techniques for restoring eyesight.<ref>This newspaper account is not specific but describes the overall sensation of restored sight: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-138886/Robot-eye-restore-lost-sight-20-years.html]</ref>

=== Maximum Human Height ===

Atheists thought the size of [[Goliath]] in the Bible to be absurdly large (over nine feet tall), until [[Robert Wadlow]] grew to nearly 9 feet tall and was still growing when he died at a young age in 1940.

=== Quarantining Against Leprosy Epidemics ===

Although leprosy is not as contagious as other infectious diseases, and some forms of it (such as tuberculoid or paucibacillary form are not contagious), Leviticus 13 and 14 set forth rules to prevent epidemics of this disease among the people of Israel. Western science did not catch up until, in 1663, such laws were introduced in America in an attempt to curb an outbreak of smallpox.

Centuries ahead of medical science, Jesus subsequently explained that leprosy was not as contagious as people thought.

=== Hygiene ===

Millennia before germ theory was proposed in the late 19th century, Leviticus 15 mandated hygiene laws that included bathing, washing of clothing, destruction of contaminated pottery and washing of hands.

In Matthew 15:2, Jesus then curbed compulsive hand-washing by explaining why it n no longer typically necessary (in a non-farming, non-medical context) with respect to man's digestive system.

=== Digestive System ===

It was common thought throughout history that infections and illness resulted from the digestive system, based on unclean hands or food. Jesus rejected that view, and declared hand-washing before meals to be typically unnecessary. It took many centuries before science caught up to the Bible on this.

=== Feasibility of [[Abiogenesis]] ===
Although scientists dismissed ideas involving [[Abiogenesis|abiogenesis]], or the process from which life emerges from nothing, as nothing more than archaic beliefs in [[spontaneous generation]], the Bible very clearly depicts an occurrence of this phenomenon, for beginning in Genesis 1:20, [[God]] creates life from nothing. It was not until the early 20th century that science finally began to accept the viability of abiogenesis, a view that the Bible had held for almost 2000 years, except that [[atheists]] falsely claim that abiogenesis is somehow possible without a creator.

=== Awareness while Unborn ===
[[Abortion]] advocates argue that it is ok to terminate a baby while dismissing the pain inflicted by ending an innocent life. They argue that a fetus cannot feel pain because senses are incomplete. There is a heart-beating human in the womb that can feel even though still unborn and developing. In modern times, we now know the baby in the womb is alert, aware of their mother's emotions, recognizes voices, responds to stimuli and music. The Bible tells us the baby feels (1 Luke 44), ''"the babe leaps for joy in Elizabeth’s womb at the sound of Mary’s voice."'' The inwomb developing baby, John the Baptist, notices the presence of the unborn [[Lord]] in [[Mary]], and is excited. In addition (St. Paul to the Galatians 1:15), ''"God… from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace."'' Paul's very first thought, feeling, awareness began while unborn.

=== The significance of blood ===

The Old Testament teaches that the [[life]] of all flesh is its [[blood]] ({{Bible ref|book=Leviticus|chap=17|verses=13-14|version=KJV}}). Secular science remained ignorant of the properties and circulation of blood until the 17th century A.D.

=== Menstruation ===

The Biblical laws concerning [[menstruation]], including the setting apart of the menstruating woman and the prohibition on intimacy during menstruation, address health concerns that were not known to secular science until the 20th century.<ref>Neuburger, Max. History of Medicine. Oxford University Press, 1910, Vol. I, p. 38.</ref>

=== Cloning ===

{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=2|verses=21-22|version=KJV}} records that God made a [[woman]] out of one of [[Adam]]'s [[rib]]s. Secular scientists did not believe that [[cloning]] such a complex organism (apart from plants) was possible until 1997.<ref>[http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml Cloning Fact Sheet]</ref>

==Cosmology==

===UFOs and Extraterrestrial Life===

For most of the 20th century, scientists typically believed in the existence of extraterrestrial life, despite the lack of any reference to it in the [[Bible]]. After spending many billions of dollars looking for such life, and investigating countless reports of UFOs, no such life has been found.

===Number of Stars===

The [[Bible]] repeatedly refers to the number of stars as being innumerable,<ref>''See'' Genesis 15:5, Jeremiah 33:22 and Hebrews 11:12.</ref> despite scientists insisting throughout most of history that there were only about 6000 stars. In the early 17th century [[Galileo]] turned a telescope to the heavens and discovered a great number of stars that had been previously invisible to the naked eye.<ref>http://galileo.rice.edu/lib/student_work/astronomy95/orionpleiades.html</ref>

Not until the 20th century did scientists discover the tremendous number of stars:<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/22/stars.survey/index.html</ref>

:There are "10 times as many stars as grains of sand on all the world's beaches and deserts," totaling "7 followed by 22 zeros or, more accurately, 70 sextillion.

But even that scientific estimate was much too low. On December 1, 2010, scientists admitted:<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/1201/Universe-might-hold-three-times-more-stars-than-previously-thought</ref>

:"a cosmic embarrassment of riches – ''the universe appears to hold three times the number of stars many [[astronomer]]s might have estimated only a year ago''."

===Each Star is Unique===
Although the use of telescopes to chart the outer-reaches of God's heavenly creation was developed around the 16th century in Europe, the Bible accurately hypothesized that every star is unique.

"There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory"- 1 Corinthians 15:41 <ref>http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml</ref>

===Spherical Earth===
The Book of Isaiah establishes that the true shape of the earth is a sphere:
{{cquote|He sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants look to him like grasshoppers. He stretches out the galaxies like a curtain, spreading them out like a tent to live under: - [[Isaiah_34-42_(Translated)#Chapter_40|Isaiah 40:22 (CBP]])}}

Note that Isaiah was written circa the 8th century BC, centuries before Greek philosophers, beginning with [[Pythagoras]], theorized the earth was round.

=== Earth free floating in space ===
The book of Job states that God "hangs the earth on nothing." It also contrasts with pagan mythologies such as [[Atlas]] holding up the earth or the earth being supported by a giant turtle, as in ancient Hindu and native American myths.

The Bible presaged the modern view that space is in fact empty, which wasn't known until the dawn of the 20th century when ether theories became disfavored.

=== Darkness, and Unexplained Ripples in Cosmic Background Radiation ===

[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis Chapter 1]] explains that [[God]] created light first, rather than merely stars. A "big bang" would result in light everywhere, without darkness, and without ripples in cosmic background radiation. Yet in the 21st century ripples were discovered in cosmic background radiation, which can only be plausibly explained by recognizing that light was created first.

=== Meteoroids ===
The Revelation of Saint John notes,
{{cquote|And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood; And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed. Revelation 8:8-9 (KJV)}}
This accurately describes meteoroids, essentially large chunks of rock lit on fire by the shock of entering the earth's atmosphere. They were not discovered until 1801, and their composition was not otherwise known until the 20th century.

=== Stellar proper movement ===
In [[Job]], there is a list of challenges that are constructed in the form of questions, with the idea that man can't do it, but God can.

Among those challenges, two are remarkable: one mentions the ''untying'' of Orion's belt, and the other is the ''binding'' of the Pleiades. One recently astronomers could measure the proper movement of those stars; Orion's belt is moving apart, with each star going in a different direction, while the Pleiades are moving together.

=== Space flight ===
Many theorize that the book of [[Ezekiel]] contains descriptions of spaceships and rockets, as they would have been described by someone thousands of years ago. [http://www.spaceshipsofezekiel.com/ Author Blumrich] has even published an entire book about this.

===Expanding universe===
The [[Bible]] explains, in 17 different verses, that [[God]] "stretched out" the heavens<ref>http://www.creationists.org/God-streched-out-the-universe-bible-verses.html</ref>, in other words, expanding the fabric of space-time from a smaller size to a much larger one. Scientists have discovered only in the last 100 years that, by studying the red shift of galaxies, the universe indeed appears to be expanding, or "stretching out".

== Meteorology ==
=== Existence of the [[Jet Stream]] ===
Ecclesiastes 1:6 notes, "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits." This described the jet stream long before its 19th-20th century discovery.

=== Water cycle ===

The existence of the water cycle was not known until imperial Roman times, but the Bible described it over a thousand years before that!
See [[Ecclesiastes]] 11:3, [[Job]] 26:8 and [[Amos]] 9:6

== Physics ==

=== Light and Color ===

Prior to the work of [[Isaac Newton]], white was considered to be the fundamental color of light, and other colors (such as red, green and blue) were formed by adding to white light. Under that traditional theory, the fullness of all light (a combination of all colors of light) would result in something other than pure white.

The transfiguration of Jesus is described with remarkable consistency in all three synoptic [[Gospel]]s: in the fullness of light Jesus and his clothing display an intense white, whiter than any bleach could produce. This illustrates what was not discovered and accepted until nearly 1700 years later: that white is the combination of other fundamental colors, and the purest white light is formed by a perfectly full combination (see [[Prism]]).

=== Action-at-a-distance ===

[[Jesus]] demonstrated [[action-at-a-distance]], as recounted in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]]. Scientists, particularly [[atheists]], denied the possibility of this phenomenon for thousands of years. When Newton proposed action-at-a-distance as the basis of gravity, scientists continued to reject it, but eventually accepted it as being true.

Later the [[Theory of Relativity]] again denied the possibility of action-at-a-distance, but [[quantum mechanics]] subsequently proved that it does occur.<ref>See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].</ref>

=== Quantum Mechanics ===

==== Observation of the Wave Function ====
The second chapter of the [[Gospel of John]] describes the conversion of water into wine by [[Jesus]] at a wedding reception. [[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_2|John 2:9]] states: "When the host of the wedding feast tasted the water, it had been made into wine." This passage implies that the drink was not wine until it had been tasted, or observed. Possibly, the drink was a superposition of the state of wine and the state of water until it was observed as wine.

The miraculous [[Essay:Calming the Storm|calming of the storm]] is typically translated as the result of a "rebuke" by [[Jesus]] of the bad weather. But a closer look at the Greek reveals that the key term means "judge" rather than "rebuke", and thus it was the act of Jesus observing the chaos that caused it to "collapse" into an orderly state, similar to the effect of observing a wave function.

In Matthew 16:19, Jesus draws a then-unusual distinction between what is fixed and what is uncertain by declaring, "Whatever you make binding on earth will be binding in heaven, and whatever you set loose on earth will be set loose in heaven."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Matthew_10-19_%28Translated%29&oldid=870778#Chapter_16</ref> This may describe the fundamental uncertainty that continues unless and until there is human observation that then causes the wave function to collapse into a particular ("bound") state.

==== [[Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle]] ====

Both the Old and New Testaments refer to a fundamental uncertainty that requires observation to resolve, akin to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle discovered in the 1920s:

* "The earth came to exist in an utterly formless and empty state." [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 1:2]].
* The master refusing to order the removal of the weeds sowed among the wheat because of the uncertainty in distinguishing between the two until later: [[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)|Matthew 13:24-30]].

==== Wave-Particle Duality ====

Particles are subject to gravity; waves are not. Wave-particle duality, first discovered in the 20th century, allows for a particle to sometimes be subject to gravity and sometimes not.

The wave-particle duality was described nearly 2000 years earlier in the Gospel account of Jesus walking on water: [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Mark 6:45-54]]. A close reading of the passage reveals the wave-like (or light-like) characteristic of the walking on water:
{{cquote|he walked on the surface of the lake and came to the boat, ''nearly passing it''. But when they saw him walking on water, they thought it must have been ''a ghost'', and cried out.}}
[[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Mark 6:48-49]] (italics added).

In a more general sense, [[Jesus]] could be viewed as the "particle" and the [[Holy Spirit]] as the "wave" of [[God]]. A fuller understanding of the [[Trinity]] could have opened the eyes of scientists much earlier to the fundamental wave-particle duality of nature ... and still could.

==== Quantum tunneling ====

[[Quantum tunneling]] is the ability of particles to move through energy barriers even though ostensibly impossible based on classical laws of mechanical physics. This was not discovered by scientists until the 20th century.

[[Jesus]] proved this was possible in [[John_15-21_(Translated)#Chapter_20|John 20:26]], when he appeared before the [[Apostles]] in a closed room with completely shut doors.

=== Classical Relativity ===
Romans 10:6-7: But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).

Equating ascending into heaven to bringing Christ down is an example of the fact that there is no universal reference frame, and only relative speeds matter.

=== Modern Relativity ===
The [[Theory of Relativity]] denies the possibility of action-at-a-distance. But several passages in the Bible, such as [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]] and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)|Matthew 27:51]], describe simultaneous actions from afar.

The list of [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] has grown recently, and modern experiments in [[quantum mechanics]] have confirmed action-at-a-distance.

=== [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] ===

The [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Book of Genesis]] states that the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order. This same concept was not discovered in physics until the development of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which holds that heat (or order or light) always travels in the direction of cold (or disorder or darkness), and never in the opposite direction.

=== The nature of air ===

Until about 300 years ago, common knowledge believe that the air was "empty" and didn't weigh anything. But [[Job]] 28:25 says "To establish a '''weight''' for the wind, And apportion the waters by measure" indicating that the divinely inspired author knew the air had substance and weight.

== Mathematics ==

=== [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] ===
The only miracle described in all four [[Gospels]] is the multiplication of loaves and fish by [[Jesus]], thought for thousands of years to be a mathematical and physical impossibility. But the 20th century discovery of the so-called [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] proved a mathematical basis for creating identical copies of an object.

=== Axiomatization of Arithmetic ===
The full set of axioms for integer arithmetic may be found in the Bible, as demonstrated by J.C. Keister.<ref>http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/027a-MathandtheBible.pdf</ref> For example, [[Luke 9-16 (Translated)|Luke 12:52]] is a striking statement of the commutative law for addition: "For from this point forward there will be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three." This understanding presaged both later attempts at the axiomatization of arithmetic by Peano and the development of [[abstract algebra]] in the 19th and 20th centuries.

== Sociology ==

===Crime===

Mark 4:22 says how nothing can be hid, neither can anything be kept secret. Empirical statistics show that the vast majority of crimes worldwide are solved.

== Zoology ==

===Inability of Animals to Understand Morality===

[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 3:1-10]] explains that only humans understand good and evil, and clothe themselves because of it. Repeatedly scientists have attempted to demonstrate that animals can understand morality also, but every attempt has failed. No animal (other than humans) has ever been found that clothes itself.

===Existence of dinosaurs===
[[Dinosaur]] fossils were not discovered until the 19th century, but the book of [[Job]] describes enormous creatures called behemoth and leviathan, the descriptions being similar to dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures. It may also have referred to another similarly giant now-extinct species.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp</ref>

===Lions' killing methods===

Until the 1970s naturalists believed that lions killed their prey by biting through the neck or by breaking the neck with a swat of a paw, while the Bible says that lions suffocated their prey. (Nahum 2:12) It was not until the 1970s that it was discovered that the [[Bible]] was correct.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm</ref> Lions fit their mouth over the mouth and nose of their prey and hold it while it suffocates, in addition to other killing methods.

=== Giant sea creatures and Jonah ===

The [[Jonah (Translated)|Book of Jonah]] describes his survival in the belly of a giant sea creature for 2.5 to 3 days. Scientists declared this to be impossible due to powerful stomach acids that quickly break down any material and the lack of breathable air inside marine animals.

In 2010, scientists found the following materials intact in the belly of a gray whale that had died after being stranded on a Northwest beach:<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/19/pair-sweat-pants-garbage-beached-whales-stomach/</ref>

*a pair of sweat pants
*a golf ball
*over 20 plastic bags
*small towels
*duct tape
*surgical gloves

Of course, many sea creatures have gone extinct in the thousands of years since Jonah lived.

===Worker ants===
Proverbs 6:6-8 correctly states the sex of worker [[ant]]s (female), using the correct one of the two [[Grammar#Gender|grammatical genders]] available in Biblical [[Hebrew]]. Secular entomologists would not discover that fact until the 19th century.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=rzwSAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA6&dq=ant+undeveloped+female+worker+date:1700-1850&lr=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES#v=onepage&q&f=false The study of medicine, Volume 5 By John Mason Good]</ref>

==Linguistics==

===Common Descent?===
The [[theory of evolution]] suggests that all languages are descended from a common ancestral language, and for a century (1860 to about 1960) scientists clung to that view. But now most linguists identify many different families of languages that have no common ancestor, just as described in Genesis 11 with the [[Tower of Babel]].

===Earliest Hebrew Writings===
Skeptics have claimed that [[Hebrew]] writing did not exist before the 6th century B.C. But a recent Israeli archaeological dig dated four centuries earlier, in the 10th century B.C., included an artifact found at Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Elah Valley. This artifact contained a written inscription in Hebrew relating to "slaves, widows and orphans." Haifa University Professor Gershon Galil noted that this disproves the theory that the Bible could not have been written before the 6th century.<ref>http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2010/01/08/Bible-may-be-centuries-older-than-thought/UPI-21171262997765/</ref>

== Economics ==

Jesus stated that there will always be poverty,<ref>See Mark 14:7, Matthew 26:11 and John 12.8.</ref> yet [[liberals]] repeatedly insist that poverty can be eliminated with more government spending. Every attempt to eliminate poverty has failed just as Jesus predicted. In 1991 [[Ronald Coase]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] in [[Economics]] for the [[Coase Theorem]], which implies that government attempts to reduced poverty will interfere with efficient operation of the economy, and thereby reduce wealth.

== Government ==

Ancient Israel, as described in the [[Old Testament]], was a [[nation-state]] and that model was not utilized again until thousands of years later, well after the Renaissance in Western Europe. This model of a nation-state has become the modern standard worldwide.

The separation of powers adopted successfully by the [[U.S. Constitution]] in 1787, with the legislative, executive, and judicial branches having separate authority and jurisdiction, was first described in the Old Testament.<ref>See Jeremiah 17:19 and Isaiah 33:22.</ref>

==Engineering examples==

Biblical scientific foreknowledge about these engineering developments has been proposed:<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2191</ref>
{{cquote|automobiles (Joel 2:3-4); airplanes (Isaiah 31:5, also 40:31); submarines (Revelation 9:1-11); radio (Ecclesiastes 10:20); and television (Revelation 11:3-12)}}
Classical photography, using negative imaging, was predated by the [[Shroud of Turin]] with respect to the imaging on the Shroud likely due to the light of the [[Resurrection]]. The Shroud ([[Greek]]: σινδών - sindón) is mentioned in three Gospels: Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53, while John 20:5-7 talks about a face cloth or napkin ([[Greek]]: σουδάριον - soudárion - perhaps the [[Sudarium of Oviedo]]), and a piece of fine linen ([[Greek]]: ὀθόνιον - othonion). The description by the eyewitness John implies that his sighting of the Shroud may have confirmed his [[faith]], though he doesn't mention its photograph-like image <ref>John Calvin, who opposed the Catholic Church, wrote a book in 1543 criticizing all material evidence of Jesus and the martyrs. In it he claimed that because the negative image on the Shroud is not described in the Gospels, it must not be authentic. [[John Calvin]]: ''Traité des Reliques'', Geneve 1543, translated by Valerian Krasinski: ''A treatise on Relics'', Edingburgh 1854</ref>.

== Alleged absurdities and contradictions ==

Biblical scientific foreknowledge is an underpinning of creation science, and is widely credited by Christian scientists and apologists, including the organizations [[Creation Ministries International]], [[Answers in Genesis]], and [[CreationWiki]].<ref>http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge.</ref><ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1718/</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref>

Atheists unsuccessfully attempt to discredit the Bible based on science. Here are some examples:

=== Bat as a bird ===
A favorite evolutionist canard is that Leviticus 11:13-19 labels the [[bat]], a [[mammal]], as a [[bird]]. But this is an obvious failure of translation, as the Hebrew term '' 'owph'' did not entail the "clade" of birds, but was a non-biological category referring to any winged creature, mammalian, avian, or insect. The KJV translation as "fowl" is simply incorrect.

=== Incorrect value of Pi ===
Two sections of the bible (1 Kings 7, 23-26, 2 Chronicles, 4, 2-5) appear to indicate that the correct value of [[Pi]] is 3, whereas Pi is in fact an irrational number, equalling approximately 3.14159. Atheists, including [[Sam Harris]] and [[Richard Dawkins]], allege that this value indicates the fallacious nature of scripture.<ref>The Richard Dawkins Foundation, ''Reply to a Christian'', Sam Harris - [http://richarddawkins.net/articles/139]</ref> However, a simple explanation of the claimed "contradiction" is that the Bible records the ratio of the actual object which Hiram created, not that of a mathematical [[sphere]]. The claim that it was round all about does not equate to a claim that it was a perfect sphere, as atheists have claimed.<ref>''Theology'', Volume 59, Issues 427-438, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (Great Britain), London, 1956, p. 23 </ref>

Moreover, [[Pi]], when expressed as one significant digit, is equal to 3.

==See Also==
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[The Bible]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Atheism]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible scientific foreknowledge] by [[CreationWiki]]
{{Template:Creation vs. evolution}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Creationism]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-12-03T17:37:10Z

GMilhouse: /* Deleted example to releativity */

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-12-03T17:36:05Z

GMilhouse: /* Deleted example to releativity */

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

==Path Independence and Photons==
Wait, so time is some sort of vector field such that when you integrate it you get time? And that vector field is conservative? I've never heard of such a thing... 
As well, you state: "Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum." Yes, if you plug in the formula for non-relativistic, Newtonian momentum, you get zero, but SR gives you the equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2. Plug m=0 in. You get E=pc. So, the momentum is nonzero. That's a very well-known result... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 12:06, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:So should I take the "counter example" down...? Not to be rude but can someone at least respond to me? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:54, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
::Take it down, then if someone reverts (which is likely) it'll provoke a short discussion that probably won't reach a consensus. Regardless, you're unlikely to succeed in keeping it changed. I'm not trying to discourage, go ahead and try changing it, I'm just letting you know what to expect. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:33, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:::These are interesting points worthy of further discussion. As to the first point, however, merely asking two questions is not persuasive to me.

:::As to the second point, I find the argument somewhat circular. Is the energy equation cited verified by any experiment, or is it merely definitional? If merely definitional, then it does not provide a way for calculating actual momentum.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:54, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Well answer them. The point I'm making is that there is no vector field such that when integrates it, one gets time. I had never heard of it until then. I am asking you to enlighten me.
 
::::And as a matter of fact there is! The equation is E=hf where E is the energy of the photon, f is the frequency of the photon, and h is just a proportionality constant (known as Planck's constant). And it has been experimentally verified. It explains the spectrum from blackbody radiation and it explains the photoelectric effect. And if I recall correctly, your camera uses the photoelectric effect. These things are quite well known... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 14:55, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::Oh, and I forgot to mention--the Compton effect is explained by photons. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:00, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::::Please address my more substantive point: has your equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2 been experimentally verified, or is it simply definitional?

:::::::First of all, will you please answer my question...? What is the vector field such that when one integrates over it, one gets time? And oops. Misread your question. And no, it's not "definitional," it's from the relativistic expressions of energy and momentum... (And yes, those have been experimentally verified--if I recall correctly, using those equations, you can predict what can happen (i.e. speeds) when elementary particles are created. But I'm not particle physicist) Once you have those, just do a little algebra and you get that equation. And I hope you're not going to deny basic algebra....
 
:::::::Again, all this is well known.... Out of curiosity have you ever actually studied relativity or this photon stuff? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 13:39, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::OK, I've removed the counter-example of photons...I think I've provided a satisfactory explanation to Schlafly (and he's not responding for some reason...) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:50, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Schlafly, I saw you re-added the "counter-example." Will you please respond to me? Are you seriously just going to keep it there and refuse to discuss this at all? Wow and you claim that we're not open-minded.... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:45, 9 November 2011 (EST)

::::::::::Andy, there is no "counter-example of photons." Photons are not mentioned in the list. But are you referring to this counterexample:

:::::::::::28.Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.

::::::::::Let's be clear about what the dispute is first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 11 November 2011 (EST)

:::::::::::Yeah, that's the one. Sorry. Poorly-worded. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:29, 14 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::::::Will someone please tell me why (a) SR/GR promotes (moral) relativism, (b) photons aren't legit even though I've just pointed that your argument was wrong (maybe that's a bit generous. To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, I can't even say it's wrong...) and (c) what is the vector field such that when one integrates over it, one gets time? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 10:26, 27 November 2011 (EST)

==FTL Neutrinos at LHC ==

It may be jumping the gun to put the finding from Friday as evidence against GR. The results have yet to be duplicated - duplicability is needed for a claim to have scientific merit - and have yet to be carefully peer reviewed. The results are significant at the 95% CI but that means there's a 1 in 20 chance they're actually inaccurate. Given how many measurements are made at the LHC some are going to be both statistically significant and incorrect. It may be more prudent to wait to see if it's a one off or measurement error. I propose waiting at least until other particle acceleration labs can attempt to duplicate the results to make any judgement; after all, that's what CERN is doing
--[[User:BillyWest|BillyWest]] 00:18, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:I disagree. The opposition to the results from CERN -- which confirm prior results from another laboratory which were not as precise -- is unreasonable. It's not necessary to continue to pretend that Relativity is true when there is so much evidence against it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:35, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::CERN itself hasn't even confirmed the results. The data was published a lot quicker than data usually is because if it is accurate, then it changes the majority of physics laws discovered in the past century. The theory of relativity is not the only theory/law which involves the speed of light, electromagnetism does as well. Because of this, CERN wanted other scientists to try and find a flaw in the experiment quickly so that if there is a flaw, it is found quickly, and if there isn't, then scientists can begin determining what needs to change in order to accomodate this. Once the data has been properly analysed, without prematurely jumping to conclusions, then it would be fair to say that the neutrinos traveled faster than the speed of light. But something to keep in mind: this is not the first experiment done with neutrinos, all of the prior ones having travelled slower than the speed of light. If you do an experiment 500 times, and each results has a 1/1000 chance of being inaccurate, there is a 40% chance that at least one result will be inaccurate. If they find an error in the experiment (such as a piece of the measuring equipment being broken, or poor calibration of equipment, or leftover neutrinos from previous experiments, or any other impacting error), then wouldn't it make conservapedia look silly for jumping to a conclusion too quickly? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The CERN experiment is not the only one suggesting faster-than-c travel. Moreover, there is no basis for doubting the news that something travels faster than c. Most of the objections in the media are based in an irrational clinging to Relativity. Hence the counterexample is being restored ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Looks like they've found the problem already: there was a flaw with the experiment.http://www.dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php This article basically says that they used GPS to measure the locations and the times. However, because the satellite used moves at a different speed to the Earth, relativity needs to be taken into account. Usually, relativity has no significant effect until speeds get nearish the speed of light. However, the neutrinos travelled 60 nanoseconds faster than light. Because it's nanoseconds, the speed difference of the Earth and the satellite is enough that relativity affects the experiment at the nanosecond level. Scientists have done calculations to determine how this changes the results (as because of the flaw, the results they got weren't actually accurate), and found that the neutrinos actually travelled for 64 seconds longer than they previously thought, making their speed very slightly less than the speed of light. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 18:02, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

: No, this explanation has not been accepted. There have been many other papers with other explanations. The jury is still out. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:33, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Paul Johnson, the renowned historian, explains the link -- and the significance of the link -- between relativity and moral relativism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:57, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
:Do you have a link for that? It seems pretty flimsy to me. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:10, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::Ah right, I found some stuff! It appears that Johnson acknowledged that there was no ACTUAL link between the two, but pointed out how many liberals CLAIM a link. That seems pretty close to what the article is saying, so my edit probably wasn't the best idea I've ever had, and as a bonus I've learned something interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain rather than just blocking me :-S --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:17, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Have you read Tribe's article applying the curvature of space to support liberal views?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, I haven't. Is it easy to find? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: You can find it here [http://blog1.darkbuzz.com/tribe-1989.htm] or a pdf here [http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/~wat4y/103_Harv._L._Rev._1,_.PDF][http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~daw/D_Realism/Tribe.pdf]. On a college campus, you might be able to get it here.[http://www.jstor.org/pss/1341407] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Relativity and Electromagnetism ==
It is often claimed that Relativity is proven by its ability to explain aspects of electromagnetism. But those aspects do not relate to physical mass, gravity or various frames of reference throughout the universe -- the basic claims of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: Lorentz used electromagnetic relativity to predict relativistic mass in 1899, and it was experimentally confirmed a couple of years later. Poincare used E=mc2 for radiation in 1900. So I think that electromagnetic aspects of relativity do relate to physical mass. They also relate to various frames of reference, as electromagnetic experiments were done at different times of the year to test different frames of reference in the Earth's orbit. Gravity and electromagnetism are separate forces, and I guess it is fair to say that relativistic aspects had to be tested separately. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Most of the counterexamples to Relativity relate to gravity; some relate to the claim that all (non-accelerating) frames of reference are the same everywhere in the universe. The essence of Relativity is its claims about gravity and space. Electromagnetism experiments have nothing to do with this, and do not confirm any of these "grand unified" assertions of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:12, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: You have to distinguish between general relativity, which is about gravity, and special relativity, which isn't.
::: Anyway, Newtonian mechanics is not consistent with Maxwell's equations while relativity (both special and general) is. Do you deny Maxwell's equations, Aschlafly? If you accept Newtonian mechanics, you have to. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: Also, it should be noted that Einstein's famous 1905 paper (which was very important in the history of relativity) is entitled ''On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies''. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:30, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Again, a big part of the objection to Relativity is its "grand unified" approach. The insistence on that view is simply not scientific, and is contrary to the data.

::::: There are different forces in nature. There really are, and they really are different. That's what the data show.

::::: Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light. None of that exists in electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: ''Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light'' -> No. Light travels the speed of light in special relativity. Any massless particle does as well.
:::::: ''None of that exists in electromagnetism'' -> A charged particle with a velocity less than the speed of light definitely falls under the domain of electromagnetism.
:::::: Again, Maxwell's equations and Newtonian mechanics are inconsistent. You can't have both. The fact that other forces exist is irrelevant. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:56, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Special relativity makes no predictions, and only assumptions, about the speed of light. Instead, special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light.
::::::: When the claim is made that Relativity explains electromagnetism, the claim is not referring to charged particles traveling less then the speed of light.
::::::: Your statement that Maxwell's equations and Newtownian mechanics are somehow inconsistent needs explanation. They describe completely different forces.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Special relativity predicts the speed of light is the same regardless of orientation of the observer, which is consistent with the Michelson–Morley experiment. It also predicts that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer, which is consistent with the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment.
:::::::: You said velocities less than the speed of light not exist in electromagnetism. This was clearly false.
:::::::: I already mentioned that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under Galilean transformation, yet are under Lorentz transformations. This is very well known. If you want the exact details see [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.165.5841&rep=rep1&type=pdf On the Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=19TCz0cxAFMC&pg=PA484&lpg=PA484&dq=%22maxwell's+equations%22+invariant+under+%22lorentz+transformation%22&source=bl&ots=gudaGknbwi&sig=9idd1t_o89t5RUSLcemoMq7hNjc&hl=en&ei=eq9SToXdHuTH0QHig62-Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CHQQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=%22maxwell's%20equations%22%20invariant%20under%20%22lorentz%20transformation%22&f=false Understanding Physics, Invariance of electromagnetism under Lorentz transformation]. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: Special relativity says that the speed of light is constant. Maxwell's theory says that same thing, as does the Michelson-Morley experiment. It can be said to be an assumption or a prediction, depending on what textbook you are reading. At any rate, it is testable, and has been confirmed in many ways (for light in a vacuum). It was tested in outer space before testing on Earth. Relativity certainly also makes predictions about charged particles traveling less then the speed of light. The biggest prediction is the formula known as the Lorentz force law. This was an important part of relativity as decribed by Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein. The Lorentz force law used to be considered part of Maxwell's equations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:49, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: These are interesting mathematical observations, having aesthetic value. They can suggest the existence of an intelligent designer.

::::::::: But the physical significance of these mathematical observations is scant or non-existence. Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light, and claims made by special relativity with respect to such motion are not verified by electromagnetism. Claims made by general relativity are not verified at all by electromagnetism.

::::::::: I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics. I'm not saying that Newtonian mechanics must be correct, but some criticisms of it do not withstand scrutiny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Yes, electromagnetism does involve particles moving close enough to the speed of light for relativistic effects to be important. Examples include the electron gun in an ordinary CRT TV set, electric motors, speakers, and just about any electronic device. These are not new. The earliest non-optical tests of special relativity were the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments] They started in 1901 based on Lorentz's relativity, and pre-date Einstein. They show that mass increases with velocity so that nothing goes faster than light. In Newtonian mechanics, the speed of light is not an obstacle. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:13, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::: ''"Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light."'' -> [[Particle accelerator]] use electromagnetic fields to move particles close to the speed of light.
::::::::::: ''"I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics."'' -> The observed constancy of speed of the speed of light (an electromagnet wave) does. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:16, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I have an open mind about this, and would like to learn more. I wasn't familiar with the Kaufmann-Bucherer-Neumann experiments but didn't get much out of the Wikipedia description of them in the above link. Is there a clearer, more objective explanation that doesn't end with a sweeping, unsupported claim of proof of Relativity?

:::::::::::: The two most prominent claims of proof of Relativity -- the perihelion advance of Mercury and the binary pulsar -- are now counterexamples and the most precise data are not being made available to the public. So something isn't adding up in favor of Relativity.

:::::::::::: The lack of scientific basis for Relativity leaves it defenseless against another unscientific theory: string theory. Before long it may become important to list counterexamples to string theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Can I start [[counterexamples to string theory]] now? Its a good excuse for me to learn! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:57, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Please do! Also, Max, did you see the answer to your question about how Relativity is used by [[liberals]] to advance their belief system? I can repost the links if you didn't see them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Great, I'll look into String Theory (I don't know much about it) and get on to writing something. Having a project to work on is a great incentive to learn new topics. please do post those links, thanks!

::::::::::::::::I see the links are posted just above this subheading, under "You can find it here"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Ah yes, now I see. I'll read those tonight. Thanks! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:46, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: The Mercury and binary pulsar observations were used to support the gravity theory, and relativity remains the most accurate explanation. Andy, you asked about electromagnetism, not gravity. There is no way to understand electromagnetism without relativity, as far as I know. The Kaufmann experiments were supposed to disprove relativity. More precise experiments were consistent with relativity, as with all the other electromagnetic experiments. Just turn on an old-style TV set with a tube. How do you think that those pixels get lit up? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:16, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: There is some overlap between the invariant equations for electromagnetism and for relativity. The electromagnetism invariant equations came first, so I think the better description would be that one cannot understand relativity without understanding electromagnetism, not vice versa. But what that has to do with gravity is far from clear. In fact, it probably has nothing to do with gravity. Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism, because no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism.

::::::::::::: It's not relativity that lit up the pixels on an old TV screen. Quantum mechanics has more to do with that than relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:32, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ''Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism'' -> Untrue. Quantum electrodynsmics (QED) combines special relativity, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. A Nobel Prize for its discovery was awarded to Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga in 1965.

:::::::::::::: ''no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism'' -> Also untrue. QED predictions are accurate within 12 significant digits, making it the most accurate theory we have. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:17, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: By my count, Nobel prizes were given for relativistic electromagnetism were given in 1902, 1907, 1933, 1945, 1965, 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1999. Prizes for relativistic gravity were given in 1978, 1983, and 1993. The list is here.[http://www.almaz.com/nobel/physics/physics.html] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

@Andy Schlafly: Relativity predicts that no particle with mass can go the speed of light or faster. How do you explain that no particle accelerator has been able to get a massive particle at or above the speed of light? How do you explain the results that the inertial mass increases with velocity, as relativity predicts? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:00, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:PArticle accelerators don't. CERN (the biggest one) gets them exceedingly close, but not above. It's something like 99.999% of C. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:59, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: Relativity assumes that, rather than predicts it. I think relavitist purists would actually say all that is needed is a maximum velocity, whether that is "c" or something else. Many would not be genuinely surprised if velocities slightly faster than ''c'' are ultimately attained, and ''c'' itself may be changing over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:36, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

: Historically, the constant speed of light was an empirical observation, and not just an assumption. Maxwell's theory predicted that electromagnetic waves traveled at the speed of light, and that was observed. It was one of the big reasons for concluding that light was an electromagnetic wave. Experiments like Michelson-Morley (1887) found a constant speed of light. Also, there were astronomical reasons for believing in a constant speed of light. Distances were measured in light-minutes or light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant. Yes, Einstein declared the constant speed of light to be postulate in 1905, but by then it was a well-accepted empirical fact. Going faster than ''c'' or finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics that it would be like finding a perpetual motion machine. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:27, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Empirical data suggest that the speed of light has changed over time, and as recently as 1/6th of the universe's lifetime. [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html]

:: You comments, like "distances were measured in ... light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant," is a political statement, not a scientific one. Likewise for stating that "finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics ...." Is this what university science has become - ignoring the data to preserve the reputation of some current and past professors?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The article you linked to claims that "The speed of light...may have been lower as recently as two billion years ago." How do you reconcile that time frame with a Young Earth Creationist model where the universe is only 6000 years old? You cant reject that study on the one hand because it directly contradicts the Bible but embrace it on the other when it supports the idea of a shifting c. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 18:45, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: The linked article says there may have been a change in the fine structure constant, α, not necessarily the speed of light, c. Also, it hardly seems like a variable α is currently well-established. It's just the result from one set of data. But even accepting that there has been a change in α and that this means a change in c, the amount seems minuscule. The article says that α "had increased by a few parts in 105 in the past 12 billion years", which would correspond to a similar change in c. Therefore, even if c is not exactly constant it would be very nearly constant and relativity would still be a great approximation. That's ignoring that there may be a mundane explanation for this apparent change.
:::: Also, as BrentH mentions above, if you accept these results you have to accept that the universe is billions of years old. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: I was explaining historically why the speed of light was thought to be constant. It was not just some unproved Einstein relativity assumption. There was solid experimental and theoretical evidence before Einstein. There is no evidence for a variable speed of light. That 2004 paper claiming alpha changed has been superseded with a more accurate study in 2007, with no variation. [http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/the-oklo-reactor-and-varying-physical-constants/][http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0701019] Even if alpha changed, it would not necessarily mean that ''c'' changed. I am not sure why any of this is political. We can measure the speed of light to about 10 decimal places. If the speed were not constant, then an experiment would be likely to detect it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I wish you, Andy and I could have a drunken dinner together some time. That would be an epic debate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:17, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, what do you make of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation syncrotron radiation]? Here you have effects which can't be explained without relativity and which are used in many fields of research, e.g. in medicine... 08:28, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Wikipedia]] has many dubious claims that relativity explains something ... as one might expect from a [[liberal]] website. This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L] It appears that this may be unresolved and I welcome more discussion about it. I don't see evidence that relativity played a role in discovering it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Nearly everything about charged particles requires relativity and quantum mechanics. There is no alternative way to understand charged particles, as far as I know. I do not even know what it would mean to reject relativity for this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:12, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Relativity is an unproductive belief system, disproved by more precise measurements in the tests that supposedly verified it. String theory is taking over university physics programs because Relativity is so obviously flawed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 27 August

-
::::::: [[String theory]] assumes that relativity is 100% correct. Physicists pursue string theory because they are sold on Einstein's dream of using relativistic ideas to unify physics, without having to pay attention to experiments. They are ''not'' pursuing string theory because they are persuaded by your list of relativity counterexamples. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:47, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
:::::::: String theory's motivation is to provide a way to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity, so it assumes general relativity is a good description of nature. In fact, string theory becomes general relativity in the low energy limit. In addition, string theories are Lorentz invariant. Whatever the merits of string theory, relativity is incorporated fundamentally to it, so if anything this example speaks to the strength of relativity. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:11, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
::::::::: Andy Schlafly: ''"This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L]"''-> It also says (right in the abstract) that relativity ''must'' be taken into account:

-
::::::::::"However, '''when ɣB ≅ 1014 Gauss, where ɣ is the electron Lorentz factor, Compton scattering becomes important'''. The result is a reduction in the synchrotron loss rate which '''agrees closely with quantum electrodynamics'''." [Emphasis added]

-
::::::::: Both Compton scattering and quantum electrodynamics make use of special relativity. If you take a look at the equations in the paper you can see that special relativity is used explicitly. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:32, 27 August 2011 (EDT)2011 (EDT)

This discussion is interesting, and I'm learning from it. I have an open mind about this. But it seems to me that term "relativity" is being used in comments above to mean anything from "invariance" (which, of course, predates relativity), electromagnetism (which, of course, predates relativity), and even quantum mechanics (which many say conflicts with relativity). The only thing that "relativity" does not seem to mean in many of the above comments is its description of gravity -- which is what is unique to relativity and what most associate it with.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: The word "relativity" was coined by Maxwell, and it became popular from Poincare calling the "principle of relativity" the idea that different inertial frames are indistinguishable. When I said that string theory assumes relativity, I meant primarily that it assumes Lorentz/Poincare invariance. The influence of relativity on physics has been primarily in electromagnetism, not gravity. The nonlinear gravity effects are barely detectable. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:45, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:: * Again, general relativity is about gravity. Special relativity is not.
:: * No one is saying "quantum mechanics" means "relativity". However, the article you linked to referenced quantum electrodynamics (a subset of quantum mechanics) which does incorporate special relativity. Moreover, while general relativity and quantum mechanics are difficult to reconcile, special relativity and quantum mechanics aren't and doing so has produced [[Quantum electrodynamics|the most accurate theory in physics]].
:: * No one is saying "invariance" means "relativity". For example, Galilean invariance contradicts relativity. However, a special type of invariance, Lorentz invariance, is fundamental to both special and general relativity (it holds locally in general relativity). String theory is Lorentz invariant.
:: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:38, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Actually, there were some people around 1910 who wanted to rename relativity theory as invariant theory. Einstein is sometimes said to have agreed with that opinion, but I am not sure he really said that. There is some disagreement about whether relativity is compatible with quantum mechanics. The two main problem areas are collapse of the wave function during an observation, and gravitational nonlinearities at the center of a black hole. But these are a little off the subject. The theories are completely compatible for nearly all considerations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it. Most of the counterexamples here relate to the claims about gravity and the curvature of space that are made by general relativity. Special relativity, according to the theory, is a "special case" of the general theory. If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me.

:::: The mathematical theory of general or special relativity permits no exceptions. So even a slight variation (outside of measurement error) between observation and prediction means the theory is wrong. It means the worldview embodied in relativity is wrong. And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::: ''"Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it."''
::::: We encountered phenomena that none of these people had before. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the Michelson–Morley experiment, gravitational lensing, etc. Changing your worldview in light of new evidence is quite a sensible thing to do.
::::: ''"If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me."''
::::: It's not so much that, but that one must be careful to separate the two.
::::: ''"And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed."''
::::: They haven't been ignored. The data has been analyzed and it agrees with relativity. Just here we've given you the examples of the Michelson–Morley experiment, the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments, Kennedy–Thorndike experiment, synchrotron radiation, etc. We've also answered here your alleged counterexamples to relativity and the problems with them. If you have any more I'd be happy to address them.
::::: I'm not sure what data you're talking about that hasn't being publicly disclosed. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Special relativity is not so much a special case, but rather the linearized version of the general theory. The special theory has been tested in many more different ways, and it could be true without the general theory being true. I really don't think that relativity requires any different view from Maxwell's. Relativity is consistent with what Maxwell said. I really don't see why you would say that relativity does not permit any exceptions any more than Maxwells theory does not permit any exceptions. What's the difference? Theories have formulas. If observations don't agree with the formulas, then something is wrong. Why is relativity any different from any other theory in the hard sciences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:41, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Relativity should not be treated any differently compared with any other theory in the hard sciences. But Relativity obviously is:

::::::*physics journals will not accept for publication anything that conflicts with the theory of relativity
::::::*the Nobel Prize will not be given to anyone who has criticized the theory of relativity
::::::*no science graduate student or science professor dare even criticize the above two forms of censorship.

::::::As to the data, the two leading supposed verifications of the theory are the binary pulsar (for which a Nobel Prize was given) and the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it. Yet additional data have not been made fully available to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::: I have to say I had no idea of this bias until reading Conservapedia. It sounds shocking. Can you tell me which physicists have been denied awards, or refused publication on this basis? It would be really useful in arguments I'm having off-site. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:54, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: ''"But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it."''
:::::::: Can you please provide a source for this claim? What data are you talking about? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: A "source"? No source is needed, or possible given the censorship by physics journals I just described.

::::::::: Wouldn't you be at least interested yourself in looking up what the precession for the Mercury perihelion is, and comparing it to what Relativity predicts? I think that would be the first step before one made up his mind, not something that must be raised by someone else.

::::::::: The Mercury perihelion precession is 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, plus/minus 0.1. General Relativity predicts 5599.98, plus/minus 0.04. The observed precession is clearly outside of prediction by more than the standard of error. But beginning in the early 1990s, probably because of this emerging divergence, physicists stopped publishing the data perhaps to avoid pinpointing the contradiction with even greater accuracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: So by your own admission general relativity is within 0.005% of the correct value?
:::::::::: Anyway, where are you getting your information for the precession rate? From what I gather the error is larger than 0.1 arc-seconds per century.
::::::::::Some values for the anomalous precession rate (i.e, deviation from what you expect from Newtonain gravity):
:::::::::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
:::::::::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
:::::::::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
:::::::::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
:::::::::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]
:::::::::: General relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04, while Newtonian gravity predicts 0. Clearly general relativity is superior here. It's within experimental error in three out of the four experiments above, and just barely out of it with the fourth. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:22, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: The theory of relativity is proven wrong by the data, '''''beyond measurement error'''''. If you're not going to address that directly, then I'm unlikely to respond further to your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I really don't know what to say. I just showed that for four experiments of the precession of Mercury's perihelion relativity was within experimental uncertainty in three of them and just barely out of it for one. This is better that Newtonian theory which was zero for four. Measuring outside experimental uncertainty ''once'' doesn't automatically make a theory wrong. They are many differences between a simple, clean model and a complex, messy reality that can account for this. Even just by statistics alone you'd expect a correct theory to be outside measurement error once in a while. It still stands that relativity is more accurate than any other theory.
:::::::::::: If you have any citations of experiments that show relativity's predictions fall outside experimental uncertainty I'll be happy to address them. However, just declaring that it's outside experimental uncertainty, but you don't have the data because a relativity cabal is keeping it secret is doesn't merit a response. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:54, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: The most recent -- and most precise -- Mercury perihelion precession data '''''demonstrate that the [[theory of relativity]] is wrong by more than the measurement error'''''. Case closed based on the data.

::::::::::::: [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site. If someone has more precise Mercury perihelion precession data than what has disproved the theory of relativity, then a discussion of that data is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Sigh... I just explained in detail why it wasn't "case closed". Being outside experimental error doesn't automatically make a theory wrong, especially when it isn't that far off. It could mean the theory is wrong or it could mean the theory is right, but by chance measured outside experimental uncertainty. By statistics we expect that to happen every now and then. '''''You can't just cherry pick the one experiment that fits your preconceptions and declare it case closed. You have to take all the other experimental data into account.''''' When you do that here (that is, you also look at the other three experiments) the results look in favor for relativity.

:::::::::::::: You can have the last word if you want. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:31, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: It is not true that the data demonstrate that the theory of relativity is wrong by more than the measurement error. What you have is a difference of opinion, and one scientist claiming that the combination of relativity and other assumptions and observations results in a discrepancy that exceeds the ''estimated'' measurement error. The problem could be with those other assumptions and observations, or with the estimate of the measurement error. As with the Pioneer anomaly, there are explanations that do not violate relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: Any and all attempts to reconcile the observed data with the theory of relativity are welcome. Instead, I not aware of the publication of observed data for this fundamental claim of the theory since 1992 (see above), despite improvements in technology and precision since then. Anyone think that it became impossible to observe the data after that time??? Notice what the data were showing leading up that point: increasing divergence (and contradiction) with the well-settled prediction made by the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:37, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Here is the [http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf Mercury Radar Ranging Data from 1987 to 1997]. The work was carried out by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under NASA. You are absolutely free to analyze the data in depth to see if the relativists are hiding anything. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:32, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Somehow I doubt the data above (going five years after the supposed suppression of data began) is going appease you. Well, you can go send NASA a letter and ask them for the most recent data about Mercury's orbit. They might give it to you if you ask nicely and they almost certainly have it, since [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/index.html they currently have a space probe orbiting Mercury] (I guess they didn't get the memo from the relativists telling everyone to ignore Mercury because it contradicted relativity). Anyway, once you get the data you'll have definitive proof that liberals have been suppressing important information about Mercury's orbit (or something). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:18, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: Looking back, I made a mistake. I said general relativity's prediction was outside the measurement uncertainty for the fourth experiment (Anderson et al., 1992). I misread it. GR prediciton: 42.98 ±0.04, Observation: 43.13 ± 0.14. They actually do overlap. So general relativity is four for four. My bad. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:41, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::: I took a look at the JPL link above but did not find any reference to the perihelion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::::: I'm pretty sure there's no reference to the perihelion because it's the raw data, without analysis. If the data was mapped to show Mercury's location, it would (presumably) show a perihelion. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

=== More counterexamples ===
I found another page with a long list of supposed counterexamples. It looks like nonsense to me, but you can check it out for yourself. He says, "Fossil records indicate the Earth’s gravity was far less during the time of the dinosaurs." He does have references of many of his alleged anomalies. [http://knol.google.com/k/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence-presented] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

=== Denial of [[Nobel Prize]] to anyone who criticizes relativity ===

:::::::: [[Robert Dicke]], the finest American physicist of the 20th century, criticized the theory of relativity and was then never given a Nobel Prize. In fact, in a pattern also used to punish [[Fred Hoyle]] for his criticism of the theory of evolution, a Nobel Prize was given for Dicke's insight to other scientists less deserving of the award than Dicke, within years of Dicke's criticism of the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: According to the [http://www.nap.edu/readingroom.php?book=biomems&page=rdicke.html National Academies Press] Dicke was given:
::::::::: ''"the National Medal of Science (1971), the Comstock Prize of the National Academy of Sciences (1973), and the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (1973). He was a member of the National Science Board from 1970 to 1976. Bob was appointed to the Princeton University Department of Physics in 1946, served as chair from 1967 to 1970, moved to emeritus in 1984''.
::::::::: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:11, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Right ... and no [[Nobel Prize]], despite being the finest American physicist of the 20th century. Note also that it was his criticism of relativity in the mid-1970s -- after the awards you cite -- that caused him to be punished by the Nobel Prize committee. No one in grad school or on university faculties dare criticize Relativity again, no matter what the data say. No relativist will even criticize the policy of excluding anyone who criticizes the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: I am sure the Nobel committee has its prejudices. Hoyle once wrote a letter to the London Times criticizing a Nobel physics prize. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/03/fred-hoyle-nobel-prize/print] So maybe they did not like him for that. By the time they gave the big bang prize in 1978, Gamow and others were dead. I would have rather given the prize to the theorists, but those are the biases of the folks in Sweden. I am not sure it has anything to do with the acceptability of relativity. There is a lot of excellent theoretical work that never got a prize, such as the work of Poincare and Minkowski on relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:56, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: You link to an interesting, in-depth article that gives other possible examples of Nobel Prize bias. But the article misses the timing on the insult to Fred Hoyle -- fall 1983 -- which was around the time that he was challenging a tenet of evolution (I'd like to obtain further details on the timing - his partner in the research apparently raised the criticism as early as 1980). Such a coincidence in timing for a prize that was given for 1957 work can hardly be ignored. Note that the article also says Fowler was "stunned" by the award's passing over Hoyle.

:::::::::::: The article also omits the insults to Teller and Wheeler, to Robert Dicke, and to Raymond Damadian (see explanation in [[Nobel Prize]]).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: I am not sure I understand your bias theory, but even supposing that some Swedes have some prejudices, how does this relate to the merits of relativity? You criticize the 1978 prize. But that was for discovery of the cosmic microwave radiation that was predicted by relativity theorists and confirmed by a couple of telephone company engineers who were just trying to measure their satellite reception interference. They did not even believe in the relativity explanation. So why did the Swedes give the prize to the Bell engineers instead of the relativists? Maybe you should start a page on Counterexamples to Swedish Wisdom. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:00, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: "Swedes" are not picking the Nobel Prize-winners. They just act on the recommendations of [[liberal]] professors who don't like criticism of the theories of evolution, relativity, or [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Really, the bias is not that complicated. It's no different from the bias in [[Academy Award]]s, [[Pulitzer Prize]]s, [[Rhodes Scholar]]s, or any other award system that is heavily influenced by leftists.

:::::::::::::: Once [[Fred Hoyle]] and [[Robert Dicke]] criticized liberal theories, they had to be punished. The greatest punishment is to award the Nobel Prize for their work '''''to someone less deserving'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:08, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

== Standard kilogrammes? ==
I'm not sure how good an argument this is. ONE out of a batch of 40 identical standard kilogrammes has diverged in weight from the others. Common sense says that there's something wrong with that one weight, which is after all stored in France. It's not likely that the answer has anything to do with relativity, which if correct would have caused an identical change in mass in all 40. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:06, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: I have a drawer full of socks. I cannot find a match for one of them. Can I blame relativity? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::Is it a French sock? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 08:14, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Maybe so. Or from some other country where "kilogram" is spelled "kilogramme". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::That would be everywhere except the USA. I'm English. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:I believe that it has something to do with the metals used are slightly radioactive and are emitting either alpha or beta particles causing a very slight decrease in weight. The answer doesn't have anything to do with relativity and is a well know issue. Scientists are currently trying to come up with a better way of standardizing mass. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:56, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::There's a difference between relativity and quantum mechanics (which explains the above observation). If you only took high school physics--you have about two hundred years of catching up to do on the field. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

==Ummmm...==

Physics has come a long way since Albert Einstein published his theories of relativity. Actually, there are quite a few hypothetical paradigms within modern physics that would allow a particle of sufficiently high energy to apparently travel faster than light. I'm not a physicist (as I've said on other pages, I'm a biologist), but I am peripherally familiar with a few of the better-supported ideas. I suggest you read up on M theory and string theory. At the risk of butchering the explanation (I am NOT a physicist), I will say that within the paradigm of M theory and string theory, observing high-energy particles moving slightly faster than light is not all that surprising. That said, the authors of the paper describing the "faster than light" neutrinos, admit up front that the numbers they got was probably the result of some sort of experimental error--the results need to be repeatable in order to be scientific. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

: Science can advance with one observation, and it's not necessary to wait until it is repeated before discussing and learning from it. How quickly (if ever) was the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] repeated?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:: The Michelson-Morley experiment was first done in 1887. It was repeated by them and by others many times in the next few years. Illingworth and Kennedy came up with a variant that was more sensitive and could test for certain exotic explanations. They did that very soon after the initial experiment. Dayton Miller also did such experiments and continued to do them even after Einstein's work was completed. Miller acknowledged the results of the experiments but remained a committed opponent to special relativity. One of Miller's experiments did actually turn up some interesting results but his later experiments and other work failed to replicate it and it seems to have been a statistical anomaly. Others continued to duplicate versions of the MM experiment because the data from it can be used to test aspects of special relativity and other ideas. So duplicated forms have continued right up to the present day although generally using carefully tuned lasers as the light sources which give much more precision. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Some experiments done following the MM experiment (not all listed, only some early ones and some recent ones): Morley-Miller 1902-1904 (published 1904), Miller 1921, Miller 1923-1924, Antonini et al 2005, Stanwix et al 2006, Eisele et al 2009, Herrmann et al 2009. Plus others between them, just listing some early ones and some recent ones. And it is usually necessary to wait until an experiment is repeated before accepting it to be accurate. A single observation, that can't be repeated, usually has an explanation within the current understanding of physics. For example, a network of ravines and gullies was observed in the 1870s on the surface of Mars, and there was wide speculation about their origin. An explanation suggested in the early 1900s wasn't proved until the 1960s, that the ravines and gullies were in actuality an optical illusion caused by streaks of dust blowing across the surface in the strong winds. Another example of a 'discovery' that later turned out to be false was the existence of Vulcan, a planet between Mercury and the Sun. A single observation, unconfirmed by repetition, does not indicate a discovery. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:22, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::: Yes, the M-M experiment was repeated many times. It had to be done at different times of the year, at different altitudes, with different materials, etc. Eg, maybe the length contraction might have been different for wood and brass.
::: There are physicists who have suggested faster than light particles, but string theory and M theory are Lorentz invariant and useless on the issue. The string theorists would definitely be surprised by anything faster than light. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:24, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::: Claimed results from a single experiment have been proven wrong before (e.g, the claims of producing [[cold fusion]] in 1989). It makes sense to see if an experiment is replicated before throwing out an extremely well tested theory. It's very suspicious that we haven't seen neutrinos going faster than the speed of light before this. Experimenters are only human beings and could easily have made a mistake or forget to include something in their calculations. The claimed velocity is only a tiny fraction lager than c and might easily be explained by not taking into account some systematic error.
:::: If Mr. Schlafly's other 36 "counterexamples" are so strong then I don't see why he so badly needs the example of an unreplicated experiment whose data is still in the process of being analyzed. (When Einstein was asked about the book '100 Authors Against Einstein' he responded: "If I were wrong, it would only have taken one".) --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 11:27, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::::: If the experiment is disproved by subsequent experiments, then that particular counterexample can be removed. But the insistence on clinging to the [[theory of relativity]] when the available evidence is to the contrary is unjustified. Einstein's quote is inapplicable to this issue: the context of Einstein's quote refers to a government attempt to discredit his theory. His quote does apply to government efforts to deny scientific evidence today, such as the attempt by the [[NCI]] to deny the [[abortion]]-[[breast cancer]] link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Gee, the experiment counts as a counterexample even before the facts are in. What a surprise....
:::::: I'm not sure if the German government was behind '100 Authors Against Einstein', but even if it were it's completely irrelevant. The folly wasn't that it was done by the government; it was that if relativity was wrong one good argument would suffice. The inclusion of this unconfirmed experimental result just shows how this list of "counterexamples" values quantity over quality. Rather than making a few strong arguments it's a list of 37 random tidbits. '''You're expecting to overturn one of science's best theories with something that can fit inside a Twitter post?''' The reasoning for many points' inclusion are not well explained and counterarguments are not addressed (e.g, Hawking radiation is called a "[c]ontrived explanation" with no justification whatsoever). I suspect the "conciseness" of the points is just a reflection of its author's short attention span. I'll report to the Worldwide Relativity Cabal that we have nothing to fear from... oops. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:46, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Thank you MatthewQ! Oh, and Mr. Schlafly, the evidence does not support a link between abortion and breast cancer. You may find good sources on the topic [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1733063/?tool=pmcentrez here], [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)15835-2/fulltext here], and [http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814 here]. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 08:11, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::: As for redoing the M-M experiment, the [[LIGO]] experiment can be seen as a $400M modern M-M experiment. While the M-M failed to detect the motion of the Earth, LIGO has failed to detect motion in other galaxies. You may be interested in this new paper reporting on an NSF grant to teach high school students about LIGO detecting gravity waves. This is just to be ready in case LIGO ever succeeds in detecting anything, I guess. [http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.3720] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 06:08, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

== A few sections that should be removed... ==

12: For this point to be right, things need to have started VERY VERY small, which is impossible if Creationism is right. This creates an inconsistency within Conservapedia and should be removed.
26: The first part is wrong due to GPSs. In order to be more accurate, they take into account relativity, and hence relativity has produced something useful. The rest of it is repeated in 18. Hence, as everything in 26 is either wrong or repeated, it should be removed.
28: Relativity does not require everything with 0 mass to have 0 momentum. It actually takes into account that light, despite having 0 mass, has momentum.
29: This is actually wrong. The age of each twin is independent of the path travel, it is dependent only on the acceleration they experience. Therefore, this point is wrong.
Any comments or disagreements? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 22:02, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:On point 12, physicists themselves admit that relativity contradicts quantum mechanics shortly after the Big Bang. So even relativists would (or should) concede the validity of this counterexample.

:On point 26, GPS's were not developed as a result of relativity. This has been discussed at length on this site in the past. No relativists were involved in the engineering of GPS's; any differences in timing on the satellites relative to ground are more easily corrected by synchronization rather than theoretical predictions.

:Will review the other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:45, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

::I fully agree with all this. Some of the stuff in this page literally left my head hurting pretty badly from facepalming so hard.

::And, Schlafly, how does this make relativity wrong? Newtonian physics is wrong at quantum levels too. Should we add a "Counterexamples to Newtonian Mechanics" page and put something like that in there too? Of course not--it's an excellent approximation for things on the everyday scale. Same thing with GR.

::No, they were not developed because of relativity, but they were developed taking relativity into account. The people who built it didn't know the specifics, but they knew the corrections from relativity were there and they took them into account. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:53, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

::::I concur. Rather, arguing "counterexamples" is a fine way to demonstrate the weaknesses, inconsistencies, or future directions of inquiry regarding any scientific paradigm. However, it is a logical fallacy to say that "these are the problems with hypothesis A, therefore hypothesis B ''must'' be true". For a position to be effectively argued, one must present empirical evidence in support of an alternative hypothesis. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 00:56, 12 November 2011 (EST)

:::::A bigger logical fallacy occurs when someone insists or thinks that an alternative hypothesis B must exist before disproving a hypothesis A.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:14, 12 November 2011 (EST)

:::::::Good point. However, when a hypothesis is not supported the scientific process usually then entails asking the question of why it was not supported, and then forming a new hypothesis that once again fits all of the available data. This is why scientific understanding of even the most hard and fast paradigms can change so dramatically from one generation to the next (or, occasionally, from one experiment to the next). The most exciting science gets done when a well-reasoned hypothesis is rejected--simply because it opens the door to so many new possibilities.--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 13:01, 14 November 2011 (EST)

== A couple more problems ==

These went up after I posted the other section so I didn't know what to do. If you would prefer I post it there, then sorry. I'm new to wikis so I don't know proper etiquette and perhaps a missed something in the guidelines :)

Anyway, first thing, you state: "It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world."

...Honestly, I am speechless about this. Again, this was taken down but now someone put it back up... You guys honestly think this statement is true? There is no connection between the two--the only thing they have in common is the name "relativity." What, you think that people's morals depend on their frame of reference and change by the relativistic <math> \gamma (\equiv 1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2})</math> factor or something?! I am truly shocked by this...What connection is there? Where is the equation that predicts this?

Secondly: "Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light." Nope. Things can't travel at the speed of light, according to SR. Relativity explicitly states that things cannot go faster than light. If you drop this, then of course there are going to be going to be inconsistencies with SR...And that thread only talks about things going at the speed of light. What's the problem with solenoids travelling near c? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 16:52, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
:Can someone please tell me what the link between moral relativism and GR/SR is...? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:04, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::Because <s>God</s> <s>psychotic rambling homophobic momma's boy</s> Andy Schlafly said so. You have to turn off your <s>indoctrinated</s> educated mind... --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:36, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

== At first glance ==

There are so many problems with this page I don't know where to start. Whomever wrote it is obviously clueless about science and its

methods. A few of the problems include:

1. Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found.

The lack of experimental confirmation ''so far'' of gravity waves does NOT falsify the theory. Absence of evidence is not evidence of

absence.

3. Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of

Relativity.

Only in experiments that have yet to be confirmed.

7. The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds relativity

Untrue. The EFEs contain a term (the cosmological constant) that fully accounts for accelerated expansion.

10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass

What logical problem? I studied physics at the graduate level and have never heard of any logical problem. ?

13. The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement

AAAD is a matter of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In any case, it does NOT Falsify GRT as no information is propagated faster

than light.

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

See 13 (above). This statement also assumes that the action-at-a-distance by Jesus described in the Bible actually happened. It is not

"true and verifiable".

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

Gravitons are the quanta of gravity waves. See #1.

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

The ability to lead to other insights has never been a test of the validity of a scientific theory, and lack of consequent insight does not

falsify a theory.

26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the

theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.

Development of useful devices is a matter of engineering, and is not a test of a scientific theories validity.

27. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction.

This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.

The priniciple of isotropy does not falisfy Relativity. The theory itself accounts for, and predicts, the difference in observed inertia.

28. Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws

of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.

And Relativity also predicts that photons have non-zero momentum. Relativistic systems can have non-zero momentum even with no

rest mass, due to ''mass-energy equivalence''. Relativity correctly predicts the momentum of a massless particle as p = h*f/c = h/λ.

31. The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows

down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to

be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity

Incorrect, as this only takes Special Relativity into account. This is a common fallacy. It is the acceleration required to return the twin

that accounts for the difference in clocks and is explained/predicted by General Relativity. One must take both SRT and GRT into

account.

32. Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right,

theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.

Fields do not constitute an "aether". The EM field exists (and was explained/predicted by Maxwell long before Eistein).

34 (a). In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens.

How is such an account "true and verifiable"?

34(b). This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.

Something that is "likely" does not falsify a scientific theory.

35. Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the

properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.

This is not an argument against applied mathematics, not against Relativity per se.

37. Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding.

This does not falsify the theory.

~~csmcmillion

:'''Reply''': by starting with an ''ad hominem'' attack, you lost credibility from the get-go. A quick review of your points confirms it:

:1. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." It is when billions are spent on many years of looking. Surely you wouldn't think a lost item is in your backpack if you spent time looking for it there and could not find it.

:3. "Only in experiments that have yet to be confirmed." Experiments '''''are''''' confirmation in themselves.

:7. "the cosmological constant... fully accounts for accelerated expansion." Reliance on a cosmological constant has failed before.

:10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass. "What logical problem? I studied physics at the graduate level and have never heard of any logical problem?" Oh please. None of these counterexamples is candidly addressed in physics departments because these counterexamples cast doubt on a theory preferred for political reasons. Anyone in a physics department who expresses doubt about the theory of relativity would be thereby ending his own academic career.

:13. The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement. "AAAD is a matter of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In any case, it does NOT Falsify GRT as no information is propagated faster than light." Relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance (which cannot seriously be disputed in QM) whether a type of information is transmitted or not.

:14. The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51. "See 13 (above). This statement also assumes that the action-at-a-distance by Jesus described in the Bible actually happened. It is not 'true and verifiable.'" There are no [[Counterexamples to the Bible]], so this conflict is a serious one.

:15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching. "Gravitons are the quanta of gravity waves. See #1." And see my answer to #1.

:18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics. "The ability to lead to other insights has never been a test of the validity of a scientific theory, and lack of consequent insight does not falsify a theory." The failure of the theory to produce is strong evidence against its validity.

:26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. "Development of useful devices is a matter of engineering, and is not a test of a scientific theories validity." A theory that inhibits technological progress, rather than enhance it, is almost certainly wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I'll address your other responses as my time permits. For now:

"by starting with an ''ad hominem'' attack"

Stating the obvious is not an ad hominem attack. I didn't say the author was an "idiot". Anyone who honestly thinks that because "devices" have not been engineered based upon a scientific theory somehow ''falsifies'' that theory ''is'' truly clueless (maybe ignorant would have been a better word) of science and the scientific method. A correct scientific theory must explain previous observations and correctly predict those to come. No where is there a requirement that it lead to engineered "devices".

14. "The action-at-a-distance by Jesus"

I should have added: The AAAD by Jesus is (usually) considered a miracle - a suspension of natural law. So I'm not clear on how the suspension of natural law could be considered a counterexample to a natural law to begin with.

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

I should have asked a simple question on this one: Have you ever asked an astronomer, cosmologist or theoretical physicist if s/he has had insights from Relativity? Please - find ''one'' that hasn't had deep insight as a result.

"A theory that inhibits technological progress, rather than enhance it, is almost certainly wrong.--Andy Schlafly 00:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)"

So, adherence to a literal interpretation of the Bible, which hindered technical progress for more than a thousand years, indicates that the Bible is almost certainly wrong. Thank you '''so much''' for clearing that up. ~~csmcmillion

:Take a look at [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]. When you post more substantive comments, then I'll respond to them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:37, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I agree that "relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance", but not that AAAD "cannot seriously be disputed in QM". There is no QM experiment that show AAAD. There are interpretations of QM that seem to imply AAAD, and respected physicists who believe in those interpretations and hence in AAAD. But QM does not imply AAAD as there are also relativistic interpretations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:27, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:QM experiments have shown that a pair of spinning, entangled photons can be separated a great distance, and that the mere observation of the spin of one of those photons immediately removes the uncertainty about the spin of the other photon a far distance away. All attempts to deny that [[action-at-a-distance]] reality have failed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:42, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:: Yes, the photon experiment is correct. Some people do interpret the observation of one photon as affecting the other photon. But there is no proof of that. You could prove it if the observation transmitted information, but no one can do that. Other interpretations do not require AAAD. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:47, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Andy: Why did you delete RSchlafly's most recent comment? RSchlafly: I believe you are correct. A little research on my part shows numerous refutations to the assertions made on this page, going back a couple of years:

http://skullsinthestars.com/2010/08/09/right-wing-refutations-of-relativity-really-really-wrong/

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/6253

I'm beginning to see why people are telling me not to waste my time trying to contribute to this site.
:All you're doing is making your own "assertions without clarification". We've had these arguments before, and these arguments were created by people who refuse to listen to what we say or refuse to read any of the sources we provide. And it's tiresome. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:44, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:User:csmcmillion, it's not a discussion when someone won't use his own words to explain his views.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:49, 13 November 2011 (EST)

::And it's not a discussion when sysops repeatedly delete comments, as you just did. ~~csmcmillion
:::And what exactly did I delete? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:42, 13 November 2011 (EST)
Just wanted to add to this: When has <math>\Lambda</math> failed? It's a perfectly legitimate term in the EFE's, as csmcmillion has stated. The righthand side of it is (in <math>G=c=1</math> units) is <math>8 \pi T^{\alpha \beta }</math>. You need something on the left which is a measure of curvature, i.e., the Einstein tensor <math>G^{\alpha \beta}</math>. Why the Einstein tensor? Why not the Ricci tensor? Why not the scalar curvature times the metric? The reason is that the stress-energy tensor (T) has to have zero divergence: <math>\nabla_{\beta} T^{\alpha \beta} = 0 </math>. The Einstein tensor has zero divergence as well. But, we also have <math> \nabla_{\gamma} g^{\alpha \beta} = 0</math>. So we can safely add in <math>\Lambda g^{\alpha \beta}</math> to the left hand side of the EFE without violating local conservation of energy-momentum. Using this gives <math>G^{\alpha \beta}+\Lambda g^{\alpha \beta} = 8 \pi T^{\alpha \beta}. </math> [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:46, 15 November 2011 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The "The observed lack of curvature in overall space" is not an "unobserved" phenomenon. Accordingly, it has been reverted along with the others. Looking for something that should be there under a theory, but not finding it there as predicted, is a counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:50, 30 November 2011 (EST)

:[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], sorry, yes, I was being a bit overzealous on that one. However, I think the principle holds - many of the concepts listed are not counterexamples. Starting with number one: relativity predicts gravity waves and predicts that they will be extremely difficult to detect. Now I hear you say that's a pretty lousy kind of prediction - and you're right - but it still doesn't make it a counterexample. The same goes for the entry on gravitons (additionally, they're a prediction of quantum theory, not relativity, but that's for another phase of editing).
:It may be that further categorizing is necessary. For example, issues like the Twin Paradox and the Ehrenfest Paradox are not strictly unobserved phenomena either. Item 37, failure to solve the equations, is a problem for mathematics, not necessarily for relativity.
:Perhaps a simpler solution would be to rename the whole article, perhaps to 'Counterarguments to Relativity'. That way the article doesn't look silly by listing things that clearly aren't counterexamples, and also is open to inclusion of a broader range of criticisms of the theory. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:50, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:: I agree with QPR, as upon thinking about it, 'counterexamples' does not accurately describe the things on the list. And looking for something predicted and not finding it is only a counterexample/counterargument if it is predicted to be in a specific place, and when looking there, it isn't found. Hence, not finding gravity waves despite looking for them doesn't mean they don't exist. Many things were thought to be myths or non-existent until they were found, including giraffes. But I also disagree with QPR in that categorizing the list is unnecessary, and would result in needless discussions about where certain points belong, rather than more productive discussions. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:56, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::: I don't think that counterexamples is the best word either. My suggestion would be to leave the title as is, but to split the list into ''paradoxes'' and ''anomalies''. They maybe people would have a better idea what to expect from each item. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:43, 2 December 2011 (EST)

Response to the above: the list is of "counterexamples". These are examples that are counter to the theory. Other terms, like "paradox" or "anomaly", capture neither the concept of "example" nor of it being "counter" to the theory. The term "paradox" arises in philosophy, but this isn't philosophy. Relativity is a theory that pretends to be correct in every case, but it isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:24, 3 December 2011 (EST)

== Deleted example to releativity ==

Hello, I added a counter example to relativity that was removed, despite it being valid. My counter example was that the special theory of relativity predicts that mass is a form of energy and they are interchangeable. But if this were true the huge amount of energy stored in common matter would have been utilised by now in power stations and weaponry.

The problem is, it's been over 100 years since this theory was published and not one power station that utilises the interchange of mass and energy predicted by relativity has actually been built.

However, this counter example was removed because a member claimed that these do exist. Now this leaves us with a dichotomy. Do we...
A) Admit that these power stations exist (which they don't) and therefore acknowledge the special theory of relativity is accurate and true, or
B) We keep the counter example included that no power station that utilises special relativity exists, and therefore it is a sign that relativity is false.

I think we should vote for B on this issue. It would be like inventing the motor engine, but not building cars! --[[GMilhouse]] --[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 12:36, 3 December 2011 (EST)