Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Theory of relativity

2012-04-22T16:11:42Z

Jloveday: /* First sentence of article contradicted by the rest */

{| style=" width:95%; text-align:left; background:{{{background}}}; color:{{{color|black}}}; border:3px solid black; clear:both " align="center"
|-
|width="2%" style="text-align:center" cellpadding="5"|'''!'''
|'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''

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

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


== Mass depending on direction ==

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

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

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

== Neutrinos now obey speed limit ==

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

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

== Why does Conservapedia seek to discredit Relativity ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== GPS and Relativity ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Why are adjustments needed to GPS? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::Well spotted, Judy. I've gone back to one of the sources and it is indeed 38 microseconds. Thank you for the correction. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:10, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

== Logic and the GPS ==

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

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

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

== Newtonian explanation of Mercury's precession ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Theory of relativity

2012-04-15T19:37:32Z

Jloveday: /* Newtonian explanation of Mercury's precession */

{| style=" width:95%; text-align:left; background:{{{background}}}; color:{{{color|black}}}; border:3px solid black; clear:both " align="center"
|-
|width="2%" style="text-align:center" cellpadding="5"|'''!'''
|'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''

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

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


== Mass depending on direction ==

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

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

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

== Neutrinos now obey speed limit ==

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

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

== Why does Conservapedia seek to discredit Relativity ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== GPS and Relativity ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Why are adjustments needed to GPS? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Logic and the GPS ==

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

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

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

== Newtonian explanation of Mercury's precession ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Theory of relativity

2012-04-15T19:32:45Z

Jloveday: /* Newtonian explanation of Mercury's precession */

{| style=" width:95%; text-align:left; background:{{{background}}}; color:{{{color|black}}}; border:3px solid black; clear:both " align="center"
|-
|width="2%" style="text-align:center" cellpadding="5"|'''!'''
|'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''

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

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


== Mass depending on direction ==

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

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

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

== Neutrinos now obey speed limit ==

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

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

== Why does Conservapedia seek to discredit Relativity ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== GPS and Relativity ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Why are adjustments needed to GPS? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Logic and the GPS ==

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

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

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

== Newtonian explanation of Mercury's precession ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-04-14T18:42:07Z

Jloveday:

The [[theory of relativity]] is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by [[liberals]] who like its encouragement of [[moral relativism|relativism]] and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.<ref group="note">See, e.g., historian Paul Johnson's book about the 20th century, and the article written by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe as allegedly assisted by [[Barack Obama]]. Virtually no one who is taught and believes Relativity continues to read the [[Bible]], a book that outsells ''New York Times'' bestsellers by a hundred-fold.</ref> Here is a list of 39 counterexamples: any one of them shows that the theory is incorrect.

#Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravitational waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3781</ref> ''Sound like [[global warming]]?''
#The orbital radius of the [[Moon]]'s orbit is increasing, contrary to what Relativity predicts.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0212</ref><ref>creation.com/moon&search=123233422queery=10101001.php</ref>
#The [[Pioneer anomaly]].
#Subatomic particles with mass have a speed observed to be as fast as the speed of light ("we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos"<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17364682</ref>), which contradicts Relativity because the [[Lorentz factor]] is then infinite.<ref>http://www.hindustantimes.com/Roll-over-Einstein-Law-of-physics-challenged/Article1-749189.aspx - note that a similar observation of faster-than-light speeds was also made in 2007 (with a larger margin of error).</ref><ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/18/us-science-neutrinos-light-idUSTRE7AH0T720111118</ref> Neutrinos were observed to travel at the speed of light by an independent experiment also: "Their neutrinos traveled at precisely the speed of light, not faster or slower."<ref>http://junkscience.com/2012/03/21/no-you-still-cant-go-faster-than-light/</ref>
#Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by [[Earth]] ("flybys").<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23410705/</ref>
#Spiral galaxies confound Relativity, and unseen "[[dark matter]]" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1873</ref>
#The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds Relativity, and unseen "[[dark energy]]" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.
#Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.<ref group="note">In a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them, the theory of general relativity's fundamental formula, <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>, was conformed to match Mercury's then-observed precession of 5600.0 arc-seconds per century. Subsequently, however, more sophisticated technology has measured a different value of this precession (5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01), and leading promoters of Relativity (such as Professor Clifford Will) have omitted this in listing tests confirming Relativity.</ref>
#The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.
#The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?
#The observed lack of curvature in overall space.<ref group="note">If space were curved, one would never expect the universe as a whole to be almost precisely flat. Yet it is.</ref>
#The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] of [[quantum entanglement]].<ref group="note">Quantum entanglement has not yet communicated information faster than the speed of light, but has already exhibited action faster than the speed of light.</ref>
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] by [[Jesus]], described in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]], [[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)|Matthew 15:28]], and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)|Matthew 27:51]].
#The failure to discover [[gravitons]], despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
#Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do '''not''' experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity.<ref group="note">For a report on the data, see a paper submitted in 2010 by John Webb and Julian King of the University of new South Wales, Australia, to the ''Physical Review Letters''.</ref>
#The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a [[black hole]]. So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."<ref>http://www.economist.com/node/17035953</ref>
#The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
#The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.<ref>[[Mystery:Why Is the Kilogram Losing Weight?]]</ref>
#The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.<ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html ("A varying speed of light contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity, and would undermine much of traditional physics. But some physicists believe it would elegantly explain puzzling cosmological phenomena such as the nearly uniform temperature of the universe.")</ref>
#"According to Einstein’s view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous" but observations instead show "inexplicable static" greater than "all artificial sources of" possible background noise.<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out. Hunt for gravitational waves discovers unexpected data instead].</ref>
#"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don’t gel."<ref>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space</ref>
#The theory predicts [[wormholes]] just as it predicts [[black holes]], but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.<ref>http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v61/i13/p1446_1 . The popular science press promotes black holes to a far greater extent than wormholes.</ref>
#The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in [[entropy]] required by the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]].<ref group="note">Contrived explanations have been suggested for this dilemma, such as Stephen Hawking proposing that the entropy of matter in a black hole is somehow stored in the surface area of its event horizon to be released back into its surroundings as the black hole decays by radiation, known as "Hawking radiation."</ref>
#Data from the [[PSR B1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] increasingly diverge from predictions of the [[General Theory of Relativity]] such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.
#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.<ref group="note">Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”</ref> This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.
#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.
#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.
#Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.<ref group="note">In defense of the theory, it is noted that it mandates conservation of the matter-stress-energy tensor (the only way to get ''real'' conservation, since matter and energy are interchangeable.) This follows from the "contracted Bianchi identity." [http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/omei/gr/chap6/node14.html] Also, the curl of the "gravitational field vector" is exactly zero in the absence of moving sources, due to symmetries of [[Riemann]]'s tensor. It follows, from [[Stokes' Theorem]], that the gravitational field is conservative and has a potential function. Energy is conserved.</ref>
#The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (<math>2 \pi R</math>) is length-contracted. However, since <math>R</math> is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal <math>R</math>, or is it less than <math>R</math>?
#Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v227/n5255/abs/227270a0.html</ref>
#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.<ref group="note">Einstein attempted to explain the paradox based on the acceleration that one twin uniquely undergoes, but the length of travel can simply be extended such that any effect from acceleration would be ''de minimis''.</ref>
#Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the [[aether (science)|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.
#[[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.<ref group="note">Time isn't a vector. It is a component of the vector space known as "spacetime".</ref>
#In [[Genesis (ch.1)|Genesis 1:6-8]], we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous [[aether]].
#It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of [[faith]].
#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."<ref>[http://www.mathunion.org/o/General/Prizes/2006/TaoENG.pdf Statement in awarding the coveted Fields Medal] [Dead link]</ref>
#Experiments in electromagnetic induction contradict Relativity: "Einstein’s Relativity ... can not explain the experiment in graph 2, in which moving magnetic field has not produced electric field."<ref>http://www.wbabin.net/weuro/qingping1.pdf</ref><ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504223</ref>
#Relativity breaks down if a [[solenoid]] is traveling at or near the speed of light.<ref>http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3244279</ref>

(add to list)

''For a rebuttal of most of these counterarguments, see [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]].''

== See also ==
*[[Counterexamples to Evolution]]
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]
*[[E=mc²]]

== Notes ==
<references group="note"/>
== References ==

{{Reflist}}

{{Relativity}}
[[Category:physics]]
[[Category:relativity]]
[[Category:science]]

Theory of relativity

2012-04-14T18:09:16Z

Jloveday: /* Experimental Verification of Relativity */

''See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].''

The '''theory of relativity''' has been repeatedly contradicted by experiments, such as precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury that show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error. Criticism of the theory, however, caused physicist [[Robert Dicke]] to be denied the [[Nobel Prize]], and it is unlikely tenure or a Ph.D would be awarded to any critic of the theory.

'''Relativity''' refers to two closely-related mathematical theories in [[physics]]:

*'''[[Special theory of relativity|Special relativity]]''' (SR) is a theory which describes the laws of motion for non-accelerating bodies traveling at a significant fraction of the [[speed of light]]. As speeds approach zero, Special Relativity tends towards equivalence with [[Newton's Laws of Motion]]. Special Relativity was developed by [[Hendrik Lorentz]], [[Henri Poincaré]], and Hermann Minkowski,<ref>"German mathematician who developed the geometrical theory of numbers and who made numerous contributions to number theory, mathematical physics, and the theory of relativity." [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9052860/Hermann-Minkowski Hermann Minkowski -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia]</ref><ref>[http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Minkowski.html Hermann Minkowski, Biography]</ref> and [[Albert Einstein]].

*'''[[General theory of relativity|General Relativity]]''' (GR) is a theory which explains the laws of motion as viewed from accelerating reference frames and includes a geometric explanation for gravity. This theory was developed by [[David Hilbert]] and [[Albert Einstein]] as an extension of the postulates of Special Relativity.<ref>"[T]he German mathematician David Hilbert submitted an article containing the correct field equations for general relativity five days before Einstein."[http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/physics/relativity/history-1.html Nobel Prize historical account]</ref> A dramatic but later discredited claim by Sir [[Arthur Eddington]] of experimental proof of General Relativity in 1919 made Einstein a household name.

These theories have augmented earlier approaches, such as [[Galilean Relativity]].

Unlike most of physics, the theories of relativity have discontinuities whereby the limit of a physical quantity as a variable (such as mass or velocity) approaches a fixed value is not the same as the physical quantity at the fixed value. For example, the limit of momentum as mass approaches 0 and velocity approaches the speed of light is not equal to the momentum of (massless) light.<ref>Discontinuities in General Relativity are also well-recognized. See, e.g., [http://www.springerlink.com/content/u47l341u2q555455/]</ref>

More generally, and also unlike most of physics, the theories of relativity consist of complex mathematical equations relying on several hypotheses. For example, at Hofstra University general relativity is taught as part of an upperclass math course on differential geometry, based on three stated assumptions.<ref>http://people.hofstra.edu/Stefan_Waner/diff_geom/tc.html</ref> The equations for special relativity assume that it is forever impossible to attain a velocity faster than the speed of light and that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent, hypotheses that can never be fully tested. Relativity rejects Newton's [[action at a distance]], which is basic to Newtonian gravity and [[quantum mechanics]]. The mathematics of relativity assume no exceptions, yet in the time period immediately following the origin of the universe the relativity equations could not possibly have been valid.

Relativity has been met with much resistance in the scientific world. To date, a Nobel Prize has never been awarded for Relativity.<ref>Increasingly the Nobel Prize Committee has attempted to relate its physics awards to Relativity in some way, including perhaps 20 of the more recent prizes.</ref> Louis Essen, the man credited with determining the speed of light, wrote many fiery papers against it such as ''The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis''.<ref>http://ephysics.fileave.com/physics/Essen/oxford5-essen.pdf</ref> Relativity is in conflict with [[quantum mechanics]],<ref>For example, Relativity claims that space and time are smooth and continuous, while [[quantum mechanics]] suggests otherwise. [http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out.] Relativity also denies [[action-at-a-distance]], while quantum mechanics suggests otherwise. Relativity denies any role for chance, while quantum mechanics is heavily dependent on it.</ref> and although theories like [[string theory]] and [[quantum field theory]] have attempted to unify relativity and quantum mechanics, neither has been entirely successful or proven.

Unlike [[Classical mechanics|Newtonian physics]], in which space and time intervals are each invariant as seen by all observers, in SR the only invariant quantity is a quadratic combination of space and time intervals (x2 - c2 t2). The (assumed) instantaneous transmission of Newtonian gravitational effects also contradicts special relativity.

In quantum mechanics, the [[uncertainty principle]] suggests that virtual particles can sometimes travel faster than the speed of light which would violate causality, but "[t]he only known way to resolve this tension involves introducing the idea of antiparticles."<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2004/wilczek-lecture.pdf (p. 102)</ref> Consequently, in 1928 Paul Dirac derived the Dirac equation, one of the first quantum mechanical equations compatible with special relativity, by which Dirac predicted the existence of antimatter. Four years later, antimatter (the positron) was discovered by Carl Anderson, as successfully predicted by relativistic quantum mechanics. [[Quantum field theory]], a generalization of quantum mechanics, is fully compatible with special relativity but not with general relativity, and still lacks a vital piece: evidence of the [[graviton]].

== Special Relativity ==
Lorentz and Poincare developed Special Relativity as way of understanding how Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism could be valid in different frames of reference. Einstein famously published an explanation of Poincare's theory in terms of two assumptions (postulates):

# ''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all (inertial) observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''
# ''The laws of physics are identical in all inertial reference frames.''

In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:
# It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.<ref>This assumption is commonly restated in this manner. For example, a discussion of hypothetical [[tachyons]] talks "about using tachyons to transmit information faster than the speed of light, '''in violation of Special Relativity'''."[http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html] However, there is some question whether the Theory of Special Relativity really restricts faster-than-light communication of information.</ref>
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).

Or, in more concise, clearer terms, these assumptions are this:

#there is no [[action at a distance]] (because that would make observations dependent on the frame of reference)
#space and time are completely symmetric throughout the universe (because otherwise frames of reference would not be interchangeable)

When the assumptions are stated clearly as above, the weaknesses in the theory are more apparent. There ''is'' action at a distance in [[quantum entanglement]] and apparently also in gravity, as no gravitons can be found. However, no information has yet been transmitted via quantum entanglement, so while non-locality violates the spirit of relativity it is consistent with it if relativity is limited to the transmission of information. [[Quantum field theory]], an attempt to partially reconcile [[quantum mechanics]] with relativity, is incomplete at best. As to the second assumption, it is contrary to the [[arrow of time]], which illustrates the lack of symmetry in time. Logical defects include the incoherence of relativistic mass (see discussion below) and the lack of relativistic constraints near the beginning the universe (see above).

Special Relativity (SR) was initially developed by [[Henri Poincaré]] and [[Hendrik Lorentz]], working on problems in electrodynamics and the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]], which had not found any sign of [[aether (science)|luminiferous aether]], which was believed to be the substance which carried electromagnetic waves. Special relativity alters [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion by assuming that the speed of light will be the same for all observers, despite their relative velocities and the source of the light. (Therefore, if A sends a beam of light to B, and both measure the speed, it will be the same for both, no matter what the relative velocity of A and B. In Newtonian/Galilean mechanics, If A sends a physical object at a particular velocity towards B, and nothing slows it, the velocity of the object relative to B depends on the velocities of the object and of B relative to A.)

At low speeds (relative to light-speed), the Lorentz-Poincare relativity equations are equivalent to Newton's equations. The famous equation ''[[E=mc²]]'', describes the relationship between energy and the rest mass of a body.

Under relativity, particles at low mass and low speed can be accurately approximated by [[classical mechanics]] (such as [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion). At the two extremes, modeling the behavior of electrons requires that relativistic effects be taken into account (the chemically significant phenomenon of electron spin arises from relativity), and the course light passing through a region containing many massive bodies such as galaxies will be distorted ([[classical mechanics]], in which light travels in straight lines, does not predict this). These are both experimentally confirmed (electron spin was known before relativity arose, and telescopic observations confirm that galactic clusters distort the paths of the light passing through them).

Many scientists have indicated problems with the postulates of special relativity. Paul Davies, formerly of Macquarie University and now at the University of Arizona believes that the speed of light has changed over time. Since the speed of light is a constant speed 'c' this indicates problems with the theory [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2181455.stm light speed]. Other engineers and scientist have written about problems in the basic set of special relativity equations. Based on the ideas of not Einstein but of the scientist Fitzgerald as well as others, a length contraction effect was predicted as an explanation of the failure of the Michelson Morley experiment. This idea was taken up by Hendrik Lorentz and shown by others to be a useful mechanism by which theory could be forced into conformance with experimental results. However, in 2005, Michael Strauss a computer engineer invalidated much of Special Relativity theory by showing clear contradictions in the theory. [http://www.relativitycollapse.com relativity]

== General Relativity ==

General Relativity is a theory of gravity that is compatible with Special Relativity. Einstein explains a thought experiment involving two elevators. The first elevator is stationary on the Earth, while the other is being pulled through space at a constant acceleration of g. Einstein realized that any physical experiment carried out in the elevators would give the same result. This realization is known as the equivalence principle and it states that accelerating frames of reference and gravitational fields are indistinguishable. General Relativity is the theory of gravity that incorporates Special Relativity and the equivalence principle.

General Relativity is a mathematical extension of Special Relativity. GR views space-time as a 4-dimensional [[manifold]], which looks locally like [[Minkowski space]], and which acquires [[curvature]] due to the presence of massive bodies. Thus, near massive bodies, the geometry of space-time differs to a large degree from [[Euclidean geometry]]: for example, the sum of the angles in a triangle is not exactly 180 degrees. Just as in classical physics, objects travel along [[geodesic]]s in the absence of external forces. Importantly though, near a massive body, geodesics are no longer straight lines. It is this phenomenon of objects traveling along geodesics in a curved spacetime that accounts for gravity.

At one time the anomalous precession of Mercury's [[perihelion]] seemed to support the Theory of General Relativity, but increasingly accurate measurements show a divergence of the data from the theory.<ref>[[Counterexamples to Relativity]].</ref> There are other explanations based in Newtonian gravity, such as factoring in the pull of the other planets on Mercury's orbit. One Newtonian explanation requires a slight alternation to the precise inverse-square relation of Newtonian gravity to distance, which is disfavored by mathematicians due to its inelegance in integrating.

British Historian Paul Johnson declares the turning point in 20th century to have been when fellow Briton Sir [[Arthur Eddington]], an esteemed English astronomer, ventured out on a boat off Africa in 1919 with a local Army unit to observe the bending of starlight around the sun during a total eclipse. Upon his return to England declared that his observations proven the theory of relativity. In fact recent analysis of Eddington's work revealed that he was biased in selecting his data, and that overall his data were inconclusive about the theory of relativity. The prediction was later confirmed by more rigorous experiments, such as those performed by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] <ref>[http://www.spaceimages.com/gravlen.html Hubble Gravitational Lens Photo]</ref><ref> [http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/galaxies/lensing.html Gravitational Lensing] </ref><ref>[http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html]</ref>. Lorentz has this to say on the discrepancies between the empirical eclipse data and Einstein's predictions.

::''It indeed seems that the discrepancies may be ascribed to faults in observations, which supposition is supported by the fact that the observations at Prince's Island, which, it is true, did not turn out quite as well as those mentioned above, gave the result, of 1.64, somewhat lower than Einstein's figure.''<ref>Lorentz, H.A. [http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity]</ref>

The prediction that light is bent by gravity is predicted both by Newtonian physics and relativity, but relativity predicts a larger deflection.

Special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity where all gravitational fields are weak. Alternatively, special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity when all reference frames are inertial (non-accelerating and without gravity).

==Lack of evidence for Relativity==
The Theory of relativity assumes that time is symmetric just as space is, but the biggest early promoter of relativity, Arthur Eddington, coined the term "[[arrow of time]]" admitting how time is ''not'' symmetric but is directional. The passage of time is tied to an increase in disorder, or [[entropy]]. The Theory of relativity cannot explain this, and implicitly denies it, specifically allowing for theoretical time travel (e.g., [[wormholes]]) and different rates of passage of time based on velocity and acceleration.

Claims that relativity was used to develop the [[Global Positioning System]] ([[GPS]]) are false. A 1996 article explains:

:"The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein's general theory of relativity would seem to require - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter - less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth."<ref>http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf</ref><ref>Some do claim that relativity is "vital" to GPS even though GPS developed independently of theoretical predictions and theoreticians disagree about how the relativistic effects for GPS should be calculated. ''See id. See also'' [http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR614/MR614.appb.pdf]</ref>

This article, which was published in 1996, goes on to propose relativistic corrections that might be used to design more accurate GPS systems. Clocks on board GPS satellites require adjustments to their clock frequencies if they are to be synchronized with those on the surface of the Earth.

Tom Van Flandern, an astronomer hired to work on GPS in the late 1990s, concluded that "[t]he GPS programmers don't need relativity." He was quoted as saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein."<ref>http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html See also [http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP], where Van Flandern discusses how relativistic corrections might improve GPS accuracy.</ref> Asynchronization can be easily addressed through communications between the satellites and ground stations, so it is unclear why any theory would be needed for GPS. But other obscure physicists having no connection with GPS design claim that Van Flandern is wrong about GPS, and insist that relativity provides the best explanation for its timing adjustments.<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>

Some internet articles claim that GPS timing differences ''confirm'' the Theory of Relativity or its Lorentzian counterpart (which uses a preferred frame of reference). GPS clocks run slower in the weaker gravitation field of the satellites than on ground stations on Earth, with the effects predicted by general relativity far outweighing the effects predicted by special relativity. However, the articles claiming that the slower GPS satellite clocks confirm relativity do not address the effect, if any, of the weaker gravitational force under Newton's theory on the GPS satellite clocks, likely because in Newtonian Mechanics every clock in the universe keeps time at the same rate regardless of velocity, acceleration, or the presence or absence of force.

Currently, GPS satellites are synchronized to Coordinated Universal Time by radio signals from the ground; therefore, they cannot currently be used to test general relativity.<ref>[http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html "General Relativity in the Global Positioning System."] Neil Ashby, U. of Colorado</ref>

There are claims that the effects of relativity have been observed with the frequency shift of the signal being sent back to [[Earth]] several times as various spacecraft have dipped into the gravity wells around massive objects such as the [[sun]] (see image at right)<ref>[http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-releases-03/20031002-pr-a.cfm Saturn-Bound Spacecraft Tests Einstein's Theory]</ref> or Saturn<ref>[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517102.600-science-encounter-with-saturn-confirms-relativity-theory.html Encounter with Saturn confirms relativity theory]</ref>. A satellite called [[Gravity Probe B]] was put in orbit about the Earth to examine the effects of frame dragging and geodetic warping of space<ref>[http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/index.html NASA Gravity Probe B mission page]</ref><ref>[http://einstein.stanford.edu/ Gravity Probe B project page]</ref>, but the results were inconclusive. Note, however, that Newtonian mechanics also predicts deflection of light by gravity, and in the initial theory of relativity it predicted the same amount of deflection, but only if we treat light as capable of being accelerated and decelerated like ordinary matter, which is contrary to all measurements and observations to date.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm</ref> Adjustments to the theory of relativity resulted in a prediction of a greater deflection of light than that predicated by Newtonian mechanics, though it is debatable how much deflection Newtonian mechanics should predict.

None of the NASA spacecraft incorporates predictions of relativity into their own timing mechanisms, as Newtonian mechanics is adequate even for probes sent deep into space so long as they do not undergo accelerations near the speed of light or enter any massive gravity wells.<ref>There is no reported reliance on relativity by any space probe.</ref>

A decade of observation of the [[pulsar]] pair [[PSR 1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] detected a decline in its orbital period, which was attributed to a loss in energy by the system. It is impossible to measure the masses of the pulsars, their accelerations relative to the observers, or other fundamental parameters. Professors Joseph Taylor and Russell Hulse, who discovered the binary pulsar, found that physical values could be assigned to the pulsars to make the observed decline in orbital period consistent with the Theory of General Relativity, and for this they were awarded the 1993 [[Nobel Prize]] for Physics, which is the only award ever given by the Nobel committee for the Theory of Relativity.<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1993/press.html</ref> In 2004, Professor Taylor utilized a correction to the derivative of the orbital period to fit subsequent data better to the theory. At most, assumptions can be made and altered to fit the data to the theory, rather than the data confirming the theory. This is the typical scientific method, wherein a hypothesis is created, tested, adjusted, and further tested.

The [[perihelion]] of Mercury's [[orbit]] [[precession|precesses]] at a measurable rate, but even after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets in the [[solar system]], Newton's theory (assuming a precise inverse-square relationship for distance) predicts a rate of precession that differs from the measured rate by approximately 43 [[arcsecond]]s per century. General relativity was developed in part to provide an estimate for this rate of precession that better matches observations.<ref>http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html#SECTION032121000000000000000</ref> <ref> http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/pdf/CP6Doc30_English_pp146-200.pdf</ref> <ref> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/lectures/node117.html</ref> Newton's theory can also explain this perihelion by making tiny adjustments to parameters in the gravitational equation.

General relativity predicts twice as much bending in light as it passes near massive objects than Newton's theory might predict.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm</ref> This phenomenon is known as [[gravitational lens|gravitational lensing]]. A large number of instances of gravitational lensing have been observed, and it is now a standard astronomical tool.<ref> http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/grav_lens.html</ref> <ref> http://astro.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/lens.html</ref> <ref> http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html</ref> Note, however, that the extent of bending of light predicted by Newton's theory is open to debate, and depends on assumptions about the nature of light for gravitational purposes.<ref>http://cosmictimes.gsfc.nasa.gov/1919/guide/gravity_bends_starlight.html</ref>

In 1972, scientists flew extremely accurate clocks ("atomic clocks") around the world in both directions on commercial airlines, and claimed to observe relativistic time dilation; the eastbound clock gained 273 ns and the westbound clock lost 59 ns, matching the predictions of general relativity to within experimental accuracy.<ref>[http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment Hafele-Keating Experiment]</ref> However, the inventor of the atomic clock, Louis Essen, declared that the experiment was inaccurate.<ref>Louis Essen, Electron. Wireless World 94 (1988) 238.</ref> Dr A. G. Kelly examined the raw data from the experiment and declared it inconclusive.<ref>A. G. Kelly,Reliability of Relativistic Effect Tests on Airborne Clocks, Monograph No.3 Feb.1996, The Institution of Engineers of Ireland, ISBN 1-898012-22-9</ref> The Nobel Committee chose not to honor this experiment for the significance that was claimed.

Despite [[censorship]] of dissent about relativity, evidence contrary to the theory is discussed outside of [[liberal]] universities.<ref>http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=8&idContribution=922</ref>

==Experimental Verification of Relativity==

The different effects predicted by special relativity, compared to classical formulations, are extremely tiny. Most relativistic effects are negligible at the speeds of ordinary phenomena observed by humans. The effects only become significant when the speeds involved are a significant fraction of the speed of light, which is <math>3 \times 10^8</math> meters per second—such speeds are called ''relativistic''. (However, it's worth noting that ordinary magnetism can be considered an effect of relativity, dictated by the need for electrostatic theory to be correct under relativity. The speed of light in fact appears in the formulas ([[Maxwell's Equations]]) governing electricity and magnetism, though these equations were developed long before relativity was proposed.)

Because the effects of relativity are so tiny, scientists have been devising sophisticated and sensitive tests ever since the theory was formulated in 1905.

*At the end of Einstein's original 1905 paper [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend its Energy Content?"], he speculates on the possibility that the equation <math>E = m c^2</math>, which would normally be very hard to verify, could be verified with the extremely high energies of the newly-discovered phenomenon of radioactivity.<ref>This equation is not related to [[quantum mechanics]].</ref> In the 1910's, with the invention of the mass spectrometer, it became possible to measure masses of nuclei accurately. This led to the clearing up of the mystery of atomic masses not being exact integers,and strongly suggested the existence of a "mass defect" (or "packing fraction") consistent with the mass-energy equivalence. In the 1930's, experiments with known nuclear reactions showed a very accurate correlation between the masses of the nuclei involved and the energy released.

*Another prediction of special relativity was time dilation in rapidly moving objects. This effect was most famously verified in the anomalously slow decay of relativistic cosmic muons<ref>Some have suggested that other explanations are possible for this effect. We are trying to track this down.</ref>. Time dilation has since been verified many times, and is routinely taken into account in all high-energy nuclear physics experiments, as in Hadron collision experiments<ref>Experiments specifically designed to check dilation are rarely conducted any more.</ref>.

Predictions of general relativity turned out to be more obscure and difficult to test. The two most famous predictions were the bending of light in a gravitational field and the precession of the perihelia of orbiting planets.

*The first of these was famously tested during a total eclipse in 1919. That test was somewhat muddled by an incorrect initial calculation, by several people including Einstein himself, of what the effect would be, and some "cherry picking" of the data to be used <ref>''Einstein's Luck'', John Waller, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-860719-9</ref>. The data selection could be considered "manipulation" or "fudging", by a person (Arthur Eddington) who had a personal stake in the outcome. His analysis techniques would not pass muster today.

:It should be noted that pre-relativistic (Newtonian) physics may also predict a bending, of half the observed value, depending on whether one uses the 17th century "corpuscular" formulation or the 19th century "wave" formulation.

:Nevertheless, it has been verified with ever-increasing precision in subsequent eclipses, and in the observations of quasar 3C273.

*The second "classical" test of general relativity was the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. There are many complex effects contributing to this, including gravitational perturbations from other planets and the effect of the oblateness of the Sun. These are hard to calculate accurately, but, by 1900 it was known quite accurately that there was an "anomalous" precession, that is, a precession beyond all other known effects, of 43 arc seconds per century. This is a very tiny effect, but astronomical measurements were sufficiently accurate by that time to show it clearly.

:This created quite a problem—physicists by then were accustomed to having their theories check out very accurately. One proposal that was made, by Simon Newcomb and Asaph Hall, was that the exponent of the radius in the gravitational formula wasn't exactly 2. He showed that, by choosing an exponent of <math>2+\delta</math>, the precession, as a fraction of a full orbit per planet's year, is <math>\delta/2</math>. By setting <math>\delta</math> to .000000157, that is, an exponent of 2.000000157, Newcomb was able to get a precession of .000000078 revolutions per Mercury year, or 43 arcseconds per Earth year. The primary resistance to this approach came from mathematicians unable to do the integration without an exponent of precisely 2, and they insisted, incorrectly, that was impossible for the exponent to be slightly different from 2. Due to this desire for mathematical elegance rather than objective observation-based science, Newcomb's approach was not pursued. Furthermore as can be seen from the table below the measured values of the anomalous precessions of other planets agree well with the predictions of general relativity but poorly with those predicted by Newcomb and Hall.

:While Newcomb's theory, and general relativity, don't lead to closed-form solutions, both theories can be solved numerically to as much precision as one desires.

:Increasingly precise measurements of the precession demonstrate that it conflicts with General Relativity, despite claims of relativists for decades that it predicted the precession accurately in the amount of <math>3{}v^2/c^2</math> revolutions per planet's "year", where <math>v</math> is the planet's average orbital speed.<ref>That is a simple approximation, designed to relate the precession to the planet's speed relative to the speed of light. A more accurate approximation is <math>\frac{3GM}{c^2 a(1-e^2)}</math>, where a is the semi-major axis and e is the eccentricity.</ref> The conflict is greater than the margin of error, and many relativists avoid the discrepancy rather than address it.

:The following table show some approximate parameters for the planets. Note that Mercury has the smallest orbit, the fastest speed, and the highest gravitational pull. Precession of planets other than Mercury is extremely hard to measure, but measurements of the actual anomalous precessions are in good agreement .<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Planet
!Period, seconds x 106
!Semimajor axis, meters x 109
!Speed, meters/second x 103
!Gravitational force, Newtons per kilogram
!Anomalous precession, arcseconds per (Earth) century, pure Newtonian mechanics
!Anomalous precession, Newtonian with exponent of 2.000000157
!Anomalous precession, general relativity
!Measured anomalous precession (estimated uncertainty)<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm</ref>
|-
|Mercury
|7.57
|58.9
|48
|.039
|0
|43
|43
|43.5(5)
|-
|Venus
|19.6
|108
|35
|.011
|0
|16.6
|9
|8(5)
|-
|Earth
|31.6
|150
|30
|.006
|0
|10.3
|4
|5(1)
|-
|Mars
|59.3
|227.9
|24
|.0025
|0
|5.5
|1.4
|
|-
|Jupiter
|374
|778.4
|13
|.0002
|0
|0.87
|0.07
|
|-
|Saturn
|929
|1426
|9.7
|.00006
|0
|0.35
|0.014
|
|-
|Uranus
|2651
|2870
|6.8
|.000016
|0
|0.12
|0.002
|
|-
|Neptune
|5200
|4498
|5.5
|.000007
|0
|0.063
|0.0008
|
|}

[[Image:Cassini-science-289.jpg|right|thumb|The Shapiro effect: A spacecraft signal dipping into a gravity well around the [[Sun]] is delayed slightly.]]
As the 20th century progressed, more tests of general relativity were proposed.

*One was the ''Shapiro effect'', involving time delay in radio signals passing through the gravity well of the Sun or a planet. Various spacecraft have confirmed this.

*Another is ''gravitational time dilation''. This is an effect separate from the time dilation of special relativity. It was tested by the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959.

*Later in the 20th century, even more subtle phenomena were tested. One was the phenomenon of ''gravitational radiation'', or "gravity waves". These waves are incredibly difficult to observe, and have never been observed. But extremely dense binary pulsars radiate gravitational waves with sufficient energy loss that, even though we can't detect the waves from Earth, we can see the effect of the energy loss from the radiation. The extreme precision of the timing of pulses from pulsars makes it possible to observe their energy loss with great accuracy. Observations by Hulse and Taylor of the pulsar pair known as B1913+16 confirmed the energy loss consistent with the predicted radiation.

*Two other effects, ''geodetic precession'' (also known as "de Sitter precession"), and ''frame dragging'' (also known as the "Lense-Thirring effect") were tested by the "Gravity Probe B" satellite early in the 21st century<ref>http://prl.aps.org/accepted/L/ea070Y8dQ491d22a28828c95f660a57ac82e7d8c0</ref><ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/306430</ref><ref>http://www.nap.edu/html/gpb/summary.html</ref><ref>http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/73870/title/Gravity_Probe_B_finally_pays_off_</ref><ref>http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/</ref><ref>http://einstein.stanford.edu/</ref><ref>http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/the-gravity-probe-b-bailout</ref><ref>http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/06/nasa-concludes-gravity-probe-b-space-time-experiment-proves-e/</ref>. The precision required to observe this was phenomenal. The results were announced on May 4, 2011.

{{clear}}

==Predicted consequences of the Theories==
===Time dilation===

[[Image:Light cone.png|right|thumb|Light-cone diagram]]
One important consequence of SR's postulates is that an observer in one reference frame will observe a clock in another frame to be "ticking" more slowly than in the observer's own frame. This can be proven mathematically using basic geometry, if the postulates are physically true without exception.

The length of an event <math>t</math>, as seen by a (relative) stationary observer observing an event is given by:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>t_0</math> is the "proper time" or the length of the event in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Evidence for time dilation was discovered by studying [[muon decay]]. [[Muons]] are [[subatomic]] [[particles]] with a very short [[halflife]] (1.53 microseconds at rest) and a very fast speed (0.994c). By putting muon detectors at the top (D1) and bottom (D2) of a mountain with a separation of 1900m, scientists could measure accurately the proportion of muons reaching the second detector in comparison to the first. The proportion found was different to the proportion that was calculated without taking into account relativistic effects.

Using the equation for [[exponential decay]], they could use this proportion to calculate the time taken for the muons to decay, relative to the muon. Then, using the time dilation equation they could then work out the dilated time. The dilated time showed a good correlation with the time it took the muons to reach the second sensor, thereby supporting the existence of time dilation.

The time taken for a muon to travel from D1 to D2 as measured by a stationary observer is:

<math> t = \frac{s}{v} = \frac{1900}{0.994\times(3\times10^{8})} = 6.37\mu\textrm{s} </math>

The fraction of muons arriving at D2 in comparison to D1 was 0.732. (Given by <math> \frac{N}{N_0} = 0.732 </math>)

Since (from the equation for exponential decay) <math> \frac{N}{N_{0}} = e^{-\lambda t_{0}} </math> then

<math> t_{0} = \frac {ln(0.732)}{ln (0.2)} \times 1.53\times 10^{-6} = 0.689\mu\textrm{s}</math>

This gives the time for the proportion of decay to occur for an observer who is stationary, relative to the muon.

Putting this into the time dilation equation gives:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}} = \frac{0.689 \times{10^{-6}}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{0.994^{2}}{1^{2}}}} = 6.3\times 10^{-6}\textrm{s}</math>

This is in good agreement with the value calculated above, thereby providing evidence to support time dilation.

====Time Dilation and Creation Science====

{{main|Starlight problem#Humphreys.27_model}}

Creation scientists such as physicists Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] and Dr. [[John Hartnett]] have used relativistic time dilation to explain how the earth can be only 6,000 years old even though cosmological data (background radiation, supernovae, etc.) set a much older age for the universe.

===Length contraction===
When two inertial reference frames move past each other in a straight line with constant relative velocity, an observer in one reference frame would observe a metre rule in the other frame to be shorter.

The length, <math>l</math>, of an object as seen by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

<math> l = l_{0} \sqrt{1- \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}</math>

Where
:<math>l_0</math> is the "proper length" or the length of the object in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

===Mass increase===

For decades the theory of relativity taught that as a body moves with increasing velocity its [[mass]] also increases.<ref>For example, this was taught as recently as in the 1991 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica.</ref>

Under this view, the mass, <math>m</math>, of an object as detected by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

:<math> m = \frac{m_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>m_0</math> is the "rest mass" or the mass of the object when it is at rest.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity of the object.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Since speed is relative, it follows that two observers in different inertial reference frames may disagree on the mass and kinetic energy of a body. Since all inertial reference frames are treated on an equal footing, it follows that mass and energy are interchangeable.

In recent years most physicists have shifted away from Einstein's original reliance on relativistic mass and his suggestion that mass increases{{Citation needed|date=January 2012}}. Instead, most physicists today teach that

:<math>F=\frac{d}{d\tau} p</math>

where <math>p</math> is the momentum defined by <math>\gamma m v</math>, <math>\gamma</math> is the standard Lorentz factor, and <math>\tau</math> is the proper time. Force F defined this way is a vector and thus can handle the directional aspect of the relativistic effects better than the concept of relativistic mass can.

The abandonment by physicists of the concept of relativistic mass, however, has the consequence of undermining the traditional claim under relativity that

:<math>m - m_0 = \frac{E}{c^2}</math>

also popularly known as

:<math>E = m c^2</math>

Now a concept of the 4-momentum <math>p</math> of a particle is taught, such that the square of the magnitude of <math>p</math> satisfies:

<math>||p||^2 = -p_x^2-p_y^2-p_z^2+E^2 = m_0^2c^4</math>

in any inertial reference frame. The magnitude of the 4-momentum, in any inertial frame, equals the rest mass <math>m_0</math> of the particle (in units where <math>c=1</math>).

== Paradoxes ==

The predictions of the theory of relativity throw up a number of apparent paradoxes and anomalies relating to the effects of time dilatation and length contraction. Whilst these paradoxes are consistent with the theory, they are contrary to everyday human experience and therefore can seem like impossibilities.

=== The Twin Paradox ===

The twin paradox is usually stated as a thought experiment involving two twins, one of whom is sent on a long journey in a spacecraft travelling at close to the speed of light, whilst the other remains on Earth. Time dilatation means that the travelling twin, on his return to Earth, is younger that the twin who has remained at home. However because neither twin is in a special position - each being in an inertial frame of reference - the reverse must also be true, and so the twin remaining on Earth must be younger. Hence each twin is younger than the other - a paradox.

The problem can be resolved in two ways. One is to examine the effects of General Relativity: to come back to Earth, the travelling twin must undergo acceleration in order to reverse his course, causing temporal effects which make him permanently the younger. Alternatively, it can be explained entirely using Special Relativity and noting that the twins are not in symmetrical situations: the one on earth has remained in a single inertial frame of reference, whilst the travelling twin has travelled in two<ref>http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm</ref>.

=== The Ehrenfest Paradox ===

The Ehrenfest Paradox considers a rigid wheel or disc rotating a bout its axis at high speed (somewhat like a bicycle wheel spinning freely on its axle). The rim of the wheel travels at close to the speed of light and therefore undergoes length contraction, whereas the radius (the spokes, for the bicycle wheel) does not. Hence the circumference is no longer equal to 2<big><math>\pi</math></big>r, which is paradoxical.

The apparent paradox was finally resolved in 1975 by the Norwegian scientist [[Øyvind Grøn]]<ref>http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=224955</ref>.

== Variable Speed of Light ==

The Theory of Relativity implies that physical constants like c, the speed of light in a vacuum, have remained constant. But at least one study suggests that physical constants, and possibly even the speed of light, have changed as the universe has aged.<ref>James Glanz and Dennis Overbye, "Cosmic Laws Like Speed of Light Might Be Changing, a Study Finds," August 15, 2001.[http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/15/science/15PHYS.html?ex=1185076800&en=d6467b6e3e346796&ei=5070]</ref>

"For the first time, scientists have experimentally demonstrated that sound pulses can travel at velocities faster than the speed of light, c. William Robertson's team from Middle Tennessee State University also showed that the group velocity of sound waves can become infinite, and even negative. ... Although such results may at first appear to violate special relativity (Einstein's law that no material object can exceed the speed of light), the actual significance of these experiments is a little different. These types of superluminal phenomena, Robertson et al. explain, violate neither causality nor special relativity, nor do they enable information to travel faster than c. In fact, theoretical work had predicted that the superluminal speed of the group velocity of sound waves should exist. 'The key to understanding this seeming paradox is that no wave energy exceeded the speed of light,' said Robertson."<ref>http://www.physorg.com/news88249076.html</ref>

"A team of researchers from the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) has successfully demonstrated, for the first time, that it is possible to control the speed of light – both slowing it down and speeding it up – in an optical fiber, using off-the-shelf instrumentation in normal environmental conditions. Their results, to be published in the August 22 issue of Applied Physics Letters, could have implications that range from optical [[computing]] to the fiber-optic telecommunications industry."<ref>http://www.scienceblog.com/light.html</ref> Both slowing down and speeding up of light within a substance other than a vacuum is made possible, because the light travels through the material, and that material affects the speed of light, i.e. a photon hits an electron, which then exits and emits a slightly lower energy photon out in the direction that the original photon was traveling, thus maintaining conservation of momentum. No matter how transparent an object may appear, it radically impacts the speed of the light traveling through it, as demonstrated by the refractive production of a rainbow by a crystal, which Newton himself discovered.

This apparent change in speed can be explained, however, by noting that the constant c refers to the speed of light in a vacuum, ie, when it is unimpeded. The speed of light when traveling through physical media is, in fact, variable.

"A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light - an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space and time. ... Dr Nimtz told New Scientist magazine: 'For the time being, this is the only violation of special relativity that I know of.'"<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/scispeed116.xml</ref>

==Pending research==

Today some physicists are working on hypothesizing how general relativity might have related to the other three forces of nature during the first fraction of a second of the [[Big Bang]]. Two of the more commonly studied attempts are [[string theory]] and [[loop quantum gravity]], but they have failed to produce any evidence that science mandates a science must have, and both typically take large amounts of work to even conform to what scientists believe. Critics increasingly point out that string theory and loop quantum gravity are largely untestable and unfalsifiable, and thus potentially unscientific under the principles of science advanced by [[Karl Popper]].<ref>See, for example, ''Not Even Wrong'', by Peter Woit</ref>

Relativity continues to be tested and some physics professors remain skeptical of the theory, such as University of Maryland physics professor Carroll Alley, who served as the principle physicist on the Apollo lunar project.<ref>http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm</ref>

== Political aspects of relativity ==

Some [[liberal]] politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, [[Democratic]] [[President of the United States of America|President]] [[Barack Obama]] helped publish an article by liberal law professor [[Laurence Tribe]] to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to [[abortion]].<ref>Tribe, acknowledging help by Obama, argued that the [[Constitution]] should be interpreted to establish a right to federally funded [[abortion]] and that, more generally, ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' does not go far enough. They insisted that a relativistic "curvature of space" could achieve this result by expanding application of the [[Constitution]] based on its impact on personal choice. "The ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' opinion ignored the way in which laws regulating pregnant women may shape the entire pattern of relationships among men, women, and children. It conceptualized abortion not in terms of the intensely public question of the subordination of women to men through the exploitation of pregnancy, but in terms of the purportedly private question of how women might make intimately personal decisions about their bodies and their lives. That vision described a part of the truth, but only what might be called the Newtonian part. ... [A] change in the surrounding legal setting can constitute state action that most threatens the sphere of personal choice. And it is a 'curved space' perspective on how law operates that leads one to focus less on the visible lines of legal force and more on how those lines are bent and directed by the law's geometry." Laurence H. Tribe, The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 16-17 (1989).</ref> As of June 2008, over 170 law review articles have cited this [[liberal]] application of the theory of relativity to legal arguments.<ref>Search conducted by [[User:Aschlafly]] in the LEXIS database "US Law Reviews and Journals, Combined," conducted June 1, 2008.</ref> Applications of the theory of relativity to change morality have also been common.<ref>"Mistakenly, in the minds of many, the theory of relativity became relativism."[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38081]</ref> Moreover, there is an unmistakable effort to censor or ostracize criticism of relativity.<ref>Although the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|liberally biased Wikipedia]] contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries, and even though publications like ''The Economist'' recognize the lack of scientific satisfaction in the theory (see, e.g., "Weighing the Universe," The Economist (Jan. 25, 2007)), Wikipedia's entry on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Relativity Theory of Relativity] omits one word of criticism.</ref>

Physicist [[Robert Dicke]] of Princeton University was a prominent critic<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html</ref> of general relativity, and Dicke's alternative "has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."<ref>"Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."[http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Essay_bekenstein.html] </ref> Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was repeatedly passed over for a [[Nobel Prize]], and in at least one case Dicke was insulted by the award being granted to others for contributions more properly credited to Dicke.

There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity. Although the 1993 Nobel prize in physics was awarded Hulse and Taylor for finding the first evidence of gravitational waves in the orbital decay of the binary pulsar PSR1913+16 <ref>Weisberg, Joel M.; Taylor, Joseph H. (2003), "The Relativistic Binary Pulsar B1913+16"", in Bailes, M.; Nice, D. J.; Thorsett, S. E., Proceedings of "Radio Pulsars," Chania, Crete, August, 2002, ASP Conference Series</ref>.

===Government Support for Relativistic research===
The Theory of Relativity enjoys a disproportionate share of [[federal funding]] of physics research today.<ref>The Democratic Congress insisted on the $250 million LIGO project despite substantial criticism by scientists that it was wasting scarce research dollars. John Travis, "LIGO: a $ 250 million gamble; Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory; includes related article," ''Science'' p. 612 (Apr. 30, 1993). "Adding to the acrimony is LIGO's $ 250 million price tag, which some hold responsible for NSF's recent funding woes." ''Id.''</ref> In at least one case that research has been unsuccessful. The $365 million dollar [[LIGO]] project has failed to detect the gravity waves predicted by relativity.<ref>http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/sept/gravitywaves/index.html</ref>

{{Relativity}}

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

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]

==External Links ==
*[http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity, by H.A. Lorentz.]
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com Relativity Calculator - Learn Special Relativity Mathematics ] The mathematics of special relativity presented in as simple and comprehensive manner possible within philosophical and historical contexts.

Theory of relativity

2012-04-14T18:07:54Z

Jloveday: /* Political aspects of relativity */

''See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].''

The '''theory of relativity''' has been repeatedly contradicted by experiments, such as precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury that show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error. Criticism of the theory, however, caused physicist [[Robert Dicke]] to be denied the [[Nobel Prize]], and it is unlikely tenure or a Ph.D would be awarded to any critic of the theory.

'''Relativity''' refers to two closely-related mathematical theories in [[physics]]:

*'''[[Special theory of relativity|Special relativity]]''' (SR) is a theory which describes the laws of motion for non-accelerating bodies traveling at a significant fraction of the [[speed of light]]. As speeds approach zero, Special Relativity tends towards equivalence with [[Newton's Laws of Motion]]. Special Relativity was developed by [[Hendrik Lorentz]], [[Henri Poincaré]], and Hermann Minkowski,<ref>"German mathematician who developed the geometrical theory of numbers and who made numerous contributions to number theory, mathematical physics, and the theory of relativity." [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9052860/Hermann-Minkowski Hermann Minkowski -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia]</ref><ref>[http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Minkowski.html Hermann Minkowski, Biography]</ref> and [[Albert Einstein]].

*'''[[General theory of relativity|General Relativity]]''' (GR) is a theory which explains the laws of motion as viewed from accelerating reference frames and includes a geometric explanation for gravity. This theory was developed by [[David Hilbert]] and [[Albert Einstein]] as an extension of the postulates of Special Relativity.<ref>"[T]he German mathematician David Hilbert submitted an article containing the correct field equations for general relativity five days before Einstein."[http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/physics/relativity/history-1.html Nobel Prize historical account]</ref> A dramatic but later discredited claim by Sir [[Arthur Eddington]] of experimental proof of General Relativity in 1919 made Einstein a household name.

These theories have augmented earlier approaches, such as [[Galilean Relativity]].

Unlike most of physics, the theories of relativity have discontinuities whereby the limit of a physical quantity as a variable (such as mass or velocity) approaches a fixed value is not the same as the physical quantity at the fixed value. For example, the limit of momentum as mass approaches 0 and velocity approaches the speed of light is not equal to the momentum of (massless) light.<ref>Discontinuities in General Relativity are also well-recognized. See, e.g., [http://www.springerlink.com/content/u47l341u2q555455/]</ref>

More generally, and also unlike most of physics, the theories of relativity consist of complex mathematical equations relying on several hypotheses. For example, at Hofstra University general relativity is taught as part of an upperclass math course on differential geometry, based on three stated assumptions.<ref>http://people.hofstra.edu/Stefan_Waner/diff_geom/tc.html</ref> The equations for special relativity assume that it is forever impossible to attain a velocity faster than the speed of light and that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent, hypotheses that can never be fully tested. Relativity rejects Newton's [[action at a distance]], which is basic to Newtonian gravity and [[quantum mechanics]]. The mathematics of relativity assume no exceptions, yet in the time period immediately following the origin of the universe the relativity equations could not possibly have been valid.

Relativity has been met with much resistance in the scientific world. To date, a Nobel Prize has never been awarded for Relativity.<ref>Increasingly the Nobel Prize Committee has attempted to relate its physics awards to Relativity in some way, including perhaps 20 of the more recent prizes.</ref> Louis Essen, the man credited with determining the speed of light, wrote many fiery papers against it such as ''The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis''.<ref>http://ephysics.fileave.com/physics/Essen/oxford5-essen.pdf</ref> Relativity is in conflict with [[quantum mechanics]],<ref>For example, Relativity claims that space and time are smooth and continuous, while [[quantum mechanics]] suggests otherwise. [http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out.] Relativity also denies [[action-at-a-distance]], while quantum mechanics suggests otherwise. Relativity denies any role for chance, while quantum mechanics is heavily dependent on it.</ref> and although theories like [[string theory]] and [[quantum field theory]] have attempted to unify relativity and quantum mechanics, neither has been entirely successful or proven.

Unlike [[Classical mechanics|Newtonian physics]], in which space and time intervals are each invariant as seen by all observers, in SR the only invariant quantity is a quadratic combination of space and time intervals (x2 - c2 t2). The (assumed) instantaneous transmission of Newtonian gravitational effects also contradicts special relativity.

In quantum mechanics, the [[uncertainty principle]] suggests that virtual particles can sometimes travel faster than the speed of light which would violate causality, but "[t]he only known way to resolve this tension involves introducing the idea of antiparticles."<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2004/wilczek-lecture.pdf (p. 102)</ref> Consequently, in 1928 Paul Dirac derived the Dirac equation, one of the first quantum mechanical equations compatible with special relativity, by which Dirac predicted the existence of antimatter. Four years later, antimatter (the positron) was discovered by Carl Anderson, as successfully predicted by relativistic quantum mechanics. [[Quantum field theory]], a generalization of quantum mechanics, is fully compatible with special relativity but not with general relativity, and still lacks a vital piece: evidence of the [[graviton]].

== Special Relativity ==
Lorentz and Poincare developed Special Relativity as way of understanding how Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism could be valid in different frames of reference. Einstein famously published an explanation of Poincare's theory in terms of two assumptions (postulates):

# ''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all (inertial) observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''
# ''The laws of physics are identical in all inertial reference frames.''

In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:
# It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.<ref>This assumption is commonly restated in this manner. For example, a discussion of hypothetical [[tachyons]] talks "about using tachyons to transmit information faster than the speed of light, '''in violation of Special Relativity'''."[http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html] However, there is some question whether the Theory of Special Relativity really restricts faster-than-light communication of information.</ref>
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).

Or, in more concise, clearer terms, these assumptions are this:

#there is no [[action at a distance]] (because that would make observations dependent on the frame of reference)
#space and time are completely symmetric throughout the universe (because otherwise frames of reference would not be interchangeable)

When the assumptions are stated clearly as above, the weaknesses in the theory are more apparent. There ''is'' action at a distance in [[quantum entanglement]] and apparently also in gravity, as no gravitons can be found. However, no information has yet been transmitted via quantum entanglement, so while non-locality violates the spirit of relativity it is consistent with it if relativity is limited to the transmission of information. [[Quantum field theory]], an attempt to partially reconcile [[quantum mechanics]] with relativity, is incomplete at best. As to the second assumption, it is contrary to the [[arrow of time]], which illustrates the lack of symmetry in time. Logical defects include the incoherence of relativistic mass (see discussion below) and the lack of relativistic constraints near the beginning the universe (see above).

Special Relativity (SR) was initially developed by [[Henri Poincaré]] and [[Hendrik Lorentz]], working on problems in electrodynamics and the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]], which had not found any sign of [[aether (science)|luminiferous aether]], which was believed to be the substance which carried electromagnetic waves. Special relativity alters [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion by assuming that the speed of light will be the same for all observers, despite their relative velocities and the source of the light. (Therefore, if A sends a beam of light to B, and both measure the speed, it will be the same for both, no matter what the relative velocity of A and B. In Newtonian/Galilean mechanics, If A sends a physical object at a particular velocity towards B, and nothing slows it, the velocity of the object relative to B depends on the velocities of the object and of B relative to A.)

At low speeds (relative to light-speed), the Lorentz-Poincare relativity equations are equivalent to Newton's equations. The famous equation ''[[E=mc²]]'', describes the relationship between energy and the rest mass of a body.

Under relativity, particles at low mass and low speed can be accurately approximated by [[classical mechanics]] (such as [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion). At the two extremes, modeling the behavior of electrons requires that relativistic effects be taken into account (the chemically significant phenomenon of electron spin arises from relativity), and the course light passing through a region containing many massive bodies such as galaxies will be distorted ([[classical mechanics]], in which light travels in straight lines, does not predict this). These are both experimentally confirmed (electron spin was known before relativity arose, and telescopic observations confirm that galactic clusters distort the paths of the light passing through them).

Many scientists have indicated problems with the postulates of special relativity. Paul Davies, formerly of Macquarie University and now at the University of Arizona believes that the speed of light has changed over time. Since the speed of light is a constant speed 'c' this indicates problems with the theory [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2181455.stm light speed]. Other engineers and scientist have written about problems in the basic set of special relativity equations. Based on the ideas of not Einstein but of the scientist Fitzgerald as well as others, a length contraction effect was predicted as an explanation of the failure of the Michelson Morley experiment. This idea was taken up by Hendrik Lorentz and shown by others to be a useful mechanism by which theory could be forced into conformance with experimental results. However, in 2005, Michael Strauss a computer engineer invalidated much of Special Relativity theory by showing clear contradictions in the theory. [http://www.relativitycollapse.com relativity]

== General Relativity ==

General Relativity is a theory of gravity that is compatible with Special Relativity. Einstein explains a thought experiment involving two elevators. The first elevator is stationary on the Earth, while the other is being pulled through space at a constant acceleration of g. Einstein realized that any physical experiment carried out in the elevators would give the same result. This realization is known as the equivalence principle and it states that accelerating frames of reference and gravitational fields are indistinguishable. General Relativity is the theory of gravity that incorporates Special Relativity and the equivalence principle.

General Relativity is a mathematical extension of Special Relativity. GR views space-time as a 4-dimensional [[manifold]], which looks locally like [[Minkowski space]], and which acquires [[curvature]] due to the presence of massive bodies. Thus, near massive bodies, the geometry of space-time differs to a large degree from [[Euclidean geometry]]: for example, the sum of the angles in a triangle is not exactly 180 degrees. Just as in classical physics, objects travel along [[geodesic]]s in the absence of external forces. Importantly though, near a massive body, geodesics are no longer straight lines. It is this phenomenon of objects traveling along geodesics in a curved spacetime that accounts for gravity.

At one time the anomalous precession of Mercury's [[perihelion]] seemed to support the Theory of General Relativity, but increasingly accurate measurements show a divergence of the data from the theory.<ref>[[Counterexamples to Relativity]].</ref> There are other explanations based in Newtonian gravity, such as factoring in the pull of the other planets on Mercury's orbit. One Newtonian explanation requires a slight alternation to the precise inverse-square relation of Newtonian gravity to distance, which is disfavored by mathematicians due to its inelegance in integrating.

British Historian Paul Johnson declares the turning point in 20th century to have been when fellow Briton Sir [[Arthur Eddington]], an esteemed English astronomer, ventured out on a boat off Africa in 1919 with a local Army unit to observe the bending of starlight around the sun during a total eclipse. Upon his return to England declared that his observations proven the theory of relativity. In fact recent analysis of Eddington's work revealed that he was biased in selecting his data, and that overall his data were inconclusive about the theory of relativity. The prediction was later confirmed by more rigorous experiments, such as those performed by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] <ref>[http://www.spaceimages.com/gravlen.html Hubble Gravitational Lens Photo]</ref><ref> [http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/galaxies/lensing.html Gravitational Lensing] </ref><ref>[http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html]</ref>. Lorentz has this to say on the discrepancies between the empirical eclipse data and Einstein's predictions.

::''It indeed seems that the discrepancies may be ascribed to faults in observations, which supposition is supported by the fact that the observations at Prince's Island, which, it is true, did not turn out quite as well as those mentioned above, gave the result, of 1.64, somewhat lower than Einstein's figure.''<ref>Lorentz, H.A. [http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity]</ref>

The prediction that light is bent by gravity is predicted both by Newtonian physics and relativity, but relativity predicts a larger deflection.

Special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity where all gravitational fields are weak. Alternatively, special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity when all reference frames are inertial (non-accelerating and without gravity).

==Lack of evidence for Relativity==
The Theory of relativity assumes that time is symmetric just as space is, but the biggest early promoter of relativity, Arthur Eddington, coined the term "[[arrow of time]]" admitting how time is ''not'' symmetric but is directional. The passage of time is tied to an increase in disorder, or [[entropy]]. The Theory of relativity cannot explain this, and implicitly denies it, specifically allowing for theoretical time travel (e.g., [[wormholes]]) and different rates of passage of time based on velocity and acceleration.

Claims that relativity was used to develop the [[Global Positioning System]] ([[GPS]]) are false. A 1996 article explains:

:"The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein's general theory of relativity would seem to require - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter - less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth."<ref>http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf</ref><ref>Some do claim that relativity is "vital" to GPS even though GPS developed independently of theoretical predictions and theoreticians disagree about how the relativistic effects for GPS should be calculated. ''See id. See also'' [http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR614/MR614.appb.pdf]</ref>

This article, which was published in 1996, goes on to propose relativistic corrections that might be used to design more accurate GPS systems. Clocks on board GPS satellites require adjustments to their clock frequencies if they are to be synchronized with those on the surface of the Earth.

Tom Van Flandern, an astronomer hired to work on GPS in the late 1990s, concluded that "[t]he GPS programmers don't need relativity." He was quoted as saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein."<ref>http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html See also [http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP], where Van Flandern discusses how relativistic corrections might improve GPS accuracy.</ref> Asynchronization can be easily addressed through communications between the satellites and ground stations, so it is unclear why any theory would be needed for GPS. But other obscure physicists having no connection with GPS design claim that Van Flandern is wrong about GPS, and insist that relativity provides the best explanation for its timing adjustments.<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>

Some internet articles claim that GPS timing differences ''confirm'' the Theory of Relativity or its Lorentzian counterpart (which uses a preferred frame of reference). GPS clocks run slower in the weaker gravitation field of the satellites than on ground stations on Earth, with the effects predicted by general relativity far outweighing the effects predicted by special relativity. However, the articles claiming that the slower GPS satellite clocks confirm relativity do not address the effect, if any, of the weaker gravitational force under Newton's theory on the GPS satellite clocks, likely because in Newtonian Mechanics every clock in the universe keeps time at the same rate regardless of velocity, acceleration, or the presence or absence of force.

Currently, GPS satellites are synchronized to Coordinated Universal Time by radio signals from the ground; therefore, they cannot currently be used to test general relativity.<ref>[http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html "General Relativity in the Global Positioning System."] Neil Ashby, U. of Colorado</ref>

There are claims that the effects of relativity have been observed with the frequency shift of the signal being sent back to [[Earth]] several times as various spacecraft have dipped into the gravity wells around massive objects such as the [[sun]] (see image at right)<ref>[http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-releases-03/20031002-pr-a.cfm Saturn-Bound Spacecraft Tests Einstein's Theory]</ref> or Saturn<ref>[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517102.600-science-encounter-with-saturn-confirms-relativity-theory.html Encounter with Saturn confirms relativity theory]</ref>. A satellite called [[Gravity Probe B]] was put in orbit about the Earth to examine the effects of frame dragging and geodetic warping of space<ref>[http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/index.html NASA Gravity Probe B mission page]</ref><ref>[http://einstein.stanford.edu/ Gravity Probe B project page]</ref>, but the results were inconclusive. Note, however, that Newtonian mechanics also predicts deflection of light by gravity, and in the initial theory of relativity it predicted the same amount of deflection, but only if we treat light as capable of being accelerated and decelerated like ordinary matter, which is contrary to all measurements and observations to date.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm</ref> Adjustments to the theory of relativity resulted in a prediction of a greater deflection of light than that predicated by Newtonian mechanics, though it is debatable how much deflection Newtonian mechanics should predict.

None of the NASA spacecraft incorporates predictions of relativity into their own timing mechanisms, as Newtonian mechanics is adequate even for probes sent deep into space so long as they do not undergo accelerations near the speed of light or enter any massive gravity wells.<ref>There is no reported reliance on relativity by any space probe.</ref>

A decade of observation of the [[pulsar]] pair [[PSR 1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] detected a decline in its orbital period, which was attributed to a loss in energy by the system. It is impossible to measure the masses of the pulsars, their accelerations relative to the observers, or other fundamental parameters. Professors Joseph Taylor and Russell Hulse, who discovered the binary pulsar, found that physical values could be assigned to the pulsars to make the observed decline in orbital period consistent with the Theory of General Relativity, and for this they were awarded the 1993 [[Nobel Prize]] for Physics, which is the only award ever given by the Nobel committee for the Theory of Relativity.<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1993/press.html</ref> In 2004, Professor Taylor utilized a correction to the derivative of the orbital period to fit subsequent data better to the theory. At most, assumptions can be made and altered to fit the data to the theory, rather than the data confirming the theory. This is the typical scientific method, wherein a hypothesis is created, tested, adjusted, and further tested.

The [[perihelion]] of Mercury's [[orbit]] [[precession|precesses]] at a measurable rate, but even after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets in the [[solar system]], Newton's theory (assuming a precise inverse-square relationship for distance) predicts a rate of precession that differs from the measured rate by approximately 43 [[arcsecond]]s per century. General relativity was developed in part to provide an estimate for this rate of precession that better matches observations.<ref>http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html#SECTION032121000000000000000</ref> <ref> http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/pdf/CP6Doc30_English_pp146-200.pdf</ref> <ref> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/lectures/node117.html</ref> Newton's theory can also explain this perihelion by making tiny adjustments to parameters in the gravitational equation.

General relativity predicts twice as much bending in light as it passes near massive objects than Newton's theory might predict.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm</ref> This phenomenon is known as [[gravitational lens|gravitational lensing]]. A large number of instances of gravitational lensing have been observed, and it is now a standard astronomical tool.<ref> http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/grav_lens.html</ref> <ref> http://astro.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/lens.html</ref> <ref> http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html</ref> Note, however, that the extent of bending of light predicted by Newton's theory is open to debate, and depends on assumptions about the nature of light for gravitational purposes.<ref>http://cosmictimes.gsfc.nasa.gov/1919/guide/gravity_bends_starlight.html</ref>

In 1972, scientists flew extremely accurate clocks ("atomic clocks") around the world in both directions on commercial airlines, and claimed to observe relativistic time dilation; the eastbound clock gained 273 ns and the westbound clock lost 59 ns, matching the predictions of general relativity to within experimental accuracy.<ref>[http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment Hafele-Keating Experiment]</ref> However, the inventor of the atomic clock, Louis Essen, declared that the experiment was inaccurate.<ref>Louis Essen, Electron. Wireless World 94 (1988) 238.</ref> Dr A. G. Kelly examined the raw data from the experiment and declared it inconclusive.<ref>A. G. Kelly,Reliability of Relativistic Effect Tests on Airborne Clocks, Monograph No.3 Feb.1996, The Institution of Engineers of Ireland, ISBN 1-898012-22-9</ref> The Nobel Committee chose not to honor this experiment for the significance that was claimed.

Despite [[censorship]] of dissent about relativity, evidence contrary to the theory is discussed outside of [[liberal]] universities.<ref>http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=8&idContribution=922</ref>

==Experimental Verification of Relativity==

The different effects predicted by special relativity, compared to classical formulations, are extremely tiny. Most relativistic effects are negligible at the speeds of ordinary phenomena observed by humans. The effects only become significant when the speeds involved are a significant fraction of the speed of light, which is <math>3 \times 10^8</math> meters per second—such speeds are called ''relativistic''. (However, it's worth noting that ordinary magnetism can be considered an effect of relativity, dictated by the need for electrostatic theory to be correct under relativity. The speed of light in fact appears in the formulas ([[Maxwell's Equations]]) governing electricity and magnetism, though these equations were developed long before relativity was proposed.)

Because the effects of relativity are so tiny, scientists have been devising sophisticated and sensitive tests ever since the theory was formulated in 1905.

*At the end of Einstein's original 1905 paper [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend its Energy Content?"], he speculates on the possibility that the equation <math>E = m c^2</math>, which would normally be very hard to verify, could be verified with the extremely high energies of the newly-discovered phenomenon of radioactivity.<ref>This equation is not related to [[quantum mechanics]].</ref> In the 1910's, with the invention of the mass spectrometer, it became possible to measure masses of nuclei accurately. This led to the clearing up of the mystery of atomic masses not being exact integers,and strongly suggested the existence of a "mass defect" (or "packing fraction") consistent with the mass-energy equivalence. In the 1930's, experiments with known nuclear reactions showed a very accurate correlation between the masses of the nuclei involved and the energy released.

*Another prediction of special relativity was time dilation in rapidly moving objects. This effect was most famously verified in the anomalously slow decay of relativistic cosmic muons<ref>Some have suggested that other explanations are possible for this effect. We are trying to track this down.</ref>. Time dilation has since been verified many times, and is routinely taken into account in all high-energy nuclear physics experiments, as in Hadron collision experiments<ref>Experiments specifically designed to check dilation are rarely conducted any more.</ref>.

Predictions of general relativity turned out to be more obscure and difficult to test. The two most famous predictions were the bending of light in a gravitational field and the precession of the perihelia of orbiting planets.

*The first of these was famously tested during a total eclipse in 1919. That test was somewhat muddled by an incorrect initial calculation, by several people including Einstein himself, of what the effect would be, and some "cherry picking" of the data to be used <ref>''Einstein's Luck'', John Waller, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-860719-9</ref>. The data selection could be considered "manipulation" or "fudging", by a person (Arthur Eddington) who had a personal stake in the outcome. His analysis techniques would not pass muster today.

:It should be noted that pre-relativistic (Newtonian) physics may also predict a bending, of half the observed value, depending on whether one uses the 17th century "corpuscular" formulation or the 19th century "wave" formulation.

:Nevertheless, it has been verified with ever-increasing precision in subsequent eclipses, and in the observations of quasar 3C273.

*The second "classical" test of general relativity was the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. There are many complex effects contributing to this, including gravitational perturbations from other planets and the effect of the oblateness of the Sun. These are hard to calculate accurately, but, by 1900 it was known quite accurately that there was an "anomalous" precession, that is, a precession beyond all other known effects, of 43 arc seconds per century. This is a very tiny effect, but astronomical measurements were sufficiently accurate by that time to show it clearly.

:This created quite a problem—physicists by then were accustomed to having their theories check out very accurately. One proposal that was made, by Simon Newcomb and Asaph Hall, was that the exponent of the radius in the gravitational formula wasn't exactly 2. He showed that, by choosing an exponent of <math>2+\delta</math>, the precession, as a fraction of a full orbit per planet's year, is <math>\delta/2</math>. By setting <math>\delta</math> to .000000157, that is, an exponent of 2.000000157, Newcomb was able to get a precession of .000000078 revolutions per Mercury year, or 43 arcseconds per Earth year. The primary resistance to this approach came from mathematicians unable to do the integration without an exponent of precisely 2, and they insisted, incorrectly, that was impossible for the exponent to be slightly different from 2. Due to this desire for mathematical elegance rather than objective observation-based science, Newcomb's approach was not pursued. Furthermore as can be seen from the table below the measured values of the anomalous precessions of other planets agree well with the predictions of general relativity but poorly with those predicted by Newcomb and Hall.

:While Newcomb's theory, and general relativity, don't lead to closed-form solutions, both theories can be solved numerically to as much precision as one desires.

:Increasingly precise measurements of the precession demonstrate that it conflicts with General Relativity, despite claims of relativists for decades that it predicted the precession accurately in the amount of <math>3{}v^2/c^2</math> revolutions per planet's "year", where <math>v</math> is the planet's average orbital speed.<ref>That is a simple approximation, designed to relate the precession to the planet's speed relative to the speed of light. A more accurate approximation is <math>\frac{3GM}{c^2 a(1-e^2)}</math>, where a is the semi-major axis and e is the eccentricity.</ref> The conflict is greater than the margin of error, and many relativists avoid the discrepancy rather than address it.

:The following table show some approximate parameters for the planets. Note that Mercury has the smallest orbit, the fastest speed, and the highest gravitational pull. Precession of planets other than Mercury is extremely hard to measure, but measurements of the actual anomalous precessions are in good agreement with the last column of the table.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Planet
!Period, seconds x 106
!Semimajor axis, meters x 109
!Speed, meters/second x 103
!Gravitational force, Newtons per kilogram
!Anomalous precession, arcseconds per (Earth) century, pure Newtonian mechanics
!Anomalous precession, Newtonian with exponent of 2.000000157
!Anomalous precession, general relativity
!Measured anomalous precession (estimated uncertainty)
|-
|Mercury
|7.57
|58.9
|48
|.039
|0
|43
|43
|43.5(5)
|-
|Venus
|19.6
|108
|35
|.011
|0
|16.6
|9
|8(5)
|-
|Earth
|31.6
|150
|30
|.006
|0
|10.3
|4
|5(1)
|-
|Mars
|59.3
|227.9
|24
|.0025
|0
|5.5
|1.4
|
|-
|Jupiter
|374
|778.4
|13
|.0002
|0
|0.87
|0.07
|
|-
|Saturn
|929
|1426
|9.7
|.00006
|0
|0.35
|0.014
|
|-
|Uranus
|2651
|2870
|6.8
|.000016
|0
|0.12
|0.002
|
|-
|Neptune
|5200
|4498
|5.5
|.000007
|0
|0.063
|0.0008
|
|}

[[Image:Cassini-science-289.jpg|right|thumb|The Shapiro effect: A spacecraft signal dipping into a gravity well around the [[Sun]] is delayed slightly.]]
As the 20th century progressed, more tests of general relativity were proposed.

*One was the ''Shapiro effect'', involving time delay in radio signals passing through the gravity well of the Sun or a planet. Various spacecraft have confirmed this.

*Another is ''gravitational time dilation''. This is an effect separate from the time dilation of special relativity. It was tested by the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959.

*Later in the 20th century, even more subtle phenomena were tested. One was the phenomenon of ''gravitational radiation'', or "gravity waves". These waves are incredibly difficult to observe, and have never been observed. But extremely dense binary pulsars radiate gravitational waves with sufficient energy loss that, even though we can't detect the waves from Earth, we can see the effect of the energy loss from the radiation. The extreme precision of the timing of pulses from pulsars makes it possible to observe their energy loss with great accuracy. Observations by Hulse and Taylor of the pulsar pair known as B1913+16 confirmed the energy loss consistent with the predicted radiation.

*Two other effects, ''geodetic precession'' (also known as "de Sitter precession"), and ''frame dragging'' (also known as the "Lense-Thirring effect") were tested by the "Gravity Probe B" satellite early in the 21st century<ref>http://prl.aps.org/accepted/L/ea070Y8dQ491d22a28828c95f660a57ac82e7d8c0</ref><ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/306430</ref><ref>http://www.nap.edu/html/gpb/summary.html</ref><ref>http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/73870/title/Gravity_Probe_B_finally_pays_off_</ref><ref>http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/</ref><ref>http://einstein.stanford.edu/</ref><ref>http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/the-gravity-probe-b-bailout</ref><ref>http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/06/nasa-concludes-gravity-probe-b-space-time-experiment-proves-e/</ref>. The precision required to observe this was phenomenal. The results were announced on May 4, 2011.

{{clear}}

==Predicted consequences of the Theories==
===Time dilation===

[[Image:Light cone.png|right|thumb|Light-cone diagram]]
One important consequence of SR's postulates is that an observer in one reference frame will observe a clock in another frame to be "ticking" more slowly than in the observer's own frame. This can be proven mathematically using basic geometry, if the postulates are physically true without exception.

The length of an event <math>t</math>, as seen by a (relative) stationary observer observing an event is given by:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>t_0</math> is the "proper time" or the length of the event in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Evidence for time dilation was discovered by studying [[muon decay]]. [[Muons]] are [[subatomic]] [[particles]] with a very short [[halflife]] (1.53 microseconds at rest) and a very fast speed (0.994c). By putting muon detectors at the top (D1) and bottom (D2) of a mountain with a separation of 1900m, scientists could measure accurately the proportion of muons reaching the second detector in comparison to the first. The proportion found was different to the proportion that was calculated without taking into account relativistic effects.

Using the equation for [[exponential decay]], they could use this proportion to calculate the time taken for the muons to decay, relative to the muon. Then, using the time dilation equation they could then work out the dilated time. The dilated time showed a good correlation with the time it took the muons to reach the second sensor, thereby supporting the existence of time dilation.

The time taken for a muon to travel from D1 to D2 as measured by a stationary observer is:

<math> t = \frac{s}{v} = \frac{1900}{0.994\times(3\times10^{8})} = 6.37\mu\textrm{s} </math>

The fraction of muons arriving at D2 in comparison to D1 was 0.732. (Given by <math> \frac{N}{N_0} = 0.732 </math>)

Since (from the equation for exponential decay) <math> \frac{N}{N_{0}} = e^{-\lambda t_{0}} </math> then

<math> t_{0} = \frac {ln(0.732)}{ln (0.2)} \times 1.53\times 10^{-6} = 0.689\mu\textrm{s}</math>

This gives the time for the proportion of decay to occur for an observer who is stationary, relative to the muon.

Putting this into the time dilation equation gives:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}} = \frac{0.689 \times{10^{-6}}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{0.994^{2}}{1^{2}}}} = 6.3\times 10^{-6}\textrm{s}</math>

This is in good agreement with the value calculated above, thereby providing evidence to support time dilation.

====Time Dilation and Creation Science====

{{main|Starlight problem#Humphreys.27_model}}

Creation scientists such as physicists Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] and Dr. [[John Hartnett]] have used relativistic time dilation to explain how the earth can be only 6,000 years old even though cosmological data (background radiation, supernovae, etc.) set a much older age for the universe.

===Length contraction===
When two inertial reference frames move past each other in a straight line with constant relative velocity, an observer in one reference frame would observe a metre rule in the other frame to be shorter.

The length, <math>l</math>, of an object as seen by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

<math> l = l_{0} \sqrt{1- \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}</math>

Where
:<math>l_0</math> is the "proper length" or the length of the object in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

===Mass increase===

For decades the theory of relativity taught that as a body moves with increasing velocity its [[mass]] also increases.<ref>For example, this was taught as recently as in the 1991 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica.</ref>

Under this view, the mass, <math>m</math>, of an object as detected by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

:<math> m = \frac{m_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>m_0</math> is the "rest mass" or the mass of the object when it is at rest.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity of the object.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Since speed is relative, it follows that two observers in different inertial reference frames may disagree on the mass and kinetic energy of a body. Since all inertial reference frames are treated on an equal footing, it follows that mass and energy are interchangeable.

In recent years most physicists have shifted away from Einstein's original reliance on relativistic mass and his suggestion that mass increases{{Citation needed|date=January 2012}}. Instead, most physicists today teach that

:<math>F=\frac{d}{d\tau} p</math>

where <math>p</math> is the momentum defined by <math>\gamma m v</math>, <math>\gamma</math> is the standard Lorentz factor, and <math>\tau</math> is the proper time. Force F defined this way is a vector and thus can handle the directional aspect of the relativistic effects better than the concept of relativistic mass can.

The abandonment by physicists of the concept of relativistic mass, however, has the consequence of undermining the traditional claim under relativity that

:<math>m - m_0 = \frac{E}{c^2}</math>

also popularly known as

:<math>E = m c^2</math>

Now a concept of the 4-momentum <math>p</math> of a particle is taught, such that the square of the magnitude of <math>p</math> satisfies:

<math>||p||^2 = -p_x^2-p_y^2-p_z^2+E^2 = m_0^2c^4</math>

in any inertial reference frame. The magnitude of the 4-momentum, in any inertial frame, equals the rest mass <math>m_0</math> of the particle (in units where <math>c=1</math>).

== Paradoxes ==

The predictions of the theory of relativity throw up a number of apparent paradoxes and anomalies relating to the effects of time dilatation and length contraction. Whilst these paradoxes are consistent with the theory, they are contrary to everyday human experience and therefore can seem like impossibilities.

=== The Twin Paradox ===

The twin paradox is usually stated as a thought experiment involving two twins, one of whom is sent on a long journey in a spacecraft travelling at close to the speed of light, whilst the other remains on Earth. Time dilatation means that the travelling twin, on his return to Earth, is younger that the twin who has remained at home. However because neither twin is in a special position - each being in an inertial frame of reference - the reverse must also be true, and so the twin remaining on Earth must be younger. Hence each twin is younger than the other - a paradox.

The problem can be resolved in two ways. One is to examine the effects of General Relativity: to come back to Earth, the travelling twin must undergo acceleration in order to reverse his course, causing temporal effects which make him permanently the younger. Alternatively, it can be explained entirely using Special Relativity and noting that the twins are not in symmetrical situations: the one on earth has remained in a single inertial frame of reference, whilst the travelling twin has travelled in two<ref>http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm</ref>.

=== The Ehrenfest Paradox ===

The Ehrenfest Paradox considers a rigid wheel or disc rotating a bout its axis at high speed (somewhat like a bicycle wheel spinning freely on its axle). The rim of the wheel travels at close to the speed of light and therefore undergoes length contraction, whereas the radius (the spokes, for the bicycle wheel) does not. Hence the circumference is no longer equal to 2<big><math>\pi</math></big>r, which is paradoxical.

The apparent paradox was finally resolved in 1975 by the Norwegian scientist [[Øyvind Grøn]]<ref>http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=224955</ref>.

== Variable Speed of Light ==

The Theory of Relativity implies that physical constants like c, the speed of light in a vacuum, have remained constant. But at least one study suggests that physical constants, and possibly even the speed of light, have changed as the universe has aged.<ref>James Glanz and Dennis Overbye, "Cosmic Laws Like Speed of Light Might Be Changing, a Study Finds," August 15, 2001.[http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/15/science/15PHYS.html?ex=1185076800&en=d6467b6e3e346796&ei=5070]</ref>

"For the first time, scientists have experimentally demonstrated that sound pulses can travel at velocities faster than the speed of light, c. William Robertson's team from Middle Tennessee State University also showed that the group velocity of sound waves can become infinite, and even negative. ... Although such results may at first appear to violate special relativity (Einstein's law that no material object can exceed the speed of light), the actual significance of these experiments is a little different. These types of superluminal phenomena, Robertson et al. explain, violate neither causality nor special relativity, nor do they enable information to travel faster than c. In fact, theoretical work had predicted that the superluminal speed of the group velocity of sound waves should exist. 'The key to understanding this seeming paradox is that no wave energy exceeded the speed of light,' said Robertson."<ref>http://www.physorg.com/news88249076.html</ref>

"A team of researchers from the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) has successfully demonstrated, for the first time, that it is possible to control the speed of light – both slowing it down and speeding it up – in an optical fiber, using off-the-shelf instrumentation in normal environmental conditions. Their results, to be published in the August 22 issue of Applied Physics Letters, could have implications that range from optical [[computing]] to the fiber-optic telecommunications industry."<ref>http://www.scienceblog.com/light.html</ref> Both slowing down and speeding up of light within a substance other than a vacuum is made possible, because the light travels through the material, and that material affects the speed of light, i.e. a photon hits an electron, which then exits and emits a slightly lower energy photon out in the direction that the original photon was traveling, thus maintaining conservation of momentum. No matter how transparent an object may appear, it radically impacts the speed of the light traveling through it, as demonstrated by the refractive production of a rainbow by a crystal, which Newton himself discovered.

This apparent change in speed can be explained, however, by noting that the constant c refers to the speed of light in a vacuum, ie, when it is unimpeded. The speed of light when traveling through physical media is, in fact, variable.

"A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light - an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space and time. ... Dr Nimtz told New Scientist magazine: 'For the time being, this is the only violation of special relativity that I know of.'"<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/scispeed116.xml</ref>

==Pending research==

Today some physicists are working on hypothesizing how general relativity might have related to the other three forces of nature during the first fraction of a second of the [[Big Bang]]. Two of the more commonly studied attempts are [[string theory]] and [[loop quantum gravity]], but they have failed to produce any evidence that science mandates a science must have, and both typically take large amounts of work to even conform to what scientists believe. Critics increasingly point out that string theory and loop quantum gravity are largely untestable and unfalsifiable, and thus potentially unscientific under the principles of science advanced by [[Karl Popper]].<ref>See, for example, ''Not Even Wrong'', by Peter Woit</ref>

Relativity continues to be tested and some physics professors remain skeptical of the theory, such as University of Maryland physics professor Carroll Alley, who served as the principle physicist on the Apollo lunar project.<ref>http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm</ref>

== Political aspects of relativity ==

Some [[liberal]] politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, [[Democratic]] [[President of the United States of America|President]] [[Barack Obama]] helped publish an article by liberal law professor [[Laurence Tribe]] to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to [[abortion]].<ref>Tribe, acknowledging help by Obama, argued that the [[Constitution]] should be interpreted to establish a right to federally funded [[abortion]] and that, more generally, ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' does not go far enough. They insisted that a relativistic "curvature of space" could achieve this result by expanding application of the [[Constitution]] based on its impact on personal choice. "The ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' opinion ignored the way in which laws regulating pregnant women may shape the entire pattern of relationships among men, women, and children. It conceptualized abortion not in terms of the intensely public question of the subordination of women to men through the exploitation of pregnancy, but in terms of the purportedly private question of how women might make intimately personal decisions about their bodies and their lives. That vision described a part of the truth, but only what might be called the Newtonian part. ... [A] change in the surrounding legal setting can constitute state action that most threatens the sphere of personal choice. And it is a 'curved space' perspective on how law operates that leads one to focus less on the visible lines of legal force and more on how those lines are bent and directed by the law's geometry." Laurence H. Tribe, The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 16-17 (1989).</ref> As of June 2008, over 170 law review articles have cited this [[liberal]] application of the theory of relativity to legal arguments.<ref>Search conducted by [[User:Aschlafly]] in the LEXIS database "US Law Reviews and Journals, Combined," conducted June 1, 2008.</ref> Applications of the theory of relativity to change morality have also been common.<ref>"Mistakenly, in the minds of many, the theory of relativity became relativism."[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38081]</ref> Moreover, there is an unmistakable effort to censor or ostracize criticism of relativity.<ref>Although the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|liberally biased Wikipedia]] contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries, and even though publications like ''The Economist'' recognize the lack of scientific satisfaction in the theory (see, e.g., "Weighing the Universe," The Economist (Jan. 25, 2007)), Wikipedia's entry on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Relativity Theory of Relativity] omits one word of criticism.</ref>

Physicist [[Robert Dicke]] of Princeton University was a prominent critic<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html</ref> of general relativity, and Dicke's alternative "has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."<ref>"Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."[http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Essay_bekenstein.html] </ref> Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was repeatedly passed over for a [[Nobel Prize]], and in at least one case Dicke was insulted by the award being granted to others for contributions more properly credited to Dicke.

There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity. Although the 1993 Nobel prize in physics was awarded Hulse and Taylor for finding the first evidence of gravitational waves in the orbital decay of the binary pulsar PSR1913+16 <ref>Weisberg, Joel M.; Taylor, Joseph H. (2003), "The Relativistic Binary Pulsar B1913+16"", in Bailes, M.; Nice, D. J.; Thorsett, S. E., Proceedings of "Radio Pulsars," Chania, Crete, August, 2002, ASP Conference Series</ref>.

===Government Support for Relativistic research===
The Theory of Relativity enjoys a disproportionate share of [[federal funding]] of physics research today.<ref>The Democratic Congress insisted on the $250 million LIGO project despite substantial criticism by scientists that it was wasting scarce research dollars. John Travis, "LIGO: a $ 250 million gamble; Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory; includes related article," ''Science'' p. 612 (Apr. 30, 1993). "Adding to the acrimony is LIGO's $ 250 million price tag, which some hold responsible for NSF's recent funding woes." ''Id.''</ref> In at least one case that research has been unsuccessful. The $365 million dollar [[LIGO]] project has failed to detect the gravity waves predicted by relativity.<ref>http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/sept/gravitywaves/index.html</ref>

{{Relativity}}

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

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]

==External Links ==
*[http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity, by H.A. Lorentz.]
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com Relativity Calculator - Learn Special Relativity Mathematics ] The mathematics of special relativity presented in as simple and comprehensive manner possible within philosophical and historical contexts.

Theory of relativity

2012-04-14T18:07:02Z

Jloveday: added reference to 1993 nobel prize in physics ~~~~

''See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].''

The '''theory of relativity''' has been repeatedly contradicted by experiments, such as precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury that show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error. Criticism of the theory, however, caused physicist [[Robert Dicke]] to be denied the [[Nobel Prize]], and it is unlikely tenure or a Ph.D would be awarded to any critic of the theory.

'''Relativity''' refers to two closely-related mathematical theories in [[physics]]:

*'''[[Special theory of relativity|Special relativity]]''' (SR) is a theory which describes the laws of motion for non-accelerating bodies traveling at a significant fraction of the [[speed of light]]. As speeds approach zero, Special Relativity tends towards equivalence with [[Newton's Laws of Motion]]. Special Relativity was developed by [[Hendrik Lorentz]], [[Henri Poincaré]], and Hermann Minkowski,<ref>"German mathematician who developed the geometrical theory of numbers and who made numerous contributions to number theory, mathematical physics, and the theory of relativity." [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9052860/Hermann-Minkowski Hermann Minkowski -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia]</ref><ref>[http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Minkowski.html Hermann Minkowski, Biography]</ref> and [[Albert Einstein]].

*'''[[General theory of relativity|General Relativity]]''' (GR) is a theory which explains the laws of motion as viewed from accelerating reference frames and includes a geometric explanation for gravity. This theory was developed by [[David Hilbert]] and [[Albert Einstein]] as an extension of the postulates of Special Relativity.<ref>"[T]he German mathematician David Hilbert submitted an article containing the correct field equations for general relativity five days before Einstein."[http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/physics/relativity/history-1.html Nobel Prize historical account]</ref> A dramatic but later discredited claim by Sir [[Arthur Eddington]] of experimental proof of General Relativity in 1919 made Einstein a household name.

These theories have augmented earlier approaches, such as [[Galilean Relativity]].

Unlike most of physics, the theories of relativity have discontinuities whereby the limit of a physical quantity as a variable (such as mass or velocity) approaches a fixed value is not the same as the physical quantity at the fixed value. For example, the limit of momentum as mass approaches 0 and velocity approaches the speed of light is not equal to the momentum of (massless) light.<ref>Discontinuities in General Relativity are also well-recognized. See, e.g., [http://www.springerlink.com/content/u47l341u2q555455/]</ref>

More generally, and also unlike most of physics, the theories of relativity consist of complex mathematical equations relying on several hypotheses. For example, at Hofstra University general relativity is taught as part of an upperclass math course on differential geometry, based on three stated assumptions.<ref>http://people.hofstra.edu/Stefan_Waner/diff_geom/tc.html</ref> The equations for special relativity assume that it is forever impossible to attain a velocity faster than the speed of light and that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent, hypotheses that can never be fully tested. Relativity rejects Newton's [[action at a distance]], which is basic to Newtonian gravity and [[quantum mechanics]]. The mathematics of relativity assume no exceptions, yet in the time period immediately following the origin of the universe the relativity equations could not possibly have been valid.

Relativity has been met with much resistance in the scientific world. To date, a Nobel Prize has never been awarded for Relativity.<ref>Increasingly the Nobel Prize Committee has attempted to relate its physics awards to Relativity in some way, including perhaps 20 of the more recent prizes.</ref> Louis Essen, the man credited with determining the speed of light, wrote many fiery papers against it such as ''The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis''.<ref>http://ephysics.fileave.com/physics/Essen/oxford5-essen.pdf</ref> Relativity is in conflict with [[quantum mechanics]],<ref>For example, Relativity claims that space and time are smooth and continuous, while [[quantum mechanics]] suggests otherwise. [http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out.] Relativity also denies [[action-at-a-distance]], while quantum mechanics suggests otherwise. Relativity denies any role for chance, while quantum mechanics is heavily dependent on it.</ref> and although theories like [[string theory]] and [[quantum field theory]] have attempted to unify relativity and quantum mechanics, neither has been entirely successful or proven.

Unlike [[Classical mechanics|Newtonian physics]], in which space and time intervals are each invariant as seen by all observers, in SR the only invariant quantity is a quadratic combination of space and time intervals (x2 - c2 t2). The (assumed) instantaneous transmission of Newtonian gravitational effects also contradicts special relativity.

In quantum mechanics, the [[uncertainty principle]] suggests that virtual particles can sometimes travel faster than the speed of light which would violate causality, but "[t]he only known way to resolve this tension involves introducing the idea of antiparticles."<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2004/wilczek-lecture.pdf (p. 102)</ref> Consequently, in 1928 Paul Dirac derived the Dirac equation, one of the first quantum mechanical equations compatible with special relativity, by which Dirac predicted the existence of antimatter. Four years later, antimatter (the positron) was discovered by Carl Anderson, as successfully predicted by relativistic quantum mechanics. [[Quantum field theory]], a generalization of quantum mechanics, is fully compatible with special relativity but not with general relativity, and still lacks a vital piece: evidence of the [[graviton]].

== Special Relativity ==
Lorentz and Poincare developed Special Relativity as way of understanding how Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism could be valid in different frames of reference. Einstein famously published an explanation of Poincare's theory in terms of two assumptions (postulates):

# ''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all (inertial) observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''
# ''The laws of physics are identical in all inertial reference frames.''

In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:
# It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.<ref>This assumption is commonly restated in this manner. For example, a discussion of hypothetical [[tachyons]] talks "about using tachyons to transmit information faster than the speed of light, '''in violation of Special Relativity'''."[http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html] However, there is some question whether the Theory of Special Relativity really restricts faster-than-light communication of information.</ref>
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).

Or, in more concise, clearer terms, these assumptions are this:

#there is no [[action at a distance]] (because that would make observations dependent on the frame of reference)
#space and time are completely symmetric throughout the universe (because otherwise frames of reference would not be interchangeable)

When the assumptions are stated clearly as above, the weaknesses in the theory are more apparent. There ''is'' action at a distance in [[quantum entanglement]] and apparently also in gravity, as no gravitons can be found. However, no information has yet been transmitted via quantum entanglement, so while non-locality violates the spirit of relativity it is consistent with it if relativity is limited to the transmission of information. [[Quantum field theory]], an attempt to partially reconcile [[quantum mechanics]] with relativity, is incomplete at best. As to the second assumption, it is contrary to the [[arrow of time]], which illustrates the lack of symmetry in time. Logical defects include the incoherence of relativistic mass (see discussion below) and the lack of relativistic constraints near the beginning the universe (see above).

Special Relativity (SR) was initially developed by [[Henri Poincaré]] and [[Hendrik Lorentz]], working on problems in electrodynamics and the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]], which had not found any sign of [[aether (science)|luminiferous aether]], which was believed to be the substance which carried electromagnetic waves. Special relativity alters [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion by assuming that the speed of light will be the same for all observers, despite their relative velocities and the source of the light. (Therefore, if A sends a beam of light to B, and both measure the speed, it will be the same for both, no matter what the relative velocity of A and B. In Newtonian/Galilean mechanics, If A sends a physical object at a particular velocity towards B, and nothing slows it, the velocity of the object relative to B depends on the velocities of the object and of B relative to A.)

At low speeds (relative to light-speed), the Lorentz-Poincare relativity equations are equivalent to Newton's equations. The famous equation ''[[E=mc²]]'', describes the relationship between energy and the rest mass of a body.

Under relativity, particles at low mass and low speed can be accurately approximated by [[classical mechanics]] (such as [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion). At the two extremes, modeling the behavior of electrons requires that relativistic effects be taken into account (the chemically significant phenomenon of electron spin arises from relativity), and the course light passing through a region containing many massive bodies such as galaxies will be distorted ([[classical mechanics]], in which light travels in straight lines, does not predict this). These are both experimentally confirmed (electron spin was known before relativity arose, and telescopic observations confirm that galactic clusters distort the paths of the light passing through them).

Many scientists have indicated problems with the postulates of special relativity. Paul Davies, formerly of Macquarie University and now at the University of Arizona believes that the speed of light has changed over time. Since the speed of light is a constant speed 'c' this indicates problems with the theory [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2181455.stm light speed]. Other engineers and scientist have written about problems in the basic set of special relativity equations. Based on the ideas of not Einstein but of the scientist Fitzgerald as well as others, a length contraction effect was predicted as an explanation of the failure of the Michelson Morley experiment. This idea was taken up by Hendrik Lorentz and shown by others to be a useful mechanism by which theory could be forced into conformance with experimental results. However, in 2005, Michael Strauss a computer engineer invalidated much of Special Relativity theory by showing clear contradictions in the theory. [http://www.relativitycollapse.com relativity]

== General Relativity ==

General Relativity is a theory of gravity that is compatible with Special Relativity. Einstein explains a thought experiment involving two elevators. The first elevator is stationary on the Earth, while the other is being pulled through space at a constant acceleration of g. Einstein realized that any physical experiment carried out in the elevators would give the same result. This realization is known as the equivalence principle and it states that accelerating frames of reference and gravitational fields are indistinguishable. General Relativity is the theory of gravity that incorporates Special Relativity and the equivalence principle.

General Relativity is a mathematical extension of Special Relativity. GR views space-time as a 4-dimensional [[manifold]], which looks locally like [[Minkowski space]], and which acquires [[curvature]] due to the presence of massive bodies. Thus, near massive bodies, the geometry of space-time differs to a large degree from [[Euclidean geometry]]: for example, the sum of the angles in a triangle is not exactly 180 degrees. Just as in classical physics, objects travel along [[geodesic]]s in the absence of external forces. Importantly though, near a massive body, geodesics are no longer straight lines. It is this phenomenon of objects traveling along geodesics in a curved spacetime that accounts for gravity.

At one time the anomalous precession of Mercury's [[perihelion]] seemed to support the Theory of General Relativity, but increasingly accurate measurements show a divergence of the data from the theory.<ref>[[Counterexamples to Relativity]].</ref> There are other explanations based in Newtonian gravity, such as factoring in the pull of the other planets on Mercury's orbit. One Newtonian explanation requires a slight alternation to the precise inverse-square relation of Newtonian gravity to distance, which is disfavored by mathematicians due to its inelegance in integrating.

British Historian Paul Johnson declares the turning point in 20th century to have been when fellow Briton Sir [[Arthur Eddington]], an esteemed English astronomer, ventured out on a boat off Africa in 1919 with a local Army unit to observe the bending of starlight around the sun during a total eclipse. Upon his return to England declared that his observations proven the theory of relativity. In fact recent analysis of Eddington's work revealed that he was biased in selecting his data, and that overall his data were inconclusive about the theory of relativity. The prediction was later confirmed by more rigorous experiments, such as those performed by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] <ref>[http://www.spaceimages.com/gravlen.html Hubble Gravitational Lens Photo]</ref><ref> [http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/galaxies/lensing.html Gravitational Lensing] </ref><ref>[http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html]</ref>. Lorentz has this to say on the discrepancies between the empirical eclipse data and Einstein's predictions.

::''It indeed seems that the discrepancies may be ascribed to faults in observations, which supposition is supported by the fact that the observations at Prince's Island, which, it is true, did not turn out quite as well as those mentioned above, gave the result, of 1.64, somewhat lower than Einstein's figure.''<ref>Lorentz, H.A. [http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity]</ref>

The prediction that light is bent by gravity is predicted both by Newtonian physics and relativity, but relativity predicts a larger deflection.

Special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity where all gravitational fields are weak. Alternatively, special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity when all reference frames are inertial (non-accelerating and without gravity).

==Lack of evidence for Relativity==
The Theory of relativity assumes that time is symmetric just as space is, but the biggest early promoter of relativity, Arthur Eddington, coined the term "[[arrow of time]]" admitting how time is ''not'' symmetric but is directional. The passage of time is tied to an increase in disorder, or [[entropy]]. The Theory of relativity cannot explain this, and implicitly denies it, specifically allowing for theoretical time travel (e.g., [[wormholes]]) and different rates of passage of time based on velocity and acceleration.

Claims that relativity was used to develop the [[Global Positioning System]] ([[GPS]]) are false. A 1996 article explains:

:"The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein's general theory of relativity would seem to require - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter - less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth."<ref>http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf</ref><ref>Some do claim that relativity is "vital" to GPS even though GPS developed independently of theoretical predictions and theoreticians disagree about how the relativistic effects for GPS should be calculated. ''See id. See also'' [http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR614/MR614.appb.pdf]</ref>

This article, which was published in 1996, goes on to propose relativistic corrections that might be used to design more accurate GPS systems. Clocks on board GPS satellites require adjustments to their clock frequencies if they are to be synchronized with those on the surface of the Earth.

Tom Van Flandern, an astronomer hired to work on GPS in the late 1990s, concluded that "[t]he GPS programmers don't need relativity." He was quoted as saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein."<ref>http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html See also [http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP], where Van Flandern discusses how relativistic corrections might improve GPS accuracy.</ref> Asynchronization can be easily addressed through communications between the satellites and ground stations, so it is unclear why any theory would be needed for GPS. But other obscure physicists having no connection with GPS design claim that Van Flandern is wrong about GPS, and insist that relativity provides the best explanation for its timing adjustments.<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>

Some internet articles claim that GPS timing differences ''confirm'' the Theory of Relativity or its Lorentzian counterpart (which uses a preferred frame of reference). GPS clocks run slower in the weaker gravitation field of the satellites than on ground stations on Earth, with the effects predicted by general relativity far outweighing the effects predicted by special relativity. However, the articles claiming that the slower GPS satellite clocks confirm relativity do not address the effect, if any, of the weaker gravitational force under Newton's theory on the GPS satellite clocks, likely because in Newtonian Mechanics every clock in the universe keeps time at the same rate regardless of velocity, acceleration, or the presence or absence of force.

Currently, GPS satellites are synchronized to Coordinated Universal Time by radio signals from the ground; therefore, they cannot currently be used to test general relativity.<ref>[http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html "General Relativity in the Global Positioning System."] Neil Ashby, U. of Colorado</ref>

There are claims that the effects of relativity have been observed with the frequency shift of the signal being sent back to [[Earth]] several times as various spacecraft have dipped into the gravity wells around massive objects such as the [[sun]] (see image at right)<ref>[http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-releases-03/20031002-pr-a.cfm Saturn-Bound Spacecraft Tests Einstein's Theory]</ref> or Saturn<ref>[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517102.600-science-encounter-with-saturn-confirms-relativity-theory.html Encounter with Saturn confirms relativity theory]</ref>. A satellite called [[Gravity Probe B]] was put in orbit about the Earth to examine the effects of frame dragging and geodetic warping of space<ref>[http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/index.html NASA Gravity Probe B mission page]</ref><ref>[http://einstein.stanford.edu/ Gravity Probe B project page]</ref>, but the results were inconclusive. Note, however, that Newtonian mechanics also predicts deflection of light by gravity, and in the initial theory of relativity it predicted the same amount of deflection, but only if we treat light as capable of being accelerated and decelerated like ordinary matter, which is contrary to all measurements and observations to date.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm</ref> Adjustments to the theory of relativity resulted in a prediction of a greater deflection of light than that predicated by Newtonian mechanics, though it is debatable how much deflection Newtonian mechanics should predict.

None of the NASA spacecraft incorporates predictions of relativity into their own timing mechanisms, as Newtonian mechanics is adequate even for probes sent deep into space so long as they do not undergo accelerations near the speed of light or enter any massive gravity wells.<ref>There is no reported reliance on relativity by any space probe.</ref>

A decade of observation of the [[pulsar]] pair [[PSR 1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] detected a decline in its orbital period, which was attributed to a loss in energy by the system. It is impossible to measure the masses of the pulsars, their accelerations relative to the observers, or other fundamental parameters. Professors Joseph Taylor and Russell Hulse, who discovered the binary pulsar, found that physical values could be assigned to the pulsars to make the observed decline in orbital period consistent with the Theory of General Relativity, and for this they were awarded the 1993 [[Nobel Prize]] for Physics, which is the only award ever given by the Nobel committee for the Theory of Relativity.<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1993/press.html</ref> In 2004, Professor Taylor utilized a correction to the derivative of the orbital period to fit subsequent data better to the theory. At most, assumptions can be made and altered to fit the data to the theory, rather than the data confirming the theory. This is the typical scientific method, wherein a hypothesis is created, tested, adjusted, and further tested.

The [[perihelion]] of Mercury's [[orbit]] [[precession|precesses]] at a measurable rate, but even after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets in the [[solar system]], Newton's theory (assuming a precise inverse-square relationship for distance) predicts a rate of precession that differs from the measured rate by approximately 43 [[arcsecond]]s per century. General relativity was developed in part to provide an estimate for this rate of precession that better matches observations.<ref>http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html#SECTION032121000000000000000</ref> <ref> http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/pdf/CP6Doc30_English_pp146-200.pdf</ref> <ref> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/lectures/node117.html</ref> Newton's theory can also explain this perihelion by making tiny adjustments to parameters in the gravitational equation.

General relativity predicts twice as much bending in light as it passes near massive objects than Newton's theory might predict.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm</ref> This phenomenon is known as [[gravitational lens|gravitational lensing]]. A large number of instances of gravitational lensing have been observed, and it is now a standard astronomical tool.<ref> http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/grav_lens.html</ref> <ref> http://astro.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/lens.html</ref> <ref> http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html</ref> Note, however, that the extent of bending of light predicted by Newton's theory is open to debate, and depends on assumptions about the nature of light for gravitational purposes.<ref>http://cosmictimes.gsfc.nasa.gov/1919/guide/gravity_bends_starlight.html</ref>

In 1972, scientists flew extremely accurate clocks ("atomic clocks") around the world in both directions on commercial airlines, and claimed to observe relativistic time dilation; the eastbound clock gained 273 ns and the westbound clock lost 59 ns, matching the predictions of general relativity to within experimental accuracy.<ref>[http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment Hafele-Keating Experiment]</ref> However, the inventor of the atomic clock, Louis Essen, declared that the experiment was inaccurate.<ref>Louis Essen, Electron. Wireless World 94 (1988) 238.</ref> Dr A. G. Kelly examined the raw data from the experiment and declared it inconclusive.<ref>A. G. Kelly,Reliability of Relativistic Effect Tests on Airborne Clocks, Monograph No.3 Feb.1996, The Institution of Engineers of Ireland, ISBN 1-898012-22-9</ref> The Nobel Committee chose not to honor this experiment for the significance that was claimed.

Despite [[censorship]] of dissent about relativity, evidence contrary to the theory is discussed outside of [[liberal]] universities.<ref>http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=8&idContribution=922</ref>

==Experimental Verification of Relativity==

The different effects predicted by special relativity, compared to classical formulations, are extremely tiny. Most relativistic effects are negligible at the speeds of ordinary phenomena observed by humans. The effects only become significant when the speeds involved are a significant fraction of the speed of light, which is <math>3 \times 10^8</math> meters per second—such speeds are called ''relativistic''. (However, it's worth noting that ordinary magnetism can be considered an effect of relativity, dictated by the need for electrostatic theory to be correct under relativity. The speed of light in fact appears in the formulas ([[Maxwell's Equations]]) governing electricity and magnetism, though these equations were developed long before relativity was proposed.)

Because the effects of relativity are so tiny, scientists have been devising sophisticated and sensitive tests ever since the theory was formulated in 1905.

*At the end of Einstein's original 1905 paper [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend its Energy Content?"], he speculates on the possibility that the equation <math>E = m c^2</math>, which would normally be very hard to verify, could be verified with the extremely high energies of the newly-discovered phenomenon of radioactivity.<ref>This equation is not related to [[quantum mechanics]].</ref> In the 1910's, with the invention of the mass spectrometer, it became possible to measure masses of nuclei accurately. This led to the clearing up of the mystery of atomic masses not being exact integers,and strongly suggested the existence of a "mass defect" (or "packing fraction") consistent with the mass-energy equivalence. In the 1930's, experiments with known nuclear reactions showed a very accurate correlation between the masses of the nuclei involved and the energy released.

*Another prediction of special relativity was time dilation in rapidly moving objects. This effect was most famously verified in the anomalously slow decay of relativistic cosmic muons<ref>Some have suggested that other explanations are possible for this effect. We are trying to track this down.</ref>. Time dilation has since been verified many times, and is routinely taken into account in all high-energy nuclear physics experiments, as in Hadron collision experiments<ref>Experiments specifically designed to check dilation are rarely conducted any more.</ref>.

Predictions of general relativity turned out to be more obscure and difficult to test. The two most famous predictions were the bending of light in a gravitational field and the precession of the perihelia of orbiting planets.

*The first of these was famously tested during a total eclipse in 1919. That test was somewhat muddled by an incorrect initial calculation, by several people including Einstein himself, of what the effect would be, and some "cherry picking" of the data to be used <ref>''Einstein's Luck'', John Waller, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-860719-9</ref>. The data selection could be considered "manipulation" or "fudging", by a person (Arthur Eddington) who had a personal stake in the outcome. His analysis techniques would not pass muster today.

:It should be noted that pre-relativistic (Newtonian) physics may also predict a bending, of half the observed value, depending on whether one uses the 17th century "corpuscular" formulation or the 19th century "wave" formulation.

:Nevertheless, it has been verified with ever-increasing precision in subsequent eclipses, and in the observations of quasar 3C273.

*The second "classical" test of general relativity was the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. There are many complex effects contributing to this, including gravitational perturbations from other planets and the effect of the oblateness of the Sun. These are hard to calculate accurately, but, by 1900 it was known quite accurately that there was an "anomalous" precession, that is, a precession beyond all other known effects, of 43 arc seconds per century. This is a very tiny effect, but astronomical measurements were sufficiently accurate by that time to show it clearly.

:This created quite a problem—physicists by then were accustomed to having their theories check out very accurately. One proposal that was made, by Simon Newcomb and Asaph Hall, was that the exponent of the radius in the gravitational formula wasn't exactly 2. He showed that, by choosing an exponent of <math>2+\delta</math>, the precession, as a fraction of a full orbit per planet's year, is <math>\delta/2</math>. By setting <math>\delta</math> to .000000157, that is, an exponent of 2.000000157, Newcomb was able to get a precession of .000000078 revolutions per Mercury year, or 43 arcseconds per Earth year. The primary resistance to this approach came from mathematicians unable to do the integration without an exponent of precisely 2, and they insisted, incorrectly, that was impossible for the exponent to be slightly different from 2. Due to this desire for mathematical elegance rather than objective observation-based science, Newcomb's approach was not pursued. Furthermore as can be seen from the table below the measured values of the anomalous precessions of other planets agree well with the predictions of general relativity but poorly with those predicted by Newcomb and Hall.

:While Newcomb's theory, and general relativity, don't lead to closed-form solutions, both theories can be solved numerically to as much precision as one desires.

:Increasingly precise measurements of the precession demonstrate that it conflicts with General Relativity, despite claims of relativists for decades that it predicted the precession accurately in the amount of <math>3{}v^2/c^2</math> revolutions per planet's "year", where <math>v</math> is the planet's average orbital speed.<ref>That is a simple approximation, designed to relate the precession to the planet's speed relative to the speed of light. A more accurate approximation is <math>\frac{3GM}{c^2 a(1-e^2)}</math>, where a is the semi-major axis and e is the eccentricity.</ref> The conflict is greater than the margin of error, and many relativists avoid the discrepancy rather than address it.

:The following table show some approximate parameters for the planets. Note that Mercury has the smallest orbit, the fastest speed, and the highest gravitational pull. Precession of planets other than Mercury is extremely hard to measure, but measurements of the actual anomalous precessions are in good agreement with the last column of the table.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Planet
!Period, seconds x 106
!Semimajor axis, meters x 109
!Speed, meters/second x 103
!Gravitational force, Newtons per kilogram
!Anomalous precession, arcseconds per (Earth) century, pure Newtonian mechanics
!Anomalous precession, Newtonian with exponent of 2.000000157
!Anomalous precession, general relativity
!Measured anomalous precession (estimated uncertainty)
|-
|Mercury
|7.57
|58.9
|48
|.039
|0
|43
|43
|43.5(5)
|-
|Venus
|19.6
|108
|35
|.011
|0
|16.6
|9
|8(5)
|-
|Earth
|31.6
|150
|30
|.006
|0
|10.3
|4
|5(1)
|-
|Mars
|59.3
|227.9
|24
|.0025
|0
|5.5
|1.4
|
|-
|Jupiter
|374
|778.4
|13
|.0002
|0
|0.87
|0.07
|
|-
|Saturn
|929
|1426
|9.7
|.00006
|0
|0.35
|0.014
|
|-
|Uranus
|2651
|2870
|6.8
|.000016
|0
|0.12
|0.002
|
|-
|Neptune
|5200
|4498
|5.5
|.000007
|0
|0.063
|0.0008
|
|}

[[Image:Cassini-science-289.jpg|right|thumb|The Shapiro effect: A spacecraft signal dipping into a gravity well around the [[Sun]] is delayed slightly.]]
As the 20th century progressed, more tests of general relativity were proposed.

*One was the ''Shapiro effect'', involving time delay in radio signals passing through the gravity well of the Sun or a planet. Various spacecraft have confirmed this.

*Another is ''gravitational time dilation''. This is an effect separate from the time dilation of special relativity. It was tested by the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959.

*Later in the 20th century, even more subtle phenomena were tested. One was the phenomenon of ''gravitational radiation'', or "gravity waves". These waves are incredibly difficult to observe, and have never been observed. But extremely dense binary pulsars radiate gravitational waves with sufficient energy loss that, even though we can't detect the waves from Earth, we can see the effect of the energy loss from the radiation. The extreme precision of the timing of pulses from pulsars makes it possible to observe their energy loss with great accuracy. Observations by Hulse and Taylor of the pulsar pair known as B1913+16 confirmed the energy loss consistent with the predicted radiation.

*Two other effects, ''geodetic precession'' (also known as "de Sitter precession"), and ''frame dragging'' (also known as the "Lense-Thirring effect") were tested by the "Gravity Probe B" satellite early in the 21st century<ref>http://prl.aps.org/accepted/L/ea070Y8dQ491d22a28828c95f660a57ac82e7d8c0</ref><ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/306430</ref><ref>http://www.nap.edu/html/gpb/summary.html</ref><ref>http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/73870/title/Gravity_Probe_B_finally_pays_off_</ref><ref>http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/</ref><ref>http://einstein.stanford.edu/</ref><ref>http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/the-gravity-probe-b-bailout</ref><ref>http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/06/nasa-concludes-gravity-probe-b-space-time-experiment-proves-e/</ref>. The precision required to observe this was phenomenal. The results were announced on May 4, 2011.

{{clear}}

==Predicted consequences of the Theories==
===Time dilation===

[[Image:Light cone.png|right|thumb|Light-cone diagram]]
One important consequence of SR's postulates is that an observer in one reference frame will observe a clock in another frame to be "ticking" more slowly than in the observer's own frame. This can be proven mathematically using basic geometry, if the postulates are physically true without exception.

The length of an event <math>t</math>, as seen by a (relative) stationary observer observing an event is given by:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>t_0</math> is the "proper time" or the length of the event in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Evidence for time dilation was discovered by studying [[muon decay]]. [[Muons]] are [[subatomic]] [[particles]] with a very short [[halflife]] (1.53 microseconds at rest) and a very fast speed (0.994c). By putting muon detectors at the top (D1) and bottom (D2) of a mountain with a separation of 1900m, scientists could measure accurately the proportion of muons reaching the second detector in comparison to the first. The proportion found was different to the proportion that was calculated without taking into account relativistic effects.

Using the equation for [[exponential decay]], they could use this proportion to calculate the time taken for the muons to decay, relative to the muon. Then, using the time dilation equation they could then work out the dilated time. The dilated time showed a good correlation with the time it took the muons to reach the second sensor, thereby supporting the existence of time dilation.

The time taken for a muon to travel from D1 to D2 as measured by a stationary observer is:

<math> t = \frac{s}{v} = \frac{1900}{0.994\times(3\times10^{8})} = 6.37\mu\textrm{s} </math>

The fraction of muons arriving at D2 in comparison to D1 was 0.732. (Given by <math> \frac{N}{N_0} = 0.732 </math>)

Since (from the equation for exponential decay) <math> \frac{N}{N_{0}} = e^{-\lambda t_{0}} </math> then

<math> t_{0} = \frac {ln(0.732)}{ln (0.2)} \times 1.53\times 10^{-6} = 0.689\mu\textrm{s}</math>

This gives the time for the proportion of decay to occur for an observer who is stationary, relative to the muon.

Putting this into the time dilation equation gives:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}} = \frac{0.689 \times{10^{-6}}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{0.994^{2}}{1^{2}}}} = 6.3\times 10^{-6}\textrm{s}</math>

This is in good agreement with the value calculated above, thereby providing evidence to support time dilation.

====Time Dilation and Creation Science====

{{main|Starlight problem#Humphreys.27_model}}

Creation scientists such as physicists Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] and Dr. [[John Hartnett]] have used relativistic time dilation to explain how the earth can be only 6,000 years old even though cosmological data (background radiation, supernovae, etc.) set a much older age for the universe.

===Length contraction===
When two inertial reference frames move past each other in a straight line with constant relative velocity, an observer in one reference frame would observe a metre rule in the other frame to be shorter.

The length, <math>l</math>, of an object as seen by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

<math> l = l_{0} \sqrt{1- \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}</math>

Where
:<math>l_0</math> is the "proper length" or the length of the object in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

===Mass increase===

For decades the theory of relativity taught that as a body moves with increasing velocity its [[mass]] also increases.<ref>For example, this was taught as recently as in the 1991 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica.</ref>

Under this view, the mass, <math>m</math>, of an object as detected by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

:<math> m = \frac{m_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>m_0</math> is the "rest mass" or the mass of the object when it is at rest.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity of the object.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Since speed is relative, it follows that two observers in different inertial reference frames may disagree on the mass and kinetic energy of a body. Since all inertial reference frames are treated on an equal footing, it follows that mass and energy are interchangeable.

In recent years most physicists have shifted away from Einstein's original reliance on relativistic mass and his suggestion that mass increases{{Citation needed|date=January 2012}}. Instead, most physicists today teach that

:<math>F=\frac{d}{d\tau} p</math>

where <math>p</math> is the momentum defined by <math>\gamma m v</math>, <math>\gamma</math> is the standard Lorentz factor, and <math>\tau</math> is the proper time. Force F defined this way is a vector and thus can handle the directional aspect of the relativistic effects better than the concept of relativistic mass can.

The abandonment by physicists of the concept of relativistic mass, however, has the consequence of undermining the traditional claim under relativity that

:<math>m - m_0 = \frac{E}{c^2}</math>

also popularly known as

:<math>E = m c^2</math>

Now a concept of the 4-momentum <math>p</math> of a particle is taught, such that the square of the magnitude of <math>p</math> satisfies:

<math>||p||^2 = -p_x^2-p_y^2-p_z^2+E^2 = m_0^2c^4</math>

in any inertial reference frame. The magnitude of the 4-momentum, in any inertial frame, equals the rest mass <math>m_0</math> of the particle (in units where <math>c=1</math>).

== Paradoxes ==

The predictions of the theory of relativity throw up a number of apparent paradoxes and anomalies relating to the effects of time dilatation and length contraction. Whilst these paradoxes are consistent with the theory, they are contrary to everyday human experience and therefore can seem like impossibilities.

=== The Twin Paradox ===

The twin paradox is usually stated as a thought experiment involving two twins, one of whom is sent on a long journey in a spacecraft travelling at close to the speed of light, whilst the other remains on Earth. Time dilatation means that the travelling twin, on his return to Earth, is younger that the twin who has remained at home. However because neither twin is in a special position - each being in an inertial frame of reference - the reverse must also be true, and so the twin remaining on Earth must be younger. Hence each twin is younger than the other - a paradox.

The problem can be resolved in two ways. One is to examine the effects of General Relativity: to come back to Earth, the travelling twin must undergo acceleration in order to reverse his course, causing temporal effects which make him permanently the younger. Alternatively, it can be explained entirely using Special Relativity and noting that the twins are not in symmetrical situations: the one on earth has remained in a single inertial frame of reference, whilst the travelling twin has travelled in two<ref>http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm</ref>.

=== The Ehrenfest Paradox ===

The Ehrenfest Paradox considers a rigid wheel or disc rotating a bout its axis at high speed (somewhat like a bicycle wheel spinning freely on its axle). The rim of the wheel travels at close to the speed of light and therefore undergoes length contraction, whereas the radius (the spokes, for the bicycle wheel) does not. Hence the circumference is no longer equal to 2<big><math>\pi</math></big>r, which is paradoxical.

The apparent paradox was finally resolved in 1975 by the Norwegian scientist [[Øyvind Grøn]]<ref>http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=224955</ref>.

== Variable Speed of Light ==

The Theory of Relativity implies that physical constants like c, the speed of light in a vacuum, have remained constant. But at least one study suggests that physical constants, and possibly even the speed of light, have changed as the universe has aged.<ref>James Glanz and Dennis Overbye, "Cosmic Laws Like Speed of Light Might Be Changing, a Study Finds," August 15, 2001.[http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/15/science/15PHYS.html?ex=1185076800&en=d6467b6e3e346796&ei=5070]</ref>

"For the first time, scientists have experimentally demonstrated that sound pulses can travel at velocities faster than the speed of light, c. William Robertson's team from Middle Tennessee State University also showed that the group velocity of sound waves can become infinite, and even negative. ... Although such results may at first appear to violate special relativity (Einstein's law that no material object can exceed the speed of light), the actual significance of these experiments is a little different. These types of superluminal phenomena, Robertson et al. explain, violate neither causality nor special relativity, nor do they enable information to travel faster than c. In fact, theoretical work had predicted that the superluminal speed of the group velocity of sound waves should exist. 'The key to understanding this seeming paradox is that no wave energy exceeded the speed of light,' said Robertson."<ref>http://www.physorg.com/news88249076.html</ref>

"A team of researchers from the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) has successfully demonstrated, for the first time, that it is possible to control the speed of light – both slowing it down and speeding it up – in an optical fiber, using off-the-shelf instrumentation in normal environmental conditions. Their results, to be published in the August 22 issue of Applied Physics Letters, could have implications that range from optical [[computing]] to the fiber-optic telecommunications industry."<ref>http://www.scienceblog.com/light.html</ref> Both slowing down and speeding up of light within a substance other than a vacuum is made possible, because the light travels through the material, and that material affects the speed of light, i.e. a photon hits an electron, which then exits and emits a slightly lower energy photon out in the direction that the original photon was traveling, thus maintaining conservation of momentum. No matter how transparent an object may appear, it radically impacts the speed of the light traveling through it, as demonstrated by the refractive production of a rainbow by a crystal, which Newton himself discovered.

This apparent change in speed can be explained, however, by noting that the constant c refers to the speed of light in a vacuum, ie, when it is unimpeded. The speed of light when traveling through physical media is, in fact, variable.

"A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light - an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space and time. ... Dr Nimtz told New Scientist magazine: 'For the time being, this is the only violation of special relativity that I know of.'"<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/scispeed116.xml</ref>

==Pending research==

Today some physicists are working on hypothesizing how general relativity might have related to the other three forces of nature during the first fraction of a second of the [[Big Bang]]. Two of the more commonly studied attempts are [[string theory]] and [[loop quantum gravity]], but they have failed to produce any evidence that science mandates a science must have, and both typically take large amounts of work to even conform to what scientists believe. Critics increasingly point out that string theory and loop quantum gravity are largely untestable and unfalsifiable, and thus potentially unscientific under the principles of science advanced by [[Karl Popper]].<ref>See, for example, ''Not Even Wrong'', by Peter Woit</ref>

Relativity continues to be tested and some physics professors remain skeptical of the theory, such as University of Maryland physics professor Carroll Alley, who served as the principle physicist on the Apollo lunar project.<ref>http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm</ref>

== Political aspects of relativity ==

Some [[liberal]] politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, [[Democratic]] [[President of the United States of America|President]] [[Barack Obama]] helped publish an article by liberal law professor [[Laurence Tribe]] to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to [[abortion]].<ref>Tribe, acknowledging help by Obama, argued that the [[Constitution]] should be interpreted to establish a right to federally funded [[abortion]] and that, more generally, ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' does not go far enough. They insisted that a relativistic "curvature of space" could achieve this result by expanding application of the [[Constitution]] based on its impact on personal choice. "The ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' opinion ignored the way in which laws regulating pregnant women may shape the entire pattern of relationships among men, women, and children. It conceptualized abortion not in terms of the intensely public question of the subordination of women to men through the exploitation of pregnancy, but in terms of the purportedly private question of how women might make intimately personal decisions about their bodies and their lives. That vision described a part of the truth, but only what might be called the Newtonian part. ... [A] change in the surrounding legal setting can constitute state action that most threatens the sphere of personal choice. And it is a 'curved space' perspective on how law operates that leads one to focus less on the visible lines of legal force and more on how those lines are bent and directed by the law's geometry." Laurence H. Tribe, The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 16-17 (1989).</ref> As of June 2008, over 170 law review articles have cited this [[liberal]] application of the theory of relativity to legal arguments.<ref>Search conducted by [[User:Aschlafly]] in the LEXIS database "US Law Reviews and Journals, Combined," conducted June 1, 2008.</ref> Applications of the theory of relativity to change morality have also been common.<ref>"Mistakenly, in the minds of many, the theory of relativity became relativism."[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38081]</ref> Moreover, there is an unmistakable effort to censor or ostracize criticism of relativity.<ref>Although the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|liberally biased Wikipedia]] contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries, and even though publications like ''The Economist'' recognize the lack of scientific satisfaction in the theory (see, e.g., "Weighing the Universe," The Economist (Jan. 25, 2007)), Wikipedia's entry on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Relativity Theory of Relativity] omits one word of criticism.</ref>

Physicist [[Robert Dicke]] of Princeton University was a prominent critic<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html</ref> of general relativity, and Dicke's alternative "has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."<ref>"Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."[http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Essay_bekenstein.html] </ref> Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was repeatedly passed over for a [[Nobel Prize]], and in at least one case Dicke was insulted by the award being granted to others for contributions more properly credited to Dicke.

There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity. Although the 1993 Nobel prize in physics was awarded Hulse and Taylor for finding the first evidence of gravitational waves in the orbital decay of the binary pulsar PSR1913+16 </ref>Weisberg, Joel M.; Taylor, Joseph H. (2003), "The Relativistic Binary Pulsar B1913+16"", in Bailes, M.; Nice, D. J.; Thorsett, S. E., Proceedings of "Radio Pulsars," Chania, Crete, August, 2002, ASP Conference Series</ref>.

===Government Support for Relativistic research===
The Theory of Relativity enjoys a disproportionate share of [[federal funding]] of physics research today.<ref>The Democratic Congress insisted on the $250 million LIGO project despite substantial criticism by scientists that it was wasting scarce research dollars. John Travis, "LIGO: a $ 250 million gamble; Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory; includes related article," ''Science'' p. 612 (Apr. 30, 1993). "Adding to the acrimony is LIGO's $ 250 million price tag, which some hold responsible for NSF's recent funding woes." ''Id.''</ref> In at least one case that research has been unsuccessful. The $365 million dollar [[LIGO]] project has failed to detect the gravity waves predicted by relativity.<ref>http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/sept/gravitywaves/index.html</ref>

{{Relativity}}

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

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]

==External Links ==
*[http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity, by H.A. Lorentz.]
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com Relativity Calculator - Learn Special Relativity Mathematics ] The mathematics of special relativity presented in as simple and comprehensive manner possible within philosophical and historical contexts.

Theory of relativity

2012-04-14T17:45:30Z

Jloveday: Added experimental values for precessions~~~~

''See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].''

The '''theory of relativity''' has been repeatedly contradicted by experiments, such as precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury that show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error. Criticism of the theory, however, caused physicist [[Robert Dicke]] to be denied the [[Nobel Prize]], and it is unlikely tenure or a Ph.D would be awarded to any critic of the theory.

'''Relativity''' refers to two closely-related mathematical theories in [[physics]]:

*'''[[Special theory of relativity|Special relativity]]''' (SR) is a theory which describes the laws of motion for non-accelerating bodies traveling at a significant fraction of the [[speed of light]]. As speeds approach zero, Special Relativity tends towards equivalence with [[Newton's Laws of Motion]]. Special Relativity was developed by [[Hendrik Lorentz]], [[Henri Poincaré]], and Hermann Minkowski,<ref>"German mathematician who developed the geometrical theory of numbers and who made numerous contributions to number theory, mathematical physics, and the theory of relativity." [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9052860/Hermann-Minkowski Hermann Minkowski -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia]</ref><ref>[http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Minkowski.html Hermann Minkowski, Biography]</ref> and [[Albert Einstein]].

*'''[[General theory of relativity|General Relativity]]''' (GR) is a theory which explains the laws of motion as viewed from accelerating reference frames and includes a geometric explanation for gravity. This theory was developed by [[David Hilbert]] and [[Albert Einstein]] as an extension of the postulates of Special Relativity.<ref>"[T]he German mathematician David Hilbert submitted an article containing the correct field equations for general relativity five days before Einstein."[http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/physics/relativity/history-1.html Nobel Prize historical account]</ref> A dramatic but later discredited claim by Sir [[Arthur Eddington]] of experimental proof of General Relativity in 1919 made Einstein a household name.

These theories have augmented earlier approaches, such as [[Galilean Relativity]].

Unlike most of physics, the theories of relativity have discontinuities whereby the limit of a physical quantity as a variable (such as mass or velocity) approaches a fixed value is not the same as the physical quantity at the fixed value. For example, the limit of momentum as mass approaches 0 and velocity approaches the speed of light is not equal to the momentum of (massless) light.<ref>Discontinuities in General Relativity are also well-recognized. See, e.g., [http://www.springerlink.com/content/u47l341u2q555455/]</ref>

More generally, and also unlike most of physics, the theories of relativity consist of complex mathematical equations relying on several hypotheses. For example, at Hofstra University general relativity is taught as part of an upperclass math course on differential geometry, based on three stated assumptions.<ref>http://people.hofstra.edu/Stefan_Waner/diff_geom/tc.html</ref> The equations for special relativity assume that it is forever impossible to attain a velocity faster than the speed of light and that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent, hypotheses that can never be fully tested. Relativity rejects Newton's [[action at a distance]], which is basic to Newtonian gravity and [[quantum mechanics]]. The mathematics of relativity assume no exceptions, yet in the time period immediately following the origin of the universe the relativity equations could not possibly have been valid.

Relativity has been met with much resistance in the scientific world. To date, a Nobel Prize has never been awarded for Relativity.<ref>Increasingly the Nobel Prize Committee has attempted to relate its physics awards to Relativity in some way, including perhaps 20 of the more recent prizes.</ref> Louis Essen, the man credited with determining the speed of light, wrote many fiery papers against it such as ''The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis''.<ref>http://ephysics.fileave.com/physics/Essen/oxford5-essen.pdf</ref> Relativity is in conflict with [[quantum mechanics]],<ref>For example, Relativity claims that space and time are smooth and continuous, while [[quantum mechanics]] suggests otherwise. [http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out.] Relativity also denies [[action-at-a-distance]], while quantum mechanics suggests otherwise. Relativity denies any role for chance, while quantum mechanics is heavily dependent on it.</ref> and although theories like [[string theory]] and [[quantum field theory]] have attempted to unify relativity and quantum mechanics, neither has been entirely successful or proven.

Unlike [[Classical mechanics|Newtonian physics]], in which space and time intervals are each invariant as seen by all observers, in SR the only invariant quantity is a quadratic combination of space and time intervals (x2 - c2 t2). The (assumed) instantaneous transmission of Newtonian gravitational effects also contradicts special relativity.

In quantum mechanics, the [[uncertainty principle]] suggests that virtual particles can sometimes travel faster than the speed of light which would violate causality, but "[t]he only known way to resolve this tension involves introducing the idea of antiparticles."<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2004/wilczek-lecture.pdf (p. 102)</ref> Consequently, in 1928 Paul Dirac derived the Dirac equation, one of the first quantum mechanical equations compatible with special relativity, by which Dirac predicted the existence of antimatter. Four years later, antimatter (the positron) was discovered by Carl Anderson, as successfully predicted by relativistic quantum mechanics. [[Quantum field theory]], a generalization of quantum mechanics, is fully compatible with special relativity but not with general relativity, and still lacks a vital piece: evidence of the [[graviton]].

== Special Relativity ==
Lorentz and Poincare developed Special Relativity as way of understanding how Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism could be valid in different frames of reference. Einstein famously published an explanation of Poincare's theory in terms of two assumptions (postulates):

# ''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all (inertial) observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''
# ''The laws of physics are identical in all inertial reference frames.''

In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:
# It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.<ref>This assumption is commonly restated in this manner. For example, a discussion of hypothetical [[tachyons]] talks "about using tachyons to transmit information faster than the speed of light, '''in violation of Special Relativity'''."[http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html] However, there is some question whether the Theory of Special Relativity really restricts faster-than-light communication of information.</ref>
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).

Or, in more concise, clearer terms, these assumptions are this:

#there is no [[action at a distance]] (because that would make observations dependent on the frame of reference)
#space and time are completely symmetric throughout the universe (because otherwise frames of reference would not be interchangeable)

When the assumptions are stated clearly as above, the weaknesses in the theory are more apparent. There ''is'' action at a distance in [[quantum entanglement]] and apparently also in gravity, as no gravitons can be found. However, no information has yet been transmitted via quantum entanglement, so while non-locality violates the spirit of relativity it is consistent with it if relativity is limited to the transmission of information. [[Quantum field theory]], an attempt to partially reconcile [[quantum mechanics]] with relativity, is incomplete at best. As to the second assumption, it is contrary to the [[arrow of time]], which illustrates the lack of symmetry in time. Logical defects include the incoherence of relativistic mass (see discussion below) and the lack of relativistic constraints near the beginning the universe (see above).

Special Relativity (SR) was initially developed by [[Henri Poincaré]] and [[Hendrik Lorentz]], working on problems in electrodynamics and the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]], which had not found any sign of [[aether (science)|luminiferous aether]], which was believed to be the substance which carried electromagnetic waves. Special relativity alters [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion by assuming that the speed of light will be the same for all observers, despite their relative velocities and the source of the light. (Therefore, if A sends a beam of light to B, and both measure the speed, it will be the same for both, no matter what the relative velocity of A and B. In Newtonian/Galilean mechanics, If A sends a physical object at a particular velocity towards B, and nothing slows it, the velocity of the object relative to B depends on the velocities of the object and of B relative to A.)

At low speeds (relative to light-speed), the Lorentz-Poincare relativity equations are equivalent to Newton's equations. The famous equation ''[[E=mc²]]'', describes the relationship between energy and the rest mass of a body.

Under relativity, particles at low mass and low speed can be accurately approximated by [[classical mechanics]] (such as [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion). At the two extremes, modeling the behavior of electrons requires that relativistic effects be taken into account (the chemically significant phenomenon of electron spin arises from relativity), and the course light passing through a region containing many massive bodies such as galaxies will be distorted ([[classical mechanics]], in which light travels in straight lines, does not predict this). These are both experimentally confirmed (electron spin was known before relativity arose, and telescopic observations confirm that galactic clusters distort the paths of the light passing through them).

Many scientists have indicated problems with the postulates of special relativity. Paul Davies, formerly of Macquarie University and now at the University of Arizona believes that the speed of light has changed over time. Since the speed of light is a constant speed 'c' this indicates problems with the theory [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2181455.stm light speed]. Other engineers and scientist have written about problems in the basic set of special relativity equations. Based on the ideas of not Einstein but of the scientist Fitzgerald as well as others, a length contraction effect was predicted as an explanation of the failure of the Michelson Morley experiment. This idea was taken up by Hendrik Lorentz and shown by others to be a useful mechanism by which theory could be forced into conformance with experimental results. However, in 2005, Michael Strauss a computer engineer invalidated much of Special Relativity theory by showing clear contradictions in the theory. [http://www.relativitycollapse.com relativity]

== General Relativity ==

General Relativity is a theory of gravity that is compatible with Special Relativity. Einstein explains a thought experiment involving two elevators. The first elevator is stationary on the Earth, while the other is being pulled through space at a constant acceleration of g. Einstein realized that any physical experiment carried out in the elevators would give the same result. This realization is known as the equivalence principle and it states that accelerating frames of reference and gravitational fields are indistinguishable. General Relativity is the theory of gravity that incorporates Special Relativity and the equivalence principle.

General Relativity is a mathematical extension of Special Relativity. GR views space-time as a 4-dimensional [[manifold]], which looks locally like [[Minkowski space]], and which acquires [[curvature]] due to the presence of massive bodies. Thus, near massive bodies, the geometry of space-time differs to a large degree from [[Euclidean geometry]]: for example, the sum of the angles in a triangle is not exactly 180 degrees. Just as in classical physics, objects travel along [[geodesic]]s in the absence of external forces. Importantly though, near a massive body, geodesics are no longer straight lines. It is this phenomenon of objects traveling along geodesics in a curved spacetime that accounts for gravity.

At one time the anomalous precession of Mercury's [[perihelion]] seemed to support the Theory of General Relativity, but increasingly accurate measurements show a divergence of the data from the theory.<ref>[[Counterexamples to Relativity]].</ref> There are other explanations based in Newtonian gravity, such as factoring in the pull of the other planets on Mercury's orbit. One Newtonian explanation requires a slight alternation to the precise inverse-square relation of Newtonian gravity to distance, which is disfavored by mathematicians due to its inelegance in integrating.

British Historian Paul Johnson declares the turning point in 20th century to have been when fellow Briton Sir [[Arthur Eddington]], an esteemed English astronomer, ventured out on a boat off Africa in 1919 with a local Army unit to observe the bending of starlight around the sun during a total eclipse. Upon his return to England declared that his observations proven the theory of relativity. In fact recent analysis of Eddington's work revealed that he was biased in selecting his data, and that overall his data were inconclusive about the theory of relativity. The prediction was later confirmed by more rigorous experiments, such as those performed by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] <ref>[http://www.spaceimages.com/gravlen.html Hubble Gravitational Lens Photo]</ref><ref> [http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/galaxies/lensing.html Gravitational Lensing] </ref><ref>[http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html]</ref>. Lorentz has this to say on the discrepancies between the empirical eclipse data and Einstein's predictions.

::''It indeed seems that the discrepancies may be ascribed to faults in observations, which supposition is supported by the fact that the observations at Prince's Island, which, it is true, did not turn out quite as well as those mentioned above, gave the result, of 1.64, somewhat lower than Einstein's figure.''<ref>Lorentz, H.A. [http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity]</ref>

The prediction that light is bent by gravity is predicted both by Newtonian physics and relativity, but relativity predicts a larger deflection.

Special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity where all gravitational fields are weak. Alternatively, special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity when all reference frames are inertial (non-accelerating and without gravity).

==Lack of evidence for Relativity==
The Theory of relativity assumes that time is symmetric just as space is, but the biggest early promoter of relativity, Arthur Eddington, coined the term "[[arrow of time]]" admitting how time is ''not'' symmetric but is directional. The passage of time is tied to an increase in disorder, or [[entropy]]. The Theory of relativity cannot explain this, and implicitly denies it, specifically allowing for theoretical time travel (e.g., [[wormholes]]) and different rates of passage of time based on velocity and acceleration.

Claims that relativity was used to develop the [[Global Positioning System]] ([[GPS]]) are false. A 1996 article explains:

:"The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein's general theory of relativity would seem to require - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter - less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth."<ref>http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf</ref><ref>Some do claim that relativity is "vital" to GPS even though GPS developed independently of theoretical predictions and theoreticians disagree about how the relativistic effects for GPS should be calculated. ''See id. See also'' [http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR614/MR614.appb.pdf]</ref>

This article, which was published in 1996, goes on to propose relativistic corrections that might be used to design more accurate GPS systems. Clocks on board GPS satellites require adjustments to their clock frequencies if they are to be synchronized with those on the surface of the Earth.

Tom Van Flandern, an astronomer hired to work on GPS in the late 1990s, concluded that "[t]he GPS programmers don't need relativity." He was quoted as saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein."<ref>http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html See also [http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP], where Van Flandern discusses how relativistic corrections might improve GPS accuracy.</ref> Asynchronization can be easily addressed through communications between the satellites and ground stations, so it is unclear why any theory would be needed for GPS. But other obscure physicists having no connection with GPS design claim that Van Flandern is wrong about GPS, and insist that relativity provides the best explanation for its timing adjustments.<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>

Some internet articles claim that GPS timing differences ''confirm'' the Theory of Relativity or its Lorentzian counterpart (which uses a preferred frame of reference). GPS clocks run slower in the weaker gravitation field of the satellites than on ground stations on Earth, with the effects predicted by general relativity far outweighing the effects predicted by special relativity. However, the articles claiming that the slower GPS satellite clocks confirm relativity do not address the effect, if any, of the weaker gravitational force under Newton's theory on the GPS satellite clocks, likely because in Newtonian Mechanics every clock in the universe keeps time at the same rate regardless of velocity, acceleration, or the presence or absence of force.

Currently, GPS satellites are synchronized to Coordinated Universal Time by radio signals from the ground; therefore, they cannot currently be used to test general relativity.<ref>[http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html "General Relativity in the Global Positioning System."] Neil Ashby, U. of Colorado</ref>

There are claims that the effects of relativity have been observed with the frequency shift of the signal being sent back to [[Earth]] several times as various spacecraft have dipped into the gravity wells around massive objects such as the [[sun]] (see image at right)<ref>[http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-releases-03/20031002-pr-a.cfm Saturn-Bound Spacecraft Tests Einstein's Theory]</ref> or Saturn<ref>[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517102.600-science-encounter-with-saturn-confirms-relativity-theory.html Encounter with Saturn confirms relativity theory]</ref>. A satellite called [[Gravity Probe B]] was put in orbit about the Earth to examine the effects of frame dragging and geodetic warping of space<ref>[http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/index.html NASA Gravity Probe B mission page]</ref><ref>[http://einstein.stanford.edu/ Gravity Probe B project page]</ref>, but the results were inconclusive. Note, however, that Newtonian mechanics also predicts deflection of light by gravity, and in the initial theory of relativity it predicted the same amount of deflection, but only if we treat light as capable of being accelerated and decelerated like ordinary matter, which is contrary to all measurements and observations to date.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm</ref> Adjustments to the theory of relativity resulted in a prediction of a greater deflection of light than that predicated by Newtonian mechanics, though it is debatable how much deflection Newtonian mechanics should predict.

None of the NASA spacecraft incorporates predictions of relativity into their own timing mechanisms, as Newtonian mechanics is adequate even for probes sent deep into space so long as they do not undergo accelerations near the speed of light or enter any massive gravity wells.<ref>There is no reported reliance on relativity by any space probe.</ref>

A decade of observation of the [[pulsar]] pair [[PSR 1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] detected a decline in its orbital period, which was attributed to a loss in energy by the system. It is impossible to measure the masses of the pulsars, their accelerations relative to the observers, or other fundamental parameters. Professors Joseph Taylor and Russell Hulse, who discovered the binary pulsar, found that physical values could be assigned to the pulsars to make the observed decline in orbital period consistent with the Theory of General Relativity, and for this they were awarded the 1993 [[Nobel Prize]] for Physics, which is the only award ever given by the Nobel committee for the Theory of Relativity.<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1993/press.html</ref> In 2004, Professor Taylor utilized a correction to the derivative of the orbital period to fit subsequent data better to the theory. At most, assumptions can be made and altered to fit the data to the theory, rather than the data confirming the theory. This is the typical scientific method, wherein a hypothesis is created, tested, adjusted, and further tested.

The [[perihelion]] of Mercury's [[orbit]] [[precession|precesses]] at a measurable rate, but even after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets in the [[solar system]], Newton's theory (assuming a precise inverse-square relationship for distance) predicts a rate of precession that differs from the measured rate by approximately 43 [[arcsecond]]s per century. General relativity was developed in part to provide an estimate for this rate of precession that better matches observations.<ref>http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html#SECTION032121000000000000000</ref> <ref> http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/pdf/CP6Doc30_English_pp146-200.pdf</ref> <ref> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/lectures/node117.html</ref> Newton's theory can also explain this perihelion by making tiny adjustments to parameters in the gravitational equation.

General relativity predicts twice as much bending in light as it passes near massive objects than Newton's theory might predict.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm</ref> This phenomenon is known as [[gravitational lens|gravitational lensing]]. A large number of instances of gravitational lensing have been observed, and it is now a standard astronomical tool.<ref> http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/grav_lens.html</ref> <ref> http://astro.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/lens.html</ref> <ref> http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html</ref> Note, however, that the extent of bending of light predicted by Newton's theory is open to debate, and depends on assumptions about the nature of light for gravitational purposes.<ref>http://cosmictimes.gsfc.nasa.gov/1919/guide/gravity_bends_starlight.html</ref>

In 1972, scientists flew extremely accurate clocks ("atomic clocks") around the world in both directions on commercial airlines, and claimed to observe relativistic time dilation; the eastbound clock gained 273 ns and the westbound clock lost 59 ns, matching the predictions of general relativity to within experimental accuracy.<ref>[http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment Hafele-Keating Experiment]</ref> However, the inventor of the atomic clock, Louis Essen, declared that the experiment was inaccurate.<ref>Louis Essen, Electron. Wireless World 94 (1988) 238.</ref> Dr A. G. Kelly examined the raw data from the experiment and declared it inconclusive.<ref>A. G. Kelly,Reliability of Relativistic Effect Tests on Airborne Clocks, Monograph No.3 Feb.1996, The Institution of Engineers of Ireland, ISBN 1-898012-22-9</ref> The Nobel Committee chose not to honor this experiment for the significance that was claimed.

Despite [[censorship]] of dissent about relativity, evidence contrary to the theory is discussed outside of [[liberal]] universities.<ref>http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=8&idContribution=922</ref>

==Experimental Verification of Relativity==

The different effects predicted by special relativity, compared to classical formulations, are extremely tiny. Most relativistic effects are negligible at the speeds of ordinary phenomena observed by humans. The effects only become significant when the speeds involved are a significant fraction of the speed of light, which is <math>3 \times 10^8</math> meters per second—such speeds are called ''relativistic''. (However, it's worth noting that ordinary magnetism can be considered an effect of relativity, dictated by the need for electrostatic theory to be correct under relativity. The speed of light in fact appears in the formulas ([[Maxwell's Equations]]) governing electricity and magnetism, though these equations were developed long before relativity was proposed.)

Because the effects of relativity are so tiny, scientists have been devising sophisticated and sensitive tests ever since the theory was formulated in 1905.

*At the end of Einstein's original 1905 paper [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend its Energy Content?"], he speculates on the possibility that the equation <math>E = m c^2</math>, which would normally be very hard to verify, could be verified with the extremely high energies of the newly-discovered phenomenon of radioactivity.<ref>This equation is not related to [[quantum mechanics]].</ref> In the 1910's, with the invention of the mass spectrometer, it became possible to measure masses of nuclei accurately. This led to the clearing up of the mystery of atomic masses not being exact integers,and strongly suggested the existence of a "mass defect" (or "packing fraction") consistent with the mass-energy equivalence. In the 1930's, experiments with known nuclear reactions showed a very accurate correlation between the masses of the nuclei involved and the energy released.

*Another prediction of special relativity was time dilation in rapidly moving objects. This effect was most famously verified in the anomalously slow decay of relativistic cosmic muons<ref>Some have suggested that other explanations are possible for this effect. We are trying to track this down.</ref>. Time dilation has since been verified many times, and is routinely taken into account in all high-energy nuclear physics experiments, as in Hadron collision experiments<ref>Experiments specifically designed to check dilation are rarely conducted any more.</ref>.

Predictions of general relativity turned out to be more obscure and difficult to test. The two most famous predictions were the bending of light in a gravitational field and the precession of the perihelia of orbiting planets.

*The first of these was famously tested during a total eclipse in 1919. That test was somewhat muddled by an incorrect initial calculation, by several people including Einstein himself, of what the effect would be, and some "cherry picking" of the data to be used <ref>''Einstein's Luck'', John Waller, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-860719-9</ref>. The data selection could be considered "manipulation" or "fudging", by a person (Arthur Eddington) who had a personal stake in the outcome. His analysis techniques would not pass muster today.

:It should be noted that pre-relativistic (Newtonian) physics may also predict a bending, of half the observed value, depending on whether one uses the 17th century "corpuscular" formulation or the 19th century "wave" formulation.

:Nevertheless, it has been verified with ever-increasing precision in subsequent eclipses, and in the observations of quasar 3C273.

*The second "classical" test of general relativity was the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. There are many complex effects contributing to this, including gravitational perturbations from other planets and the effect of the oblateness of the Sun. These are hard to calculate accurately, but, by 1900 it was known quite accurately that there was an "anomalous" precession, that is, a precession beyond all other known effects, of 43 arc seconds per century. This is a very tiny effect, but astronomical measurements were sufficiently accurate by that time to show it clearly.

:This created quite a problem—physicists by then were accustomed to having their theories check out very accurately. One proposal that was made, by Simon Newcomb and Asaph Hall, was that the exponent of the radius in the gravitational formula wasn't exactly 2. He showed that, by choosing an exponent of <math>2+\delta</math>, the precession, as a fraction of a full orbit per planet's year, is <math>\delta/2</math>. By setting <math>\delta</math> to .000000157, that is, an exponent of 2.000000157, Newcomb was able to get a precession of .000000078 revolutions per Mercury year, or 43 arcseconds per Earth year. The primary resistance to this approach came from mathematicians unable to do the integration without an exponent of precisely 2, and they insisted, incorrectly, that was impossible for the exponent to be slightly different from 2. Due to this desire for mathematical elegance rather than objective observation-based science, Newcomb's approach was not pursued. Furthermore as can be seen from the table below the measured values of the anomalous precessions of other planets agree well with the predictions of general relativity but poorly with those predicted by Newcomb and Hall.

:While Newcomb's theory, and general relativity, don't lead to closed-form solutions, both theories can be solved numerically to as much precision as one desires.

:Increasingly precise measurements of the precession demonstrate that it conflicts with General Relativity, despite claims of relativists for decades that it predicted the precession accurately in the amount of <math>3{}v^2/c^2</math> revolutions per planet's "year", where <math>v</math> is the planet's average orbital speed.<ref>That is a simple approximation, designed to relate the precession to the planet's speed relative to the speed of light. A more accurate approximation is <math>\frac{3GM}{c^2 a(1-e^2)}</math>, where a is the semi-major axis and e is the eccentricity.</ref> The conflict is greater than the margin of error, and many relativists avoid the discrepancy rather than address it.

:The following table show some approximate parameters for the planets. Note that Mercury has the smallest orbit, the fastest speed, and the highest gravitational pull. Precession of planets other than Mercury is extremely hard to measure, but measurements of the actual anomalous precessions are in good agreement with the last column of the table.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Planet
!Period, seconds x 106
!Semimajor axis, meters x 109
!Speed, meters/second x 103
!Gravitational force, Newtons per kilogram
!Anomalous precession, arcseconds per (Earth) century, pure Newtonian mechanics
!Anomalous precession, Newtonian with exponent of 2.000000157
!Anomalous precession, general relativity
!Measured anomalous precession (estimated uncertainty)
|-
|Mercury
|7.57
|58.9
|48
|.039
|0
|43
|43
|43.5(5)
|-
|Venus
|19.6
|108
|35
|.011
|0
|16.6
|9
|8(5)
|-
|Earth
|31.6
|150
|30
|.006
|0
|10.3
|4
|5(1)
|-
|Mars
|59.3
|227.9
|24
|.0025
|0
|5.5
|1.4
|
|-
|Jupiter
|374
|778.4
|13
|.0002
|0
|0.87
|0.07
|
|-
|Saturn
|929
|1426
|9.7
|.00006
|0
|0.35
|0.014
|
|-
|Uranus
|2651
|2870
|6.8
|.000016
|0
|0.12
|0.002
|
|-
|Neptune
|5200
|4498
|5.5
|.000007
|0
|0.063
|0.0008
|
|}

[[Image:Cassini-science-289.jpg|right|thumb|The Shapiro effect: A spacecraft signal dipping into a gravity well around the [[Sun]] is delayed slightly.]]
As the 20th century progressed, more tests of general relativity were proposed.

*One was the ''Shapiro effect'', involving time delay in radio signals passing through the gravity well of the Sun or a planet. Various spacecraft have confirmed this.

*Another is ''gravitational time dilation''. This is an effect separate from the time dilation of special relativity. It was tested by the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959.

*Later in the 20th century, even more subtle phenomena were tested. One was the phenomenon of ''gravitational radiation'', or "gravity waves". These waves are incredibly difficult to observe, and have never been observed. But extremely dense binary pulsars radiate gravitational waves with sufficient energy loss that, even though we can't detect the waves from Earth, we can see the effect of the energy loss from the radiation. The extreme precision of the timing of pulses from pulsars makes it possible to observe their energy loss with great accuracy. Observations by Hulse and Taylor of the pulsar pair known as B1913+16 confirmed the energy loss consistent with the predicted radiation.

*Two other effects, ''geodetic precession'' (also known as "de Sitter precession"), and ''frame dragging'' (also known as the "Lense-Thirring effect") were tested by the "Gravity Probe B" satellite early in the 21st century<ref>http://prl.aps.org/accepted/L/ea070Y8dQ491d22a28828c95f660a57ac82e7d8c0</ref><ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/306430</ref><ref>http://www.nap.edu/html/gpb/summary.html</ref><ref>http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/73870/title/Gravity_Probe_B_finally_pays_off_</ref><ref>http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/</ref><ref>http://einstein.stanford.edu/</ref><ref>http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/the-gravity-probe-b-bailout</ref><ref>http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/06/nasa-concludes-gravity-probe-b-space-time-experiment-proves-e/</ref>. The precision required to observe this was phenomenal. The results were announced on May 4, 2011.

{{clear}}

==Predicted consequences of the Theories==
===Time dilation===

[[Image:Light cone.png|right|thumb|Light-cone diagram]]
One important consequence of SR's postulates is that an observer in one reference frame will observe a clock in another frame to be "ticking" more slowly than in the observer's own frame. This can be proven mathematically using basic geometry, if the postulates are physically true without exception.

The length of an event <math>t</math>, as seen by a (relative) stationary observer observing an event is given by:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>t_0</math> is the "proper time" or the length of the event in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Evidence for time dilation was discovered by studying [[muon decay]]. [[Muons]] are [[subatomic]] [[particles]] with a very short [[halflife]] (1.53 microseconds at rest) and a very fast speed (0.994c). By putting muon detectors at the top (D1) and bottom (D2) of a mountain with a separation of 1900m, scientists could measure accurately the proportion of muons reaching the second detector in comparison to the first. The proportion found was different to the proportion that was calculated without taking into account relativistic effects.

Using the equation for [[exponential decay]], they could use this proportion to calculate the time taken for the muons to decay, relative to the muon. Then, using the time dilation equation they could then work out the dilated time. The dilated time showed a good correlation with the time it took the muons to reach the second sensor, thereby supporting the existence of time dilation.

The time taken for a muon to travel from D1 to D2 as measured by a stationary observer is:

<math> t = \frac{s}{v} = \frac{1900}{0.994\times(3\times10^{8})} = 6.37\mu\textrm{s} </math>

The fraction of muons arriving at D2 in comparison to D1 was 0.732. (Given by <math> \frac{N}{N_0} = 0.732 </math>)

Since (from the equation for exponential decay) <math> \frac{N}{N_{0}} = e^{-\lambda t_{0}} </math> then

<math> t_{0} = \frac {ln(0.732)}{ln (0.2)} \times 1.53\times 10^{-6} = 0.689\mu\textrm{s}</math>

This gives the time for the proportion of decay to occur for an observer who is stationary, relative to the muon.

Putting this into the time dilation equation gives:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}} = \frac{0.689 \times{10^{-6}}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{0.994^{2}}{1^{2}}}} = 6.3\times 10^{-6}\textrm{s}</math>

This is in good agreement with the value calculated above, thereby providing evidence to support time dilation.

====Time Dilation and Creation Science====

{{main|Starlight problem#Humphreys.27_model}}

Creation scientists such as physicists Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] and Dr. [[John Hartnett]] have used relativistic time dilation to explain how the earth can be only 6,000 years old even though cosmological data (background radiation, supernovae, etc.) set a much older age for the universe.

===Length contraction===
When two inertial reference frames move past each other in a straight line with constant relative velocity, an observer in one reference frame would observe a metre rule in the other frame to be shorter.

The length, <math>l</math>, of an object as seen by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

<math> l = l_{0} \sqrt{1- \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}</math>

Where
:<math>l_0</math> is the "proper length" or the length of the object in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

===Mass increase===

For decades the theory of relativity taught that as a body moves with increasing velocity its [[mass]] also increases.<ref>For example, this was taught as recently as in the 1991 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica.</ref>

Under this view, the mass, <math>m</math>, of an object as detected by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

:<math> m = \frac{m_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>m_0</math> is the "rest mass" or the mass of the object when it is at rest.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity of the object.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Since speed is relative, it follows that two observers in different inertial reference frames may disagree on the mass and kinetic energy of a body. Since all inertial reference frames are treated on an equal footing, it follows that mass and energy are interchangeable.

In recent years most physicists have shifted away from Einstein's original reliance on relativistic mass and his suggestion that mass increases{{Citation needed|date=January 2012}}. Instead, most physicists today teach that

:<math>F=\frac{d}{d\tau} p</math>

where <math>p</math> is the momentum defined by <math>\gamma m v</math>, <math>\gamma</math> is the standard Lorentz factor, and <math>\tau</math> is the proper time. Force F defined this way is a vector and thus can handle the directional aspect of the relativistic effects better than the concept of relativistic mass can.

The abandonment by physicists of the concept of relativistic mass, however, has the consequence of undermining the traditional claim under relativity that

:<math>m - m_0 = \frac{E}{c^2}</math>

also popularly known as

:<math>E = m c^2</math>

Now a concept of the 4-momentum <math>p</math> of a particle is taught, such that the square of the magnitude of <math>p</math> satisfies:

<math>||p||^2 = -p_x^2-p_y^2-p_z^2+E^2 = m_0^2c^4</math>

in any inertial reference frame. The magnitude of the 4-momentum, in any inertial frame, equals the rest mass <math>m_0</math> of the particle (in units where <math>c=1</math>).

== Paradoxes ==

The predictions of the theory of relativity throw up a number of apparent paradoxes and anomalies relating to the effects of time dilatation and length contraction. Whilst these paradoxes are consistent with the theory, they are contrary to everyday human experience and therefore can seem like impossibilities.

=== The Twin Paradox ===

The twin paradox is usually stated as a thought experiment involving two twins, one of whom is sent on a long journey in a spacecraft travelling at close to the speed of light, whilst the other remains on Earth. Time dilatation means that the travelling twin, on his return to Earth, is younger that the twin who has remained at home. However because neither twin is in a special position - each being in an inertial frame of reference - the reverse must also be true, and so the twin remaining on Earth must be younger. Hence each twin is younger than the other - a paradox.

The problem can be resolved in two ways. One is to examine the effects of General Relativity: to come back to Earth, the travelling twin must undergo acceleration in order to reverse his course, causing temporal effects which make him permanently the younger. Alternatively, it can be explained entirely using Special Relativity and noting that the twins are not in symmetrical situations: the one on earth has remained in a single inertial frame of reference, whilst the travelling twin has travelled in two<ref>http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm</ref>.

=== The Ehrenfest Paradox ===

The Ehrenfest Paradox considers a rigid wheel or disc rotating a bout its axis at high speed (somewhat like a bicycle wheel spinning freely on its axle). The rim of the wheel travels at close to the speed of light and therefore undergoes length contraction, whereas the radius (the spokes, for the bicycle wheel) does not. Hence the circumference is no longer equal to 2<big><math>\pi</math></big>r, which is paradoxical.

The apparent paradox was finally resolved in 1975 by the Norwegian scientist [[Øyvind Grøn]]<ref>http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=224955</ref>.

== Variable Speed of Light ==

The Theory of Relativity implies that physical constants like c, the speed of light in a vacuum, have remained constant. But at least one study suggests that physical constants, and possibly even the speed of light, have changed as the universe has aged.<ref>James Glanz and Dennis Overbye, "Cosmic Laws Like Speed of Light Might Be Changing, a Study Finds," August 15, 2001.[http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/15/science/15PHYS.html?ex=1185076800&en=d6467b6e3e346796&ei=5070]</ref>

"For the first time, scientists have experimentally demonstrated that sound pulses can travel at velocities faster than the speed of light, c. William Robertson's team from Middle Tennessee State University also showed that the group velocity of sound waves can become infinite, and even negative. ... Although such results may at first appear to violate special relativity (Einstein's law that no material object can exceed the speed of light), the actual significance of these experiments is a little different. These types of superluminal phenomena, Robertson et al. explain, violate neither causality nor special relativity, nor do they enable information to travel faster than c. In fact, theoretical work had predicted that the superluminal speed of the group velocity of sound waves should exist. 'The key to understanding this seeming paradox is that no wave energy exceeded the speed of light,' said Robertson."<ref>http://www.physorg.com/news88249076.html</ref>

"A team of researchers from the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) has successfully demonstrated, for the first time, that it is possible to control the speed of light – both slowing it down and speeding it up – in an optical fiber, using off-the-shelf instrumentation in normal environmental conditions. Their results, to be published in the August 22 issue of Applied Physics Letters, could have implications that range from optical [[computing]] to the fiber-optic telecommunications industry."<ref>http://www.scienceblog.com/light.html</ref> Both slowing down and speeding up of light within a substance other than a vacuum is made possible, because the light travels through the material, and that material affects the speed of light, i.e. a photon hits an electron, which then exits and emits a slightly lower energy photon out in the direction that the original photon was traveling, thus maintaining conservation of momentum. No matter how transparent an object may appear, it radically impacts the speed of the light traveling through it, as demonstrated by the refractive production of a rainbow by a crystal, which Newton himself discovered.

This apparent change in speed can be explained, however, by noting that the constant c refers to the speed of light in a vacuum, ie, when it is unimpeded. The speed of light when traveling through physical media is, in fact, variable.

"A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light - an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space and time. ... Dr Nimtz told New Scientist magazine: 'For the time being, this is the only violation of special relativity that I know of.'"<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/scispeed116.xml</ref>

==Pending research==

Today some physicists are working on hypothesizing how general relativity might have related to the other three forces of nature during the first fraction of a second of the [[Big Bang]]. Two of the more commonly studied attempts are [[string theory]] and [[loop quantum gravity]], but they have failed to produce any evidence that science mandates a science must have, and both typically take large amounts of work to even conform to what scientists believe. Critics increasingly point out that string theory and loop quantum gravity are largely untestable and unfalsifiable, and thus potentially unscientific under the principles of science advanced by [[Karl Popper]].<ref>See, for example, ''Not Even Wrong'', by Peter Woit</ref>

Relativity continues to be tested and some physics professors remain skeptical of the theory, such as University of Maryland physics professor Carroll Alley, who served as the principle physicist on the Apollo lunar project.<ref>http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm</ref>

== Political aspects of relativity ==

Some [[liberal]] politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, [[Democratic]] [[President of the United States of America|President]] [[Barack Obama]] helped publish an article by liberal law professor [[Laurence Tribe]] to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to [[abortion]].<ref>Tribe, acknowledging help by Obama, argued that the [[Constitution]] should be interpreted to establish a right to federally funded [[abortion]] and that, more generally, ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' does not go far enough. They insisted that a relativistic "curvature of space" could achieve this result by expanding application of the [[Constitution]] based on its impact on personal choice. "The ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' opinion ignored the way in which laws regulating pregnant women may shape the entire pattern of relationships among men, women, and children. It conceptualized abortion not in terms of the intensely public question of the subordination of women to men through the exploitation of pregnancy, but in terms of the purportedly private question of how women might make intimately personal decisions about their bodies and their lives. That vision described a part of the truth, but only what might be called the Newtonian part. ... [A] change in the surrounding legal setting can constitute state action that most threatens the sphere of personal choice. And it is a 'curved space' perspective on how law operates that leads one to focus less on the visible lines of legal force and more on how those lines are bent and directed by the law's geometry." Laurence H. Tribe, The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 16-17 (1989).</ref> As of June 2008, over 170 law review articles have cited this [[liberal]] application of the theory of relativity to legal arguments.<ref>Search conducted by [[User:Aschlafly]] in the LEXIS database "US Law Reviews and Journals, Combined," conducted June 1, 2008.</ref> Applications of the theory of relativity to change morality have also been common.<ref>"Mistakenly, in the minds of many, the theory of relativity became relativism."[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38081]</ref> Moreover, there is an unmistakable effort to censor or ostracize criticism of relativity.<ref>Although the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|liberally biased Wikipedia]] contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries, and even though publications like ''The Economist'' recognize the lack of scientific satisfaction in the theory (see, e.g., "Weighing the Universe," The Economist (Jan. 25, 2007)), Wikipedia's entry on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Relativity Theory of Relativity] omits one word of criticism.</ref>

Physicist [[Robert Dicke]] of Princeton University was a prominent critic<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html</ref> of general relativity, and Dicke's alternative "has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."<ref>"Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."[http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Essay_bekenstein.html] </ref> Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was repeatedly passed over for a [[Nobel Prize]], and in at least one case Dicke was insulted by the award being granted to others for contributions more properly credited to Dicke.

There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity.

===Government Support for Relativistic research===
The Theory of Relativity enjoys a disproportionate share of [[federal funding]] of physics research today.<ref>The Democratic Congress insisted on the $250 million LIGO project despite substantial criticism by scientists that it was wasting scarce research dollars. John Travis, "LIGO: a $ 250 million gamble; Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory; includes related article," ''Science'' p. 612 (Apr. 30, 1993). "Adding to the acrimony is LIGO's $ 250 million price tag, which some hold responsible for NSF's recent funding woes." ''Id.''</ref> In at least one case that research has been unsuccessful. The $365 million dollar [[LIGO]] project has failed to detect the gravity waves predicted by relativity.<ref>http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/sept/gravitywaves/index.html</ref>

{{Relativity}}

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

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]

==External Links ==
*[http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity, by H.A. Lorentz.]
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com Relativity Calculator - Learn Special Relativity Mathematics ] The mathematics of special relativity presented in as simple and comprehensive manner possible within philosophical and historical contexts.

Theory of relativity

2012-04-14T17:29:21Z

Jloveday: Removed 'fallacious claims' the section is about experimental verifications of the theory rather than criticisms of these verifications ~~~~

''See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].''

The '''theory of relativity''' has been repeatedly contradicted by experiments, such as precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury that show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error. Criticism of the theory, however, caused physicist [[Robert Dicke]] to be denied the [[Nobel Prize]], and it is unlikely tenure or a Ph.D would be awarded to any critic of the theory.

'''Relativity''' refers to two closely-related mathematical theories in [[physics]]:

*'''[[Special theory of relativity|Special relativity]]''' (SR) is a theory which describes the laws of motion for non-accelerating bodies traveling at a significant fraction of the [[speed of light]]. As speeds approach zero, Special Relativity tends towards equivalence with [[Newton's Laws of Motion]]. Special Relativity was developed by [[Hendrik Lorentz]], [[Henri Poincaré]], and Hermann Minkowski,<ref>"German mathematician who developed the geometrical theory of numbers and who made numerous contributions to number theory, mathematical physics, and the theory of relativity." [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9052860/Hermann-Minkowski Hermann Minkowski -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia]</ref><ref>[http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Minkowski.html Hermann Minkowski, Biography]</ref> and [[Albert Einstein]].

*'''[[General theory of relativity|General Relativity]]''' (GR) is a theory which explains the laws of motion as viewed from accelerating reference frames and includes a geometric explanation for gravity. This theory was developed by [[David Hilbert]] and [[Albert Einstein]] as an extension of the postulates of Special Relativity.<ref>"[T]he German mathematician David Hilbert submitted an article containing the correct field equations for general relativity five days before Einstein."[http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/physics/relativity/history-1.html Nobel Prize historical account]</ref> A dramatic but later discredited claim by Sir [[Arthur Eddington]] of experimental proof of General Relativity in 1919 made Einstein a household name.

These theories have augmented earlier approaches, such as [[Galilean Relativity]].

Unlike most of physics, the theories of relativity have discontinuities whereby the limit of a physical quantity as a variable (such as mass or velocity) approaches a fixed value is not the same as the physical quantity at the fixed value. For example, the limit of momentum as mass approaches 0 and velocity approaches the speed of light is not equal to the momentum of (massless) light.<ref>Discontinuities in General Relativity are also well-recognized. See, e.g., [http://www.springerlink.com/content/u47l341u2q555455/]</ref>

More generally, and also unlike most of physics, the theories of relativity consist of complex mathematical equations relying on several hypotheses. For example, at Hofstra University general relativity is taught as part of an upperclass math course on differential geometry, based on three stated assumptions.<ref>http://people.hofstra.edu/Stefan_Waner/diff_geom/tc.html</ref> The equations for special relativity assume that it is forever impossible to attain a velocity faster than the speed of light and that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent, hypotheses that can never be fully tested. Relativity rejects Newton's [[action at a distance]], which is basic to Newtonian gravity and [[quantum mechanics]]. The mathematics of relativity assume no exceptions, yet in the time period immediately following the origin of the universe the relativity equations could not possibly have been valid.

Relativity has been met with much resistance in the scientific world. To date, a Nobel Prize has never been awarded for Relativity.<ref>Increasingly the Nobel Prize Committee has attempted to relate its physics awards to Relativity in some way, including perhaps 20 of the more recent prizes.</ref> Louis Essen, the man credited with determining the speed of light, wrote many fiery papers against it such as ''The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis''.<ref>http://ephysics.fileave.com/physics/Essen/oxford5-essen.pdf</ref> Relativity is in conflict with [[quantum mechanics]],<ref>For example, Relativity claims that space and time are smooth and continuous, while [[quantum mechanics]] suggests otherwise. [http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out.] Relativity also denies [[action-at-a-distance]], while quantum mechanics suggests otherwise. Relativity denies any role for chance, while quantum mechanics is heavily dependent on it.</ref> and although theories like [[string theory]] and [[quantum field theory]] have attempted to unify relativity and quantum mechanics, neither has been entirely successful or proven.

Unlike [[Classical mechanics|Newtonian physics]], in which space and time intervals are each invariant as seen by all observers, in SR the only invariant quantity is a quadratic combination of space and time intervals (x2 - c2 t2). The (assumed) instantaneous transmission of Newtonian gravitational effects also contradicts special relativity.

In quantum mechanics, the [[uncertainty principle]] suggests that virtual particles can sometimes travel faster than the speed of light which would violate causality, but "[t]he only known way to resolve this tension involves introducing the idea of antiparticles."<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2004/wilczek-lecture.pdf (p. 102)</ref> Consequently, in 1928 Paul Dirac derived the Dirac equation, one of the first quantum mechanical equations compatible with special relativity, by which Dirac predicted the existence of antimatter. Four years later, antimatter (the positron) was discovered by Carl Anderson, as successfully predicted by relativistic quantum mechanics. [[Quantum field theory]], a generalization of quantum mechanics, is fully compatible with special relativity but not with general relativity, and still lacks a vital piece: evidence of the [[graviton]].

== Special Relativity ==
Lorentz and Poincare developed Special Relativity as way of understanding how Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism could be valid in different frames of reference. Einstein famously published an explanation of Poincare's theory in terms of two assumptions (postulates):

# ''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all (inertial) observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''
# ''The laws of physics are identical in all inertial reference frames.''

In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:
# It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.<ref>This assumption is commonly restated in this manner. For example, a discussion of hypothetical [[tachyons]] talks "about using tachyons to transmit information faster than the speed of light, '''in violation of Special Relativity'''."[http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html] However, there is some question whether the Theory of Special Relativity really restricts faster-than-light communication of information.</ref>
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).

Or, in more concise, clearer terms, these assumptions are this:

#there is no [[action at a distance]] (because that would make observations dependent on the frame of reference)
#space and time are completely symmetric throughout the universe (because otherwise frames of reference would not be interchangeable)

When the assumptions are stated clearly as above, the weaknesses in the theory are more apparent. There ''is'' action at a distance in [[quantum entanglement]] and apparently also in gravity, as no gravitons can be found. However, no information has yet been transmitted via quantum entanglement, so while non-locality violates the spirit of relativity it is consistent with it if relativity is limited to the transmission of information. [[Quantum field theory]], an attempt to partially reconcile [[quantum mechanics]] with relativity, is incomplete at best. As to the second assumption, it is contrary to the [[arrow of time]], which illustrates the lack of symmetry in time. Logical defects include the incoherence of relativistic mass (see discussion below) and the lack of relativistic constraints near the beginning the universe (see above).

Special Relativity (SR) was initially developed by [[Henri Poincaré]] and [[Hendrik Lorentz]], working on problems in electrodynamics and the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]], which had not found any sign of [[aether (science)|luminiferous aether]], which was believed to be the substance which carried electromagnetic waves. Special relativity alters [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion by assuming that the speed of light will be the same for all observers, despite their relative velocities and the source of the light. (Therefore, if A sends a beam of light to B, and both measure the speed, it will be the same for both, no matter what the relative velocity of A and B. In Newtonian/Galilean mechanics, If A sends a physical object at a particular velocity towards B, and nothing slows it, the velocity of the object relative to B depends on the velocities of the object and of B relative to A.)

At low speeds (relative to light-speed), the Lorentz-Poincare relativity equations are equivalent to Newton's equations. The famous equation ''[[E=mc²]]'', describes the relationship between energy and the rest mass of a body.

Under relativity, particles at low mass and low speed can be accurately approximated by [[classical mechanics]] (such as [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion). At the two extremes, modeling the behavior of electrons requires that relativistic effects be taken into account (the chemically significant phenomenon of electron spin arises from relativity), and the course light passing through a region containing many massive bodies such as galaxies will be distorted ([[classical mechanics]], in which light travels in straight lines, does not predict this). These are both experimentally confirmed (electron spin was known before relativity arose, and telescopic observations confirm that galactic clusters distort the paths of the light passing through them).

Many scientists have indicated problems with the postulates of special relativity. Paul Davies, formerly of Macquarie University and now at the University of Arizona believes that the speed of light has changed over time. Since the speed of light is a constant speed 'c' this indicates problems with the theory [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2181455.stm light speed]. Other engineers and scientist have written about problems in the basic set of special relativity equations. Based on the ideas of not Einstein but of the scientist Fitzgerald as well as others, a length contraction effect was predicted as an explanation of the failure of the Michelson Morley experiment. This idea was taken up by Hendrik Lorentz and shown by others to be a useful mechanism by which theory could be forced into conformance with experimental results. However, in 2005, Michael Strauss a computer engineer invalidated much of Special Relativity theory by showing clear contradictions in the theory. [http://www.relativitycollapse.com relativity]

== General Relativity ==

General Relativity is a theory of gravity that is compatible with Special Relativity. Einstein explains a thought experiment involving two elevators. The first elevator is stationary on the Earth, while the other is being pulled through space at a constant acceleration of g. Einstein realized that any physical experiment carried out in the elevators would give the same result. This realization is known as the equivalence principle and it states that accelerating frames of reference and gravitational fields are indistinguishable. General Relativity is the theory of gravity that incorporates Special Relativity and the equivalence principle.

General Relativity is a mathematical extension of Special Relativity. GR views space-time as a 4-dimensional [[manifold]], which looks locally like [[Minkowski space]], and which acquires [[curvature]] due to the presence of massive bodies. Thus, near massive bodies, the geometry of space-time differs to a large degree from [[Euclidean geometry]]: for example, the sum of the angles in a triangle is not exactly 180 degrees. Just as in classical physics, objects travel along [[geodesic]]s in the absence of external forces. Importantly though, near a massive body, geodesics are no longer straight lines. It is this phenomenon of objects traveling along geodesics in a curved spacetime that accounts for gravity.

At one time the anomalous precession of Mercury's [[perihelion]] seemed to support the Theory of General Relativity, but increasingly accurate measurements show a divergence of the data from the theory.<ref>[[Counterexamples to Relativity]].</ref> There are other explanations based in Newtonian gravity, such as factoring in the pull of the other planets on Mercury's orbit. One Newtonian explanation requires a slight alternation to the precise inverse-square relation of Newtonian gravity to distance, which is disfavored by mathematicians due to its inelegance in integrating.

British Historian Paul Johnson declares the turning point in 20th century to have been when fellow Briton Sir [[Arthur Eddington]], an esteemed English astronomer, ventured out on a boat off Africa in 1919 with a local Army unit to observe the bending of starlight around the sun during a total eclipse. Upon his return to England declared that his observations proven the theory of relativity. In fact recent analysis of Eddington's work revealed that he was biased in selecting his data, and that overall his data were inconclusive about the theory of relativity. The prediction was later confirmed by more rigorous experiments, such as those performed by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] <ref>[http://www.spaceimages.com/gravlen.html Hubble Gravitational Lens Photo]</ref><ref> [http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/galaxies/lensing.html Gravitational Lensing] </ref><ref>[http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html]</ref>. Lorentz has this to say on the discrepancies between the empirical eclipse data and Einstein's predictions.

::''It indeed seems that the discrepancies may be ascribed to faults in observations, which supposition is supported by the fact that the observations at Prince's Island, which, it is true, did not turn out quite as well as those mentioned above, gave the result, of 1.64, somewhat lower than Einstein's figure.''<ref>Lorentz, H.A. [http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity]</ref>

The prediction that light is bent by gravity is predicted both by Newtonian physics and relativity, but relativity predicts a larger deflection.

Special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity where all gravitational fields are weak. Alternatively, special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity when all reference frames are inertial (non-accelerating and without gravity).

==Lack of evidence for Relativity==
The Theory of relativity assumes that time is symmetric just as space is, but the biggest early promoter of relativity, Arthur Eddington, coined the term "[[arrow of time]]" admitting how time is ''not'' symmetric but is directional. The passage of time is tied to an increase in disorder, or [[entropy]]. The Theory of relativity cannot explain this, and implicitly denies it, specifically allowing for theoretical time travel (e.g., [[wormholes]]) and different rates of passage of time based on velocity and acceleration.

Claims that relativity was used to develop the [[Global Positioning System]] ([[GPS]]) are false. A 1996 article explains:

:"The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein's general theory of relativity would seem to require - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter - less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth."<ref>http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf</ref><ref>Some do claim that relativity is "vital" to GPS even though GPS developed independently of theoretical predictions and theoreticians disagree about how the relativistic effects for GPS should be calculated. ''See id. See also'' [http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR614/MR614.appb.pdf]</ref>

This article, which was published in 1996, goes on to propose relativistic corrections that might be used to design more accurate GPS systems. Clocks on board GPS satellites require adjustments to their clock frequencies if they are to be synchronized with those on the surface of the Earth.

Tom Van Flandern, an astronomer hired to work on GPS in the late 1990s, concluded that "[t]he GPS programmers don't need relativity." He was quoted as saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein."<ref>http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html See also [http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP], where Van Flandern discusses how relativistic corrections might improve GPS accuracy.</ref> Asynchronization can be easily addressed through communications between the satellites and ground stations, so it is unclear why any theory would be needed for GPS. But other obscure physicists having no connection with GPS design claim that Van Flandern is wrong about GPS, and insist that relativity provides the best explanation for its timing adjustments.<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>

Some internet articles claim that GPS timing differences ''confirm'' the Theory of Relativity or its Lorentzian counterpart (which uses a preferred frame of reference). GPS clocks run slower in the weaker gravitation field of the satellites than on ground stations on Earth, with the effects predicted by general relativity far outweighing the effects predicted by special relativity. However, the articles claiming that the slower GPS satellite clocks confirm relativity do not address the effect, if any, of the weaker gravitational force under Newton's theory on the GPS satellite clocks, likely because in Newtonian Mechanics every clock in the universe keeps time at the same rate regardless of velocity, acceleration, or the presence or absence of force.

Currently, GPS satellites are synchronized to Coordinated Universal Time by radio signals from the ground; therefore, they cannot currently be used to test general relativity.<ref>[http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html "General Relativity in the Global Positioning System."] Neil Ashby, U. of Colorado</ref>

There are claims that the effects of relativity have been observed with the frequency shift of the signal being sent back to [[Earth]] several times as various spacecraft have dipped into the gravity wells around massive objects such as the [[sun]] (see image at right)<ref>[http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-releases-03/20031002-pr-a.cfm Saturn-Bound Spacecraft Tests Einstein's Theory]</ref> or Saturn<ref>[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517102.600-science-encounter-with-saturn-confirms-relativity-theory.html Encounter with Saturn confirms relativity theory]</ref>. A satellite called [[Gravity Probe B]] was put in orbit about the Earth to examine the effects of frame dragging and geodetic warping of space<ref>[http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/index.html NASA Gravity Probe B mission page]</ref><ref>[http://einstein.stanford.edu/ Gravity Probe B project page]</ref>, but the results were inconclusive. Note, however, that Newtonian mechanics also predicts deflection of light by gravity, and in the initial theory of relativity it predicted the same amount of deflection, but only if we treat light as capable of being accelerated and decelerated like ordinary matter, which is contrary to all measurements and observations to date.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm</ref> Adjustments to the theory of relativity resulted in a prediction of a greater deflection of light than that predicated by Newtonian mechanics, though it is debatable how much deflection Newtonian mechanics should predict.

None of the NASA spacecraft incorporates predictions of relativity into their own timing mechanisms, as Newtonian mechanics is adequate even for probes sent deep into space so long as they do not undergo accelerations near the speed of light or enter any massive gravity wells.<ref>There is no reported reliance on relativity by any space probe.</ref>

A decade of observation of the [[pulsar]] pair [[PSR 1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] detected a decline in its orbital period, which was attributed to a loss in energy by the system. It is impossible to measure the masses of the pulsars, their accelerations relative to the observers, or other fundamental parameters. Professors Joseph Taylor and Russell Hulse, who discovered the binary pulsar, found that physical values could be assigned to the pulsars to make the observed decline in orbital period consistent with the Theory of General Relativity, and for this they were awarded the 1993 [[Nobel Prize]] for Physics, which is the only award ever given by the Nobel committee for the Theory of Relativity.<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1993/press.html</ref> In 2004, Professor Taylor utilized a correction to the derivative of the orbital period to fit subsequent data better to the theory. At most, assumptions can be made and altered to fit the data to the theory, rather than the data confirming the theory. This is the typical scientific method, wherein a hypothesis is created, tested, adjusted, and further tested.

The [[perihelion]] of Mercury's [[orbit]] [[precession|precesses]] at a measurable rate, but even after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets in the [[solar system]], Newton's theory (assuming a precise inverse-square relationship for distance) predicts a rate of precession that differs from the measured rate by approximately 43 [[arcsecond]]s per century. General relativity was developed in part to provide an estimate for this rate of precession that better matches observations.<ref>http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html#SECTION032121000000000000000</ref> <ref> http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/pdf/CP6Doc30_English_pp146-200.pdf</ref> <ref> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/lectures/node117.html</ref> Newton's theory can also explain this perihelion by making tiny adjustments to parameters in the gravitational equation.

General relativity predicts twice as much bending in light as it passes near massive objects than Newton's theory might predict.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm</ref> This phenomenon is known as [[gravitational lens|gravitational lensing]]. A large number of instances of gravitational lensing have been observed, and it is now a standard astronomical tool.<ref> http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/grav_lens.html</ref> <ref> http://astro.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/lens.html</ref> <ref> http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html</ref> Note, however, that the extent of bending of light predicted by Newton's theory is open to debate, and depends on assumptions about the nature of light for gravitational purposes.<ref>http://cosmictimes.gsfc.nasa.gov/1919/guide/gravity_bends_starlight.html</ref>

In 1972, scientists flew extremely accurate clocks ("atomic clocks") around the world in both directions on commercial airlines, and claimed to observe relativistic time dilation; the eastbound clock gained 273 ns and the westbound clock lost 59 ns, matching the predictions of general relativity to within experimental accuracy.<ref>[http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment Hafele-Keating Experiment]</ref> However, the inventor of the atomic clock, Louis Essen, declared that the experiment was inaccurate.<ref>Louis Essen, Electron. Wireless World 94 (1988) 238.</ref> Dr A. G. Kelly examined the raw data from the experiment and declared it inconclusive.<ref>A. G. Kelly,Reliability of Relativistic Effect Tests on Airborne Clocks, Monograph No.3 Feb.1996, The Institution of Engineers of Ireland, ISBN 1-898012-22-9</ref> The Nobel Committee chose not to honor this experiment for the significance that was claimed.

Despite [[censorship]] of dissent about relativity, evidence contrary to the theory is discussed outside of [[liberal]] universities.<ref>http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=8&idContribution=922</ref>

==Experimental Verification of Relativity==

The different effects predicted by special relativity, compared to classical formulations, are extremely tiny. Most relativistic effects are negligible at the speeds of ordinary phenomena observed by humans. The effects only become significant when the speeds involved are a significant fraction of the speed of light, which is <math>3 \times 10^8</math> meters per second—such speeds are called ''relativistic''. (However, it's worth noting that ordinary magnetism can be considered an effect of relativity, dictated by the need for electrostatic theory to be correct under relativity. The speed of light in fact appears in the formulas ([[Maxwell's Equations]]) governing electricity and magnetism, though these equations were developed long before relativity was proposed.)

Because the effects of relativity are so tiny, scientists have been devising sophisticated and sensitive tests ever since the theory was formulated in 1905.

*At the end of Einstein's original 1905 paper [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend its Energy Content?"], he speculates on the possibility that the equation <math>E = m c^2</math>, which would normally be very hard to verify, could be verified with the extremely high energies of the newly-discovered phenomenon of radioactivity.<ref>This equation is not related to [[quantum mechanics]].</ref> In the 1910's, with the invention of the mass spectrometer, it became possible to measure masses of nuclei accurately. This led to the clearing up of the mystery of atomic masses not being exact integers,and strongly suggested the existence of a "mass defect" (or "packing fraction") consistent with the mass-energy equivalence. In the 1930's, experiments with known nuclear reactions showed a very accurate correlation between the masses of the nuclei involved and the energy released.

*Another prediction of special relativity was time dilation in rapidly moving objects. This effect was most famously verified in the anomalously slow decay of relativistic cosmic muons<ref>Some have suggested that other explanations are possible for this effect. We are trying to track this down.</ref>. Time dilation has since been verified many times, and is routinely taken into account in all high-energy nuclear physics experiments, as in Hadron collision experiments<ref>Experiments specifically designed to check dilation are rarely conducted any more.</ref>.

Predictions of general relativity turned out to be more obscure and difficult to test. The two most famous predictions were the bending of light in a gravitational field and the precession of the perihelia of orbiting planets.

*The first of these was famously tested during a total eclipse in 1919. That test was somewhat muddled by an incorrect initial calculation, by several people including Einstein himself, of what the effect would be, and some "cherry picking" of the data to be used <ref>''Einstein's Luck'', John Waller, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-860719-9</ref>. The data selection could be considered "manipulation" or "fudging", by a person (Arthur Eddington) who had a personal stake in the outcome. His analysis techniques would not pass muster today.

:It should be noted that pre-relativistic (Newtonian) physics may also predict a bending, of half the observed value, depending on whether one uses the 17th century "corpuscular" formulation or the 19th century "wave" formulation.

:Nevertheless, it has been verified with ever-increasing precision in subsequent eclipses, and in the observations of quasar 3C273.

*The second "classical" test of general relativity was the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. There are many complex effects contributing to this, including gravitational perturbations from other planets and the effect of the oblateness of the Sun. These are hard to calculate accurately, but, by 1900 it was known quite accurately that there was an "anomalous" precession, that is, a precession beyond all other known effects, of 43 arc seconds per century. This is a very tiny effect, but astronomical measurements were sufficiently accurate by that time to show it clearly.

:This created quite a problem—physicists by then were accustomed to having their theories check out very accurately. One proposal that was made, by Simon Newcomb and Asaph Hall, was that the exponent of the radius in the gravitational formula wasn't exactly 2. He showed that, by choosing an exponent of <math>2+\delta</math>, the precession, as a fraction of a full orbit per planet's year, is <math>\delta/2</math>. By setting <math>\delta</math> to .000000157, that is, an exponent of 2.000000157, Newcomb was able to get a precession of .000000078 revolutions per Mercury year, or 43 arcseconds per Earth year. The primary resistance to this approach came from mathematicians unable to do the integration without an exponent of precisely 2, and they insisted, incorrectly, that was impossible for the exponent to be slightly different from 2. Due to this desire for mathematical elegance rather than objective observation-based science, Newcomb's approach was not pursued.

:While Newcomb's theory, and general relativity, don't lead to closed-form solutions, both theories can be solved numerically to as much precision as one desires.

:Increasingly precise measurements of the precession demonstrate that it conflicts with General Relativity, despite claims of relativists for decades that it predicted the precession accurately in the amount of <math>3{}v^2/c^2</math> revolutions per planet's "year", where <math>v</math> is the planet's average orbital speed.<ref>That is a simple approximation, designed to relate the precession to the planet's speed relative to the speed of light. A more accurate approximation is <math>\frac{3GM}{c^2 a(1-e^2)}</math>, where a is the semi-major axis and e is the eccentricity.</ref> The conflict is greater than the margin of error, and many relativists avoid the discrepancy rather than address it.

:The following table show some approximate parameters for the planets. Note that Mercury has the smallest orbit, the fastest speed, and the highest gravitational pull. Precession of planets other than Mercury is extremely hard to measure, but measurements of the actual anomalous precessions are in good agreement with the last column of the table.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Planet
!Period, seconds x 106
!Semimajor axis, meters x 109
!Speed, meters/second x 103
!Gravitational force, Newtons per kilogram
!Anomalous precession, arcseconds per (Earth) century, pure Newtonian mechanics
!Anomalous precession, Newtonian with exponent of 2.000000157
!Anomalous precession, general relativity
|-
|Mercury
|7.57
|58.9
|48
|.039
|0
|43
|43
|-
|Venus
|19.6
|108
|35
|.011
|0
|16.6
|9
|-
|Earth
|31.6
|150
|30
|.006
|0
|10.3
|4
|-
|Mars
|59.3
|227.9
|24
|.0025
|0
|5.5
|1.4
|-
|Jupiter
|374
|778.4
|13
|.0002
|0
|0.87
|0.07
|-
|Saturn
|929
|1426
|9.7
|.00006
|0
|0.35
|0.014
|-
|Uranus
|2651
|2870
|6.8
|.000016
|0
|0.12
|0.002
|-
|Neptune
|5200
|4498
|5.5
|.000007
|0
|0.063
|0.0008
|}

[[Image:Cassini-science-289.jpg|right|thumb|The Shapiro effect: A spacecraft signal dipping into a gravity well around the [[Sun]] is delayed slightly.]]
As the 20th century progressed, more tests of general relativity were proposed.

*One was the ''Shapiro effect'', involving time delay in radio signals passing through the gravity well of the Sun or a planet. Various spacecraft have confirmed this.

*Another is ''gravitational time dilation''. This is an effect separate from the time dilation of special relativity. It was tested by the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959.

*Later in the 20th century, even more subtle phenomena were tested. One was the phenomenon of ''gravitational radiation'', or "gravity waves". These waves are incredibly difficult to observe, and have never been observed. But extremely dense binary pulsars radiate gravitational waves with sufficient energy loss that, even though we can't detect the waves from Earth, we can see the effect of the energy loss from the radiation. The extreme precision of the timing of pulses from pulsars makes it possible to observe their energy loss with great accuracy. Observations by Hulse and Taylor of the pulsar pair known as B1913+16 confirmed the energy loss consistent with the predicted radiation.

*Two other effects, ''geodetic precession'' (also known as "de Sitter precession"), and ''frame dragging'' (also known as the "Lense-Thirring effect") were tested by the "Gravity Probe B" satellite early in the 21st century<ref>http://prl.aps.org/accepted/L/ea070Y8dQ491d22a28828c95f660a57ac82e7d8c0</ref><ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/306430</ref><ref>http://www.nap.edu/html/gpb/summary.html</ref><ref>http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/73870/title/Gravity_Probe_B_finally_pays_off_</ref><ref>http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/</ref><ref>http://einstein.stanford.edu/</ref><ref>http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/the-gravity-probe-b-bailout</ref><ref>http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/06/nasa-concludes-gravity-probe-b-space-time-experiment-proves-e/</ref>. The precision required to observe this was phenomenal. The results were announced on May 4, 2011.

{{clear}}

==Predicted consequences of the Theories==
===Time dilation===

[[Image:Light cone.png|right|thumb|Light-cone diagram]]
One important consequence of SR's postulates is that an observer in one reference frame will observe a clock in another frame to be "ticking" more slowly than in the observer's own frame. This can be proven mathematically using basic geometry, if the postulates are physically true without exception.

The length of an event <math>t</math>, as seen by a (relative) stationary observer observing an event is given by:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>t_0</math> is the "proper time" or the length of the event in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Evidence for time dilation was discovered by studying [[muon decay]]. [[Muons]] are [[subatomic]] [[particles]] with a very short [[halflife]] (1.53 microseconds at rest) and a very fast speed (0.994c). By putting muon detectors at the top (D1) and bottom (D2) of a mountain with a separation of 1900m, scientists could measure accurately the proportion of muons reaching the second detector in comparison to the first. The proportion found was different to the proportion that was calculated without taking into account relativistic effects.

Using the equation for [[exponential decay]], they could use this proportion to calculate the time taken for the muons to decay, relative to the muon. Then, using the time dilation equation they could then work out the dilated time. The dilated time showed a good correlation with the time it took the muons to reach the second sensor, thereby supporting the existence of time dilation.

The time taken for a muon to travel from D1 to D2 as measured by a stationary observer is:

<math> t = \frac{s}{v} = \frac{1900}{0.994\times(3\times10^{8})} = 6.37\mu\textrm{s} </math>

The fraction of muons arriving at D2 in comparison to D1 was 0.732. (Given by <math> \frac{N}{N_0} = 0.732 </math>)

Since (from the equation for exponential decay) <math> \frac{N}{N_{0}} = e^{-\lambda t_{0}} </math> then

<math> t_{0} = \frac {ln(0.732)}{ln (0.2)} \times 1.53\times 10^{-6} = 0.689\mu\textrm{s}</math>

This gives the time for the proportion of decay to occur for an observer who is stationary, relative to the muon.

Putting this into the time dilation equation gives:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}} = \frac{0.689 \times{10^{-6}}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{0.994^{2}}{1^{2}}}} = 6.3\times 10^{-6}\textrm{s}</math>

This is in good agreement with the value calculated above, thereby providing evidence to support time dilation.

====Time Dilation and Creation Science====

{{main|Starlight problem#Humphreys.27_model}}

Creation scientists such as physicists Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] and Dr. [[John Hartnett]] have used relativistic time dilation to explain how the earth can be only 6,000 years old even though cosmological data (background radiation, supernovae, etc.) set a much older age for the universe.

===Length contraction===
When two inertial reference frames move past each other in a straight line with constant relative velocity, an observer in one reference frame would observe a metre rule in the other frame to be shorter.

The length, <math>l</math>, of an object as seen by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

<math> l = l_{0} \sqrt{1- \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}</math>

Where
:<math>l_0</math> is the "proper length" or the length of the object in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

===Mass increase===

For decades the theory of relativity taught that as a body moves with increasing velocity its [[mass]] also increases.<ref>For example, this was taught as recently as in the 1991 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica.</ref>

Under this view, the mass, <math>m</math>, of an object as detected by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

:<math> m = \frac{m_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>m_0</math> is the "rest mass" or the mass of the object when it is at rest.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity of the object.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Since speed is relative, it follows that two observers in different inertial reference frames may disagree on the mass and kinetic energy of a body. Since all inertial reference frames are treated on an equal footing, it follows that mass and energy are interchangeable.

In recent years most physicists have shifted away from Einstein's original reliance on relativistic mass and his suggestion that mass increases{{Citation needed|date=January 2012}}. Instead, most physicists today teach that

:<math>F=\frac{d}{d\tau} p</math>

where <math>p</math> is the momentum defined by <math>\gamma m v</math>, <math>\gamma</math> is the standard Lorentz factor, and <math>\tau</math> is the proper time. Force F defined this way is a vector and thus can handle the directional aspect of the relativistic effects better than the concept of relativistic mass can.

The abandonment by physicists of the concept of relativistic mass, however, has the consequence of undermining the traditional claim under relativity that

:<math>m - m_0 = \frac{E}{c^2}</math>

also popularly known as

:<math>E = m c^2</math>

Now a concept of the 4-momentum <math>p</math> of a particle is taught, such that the square of the magnitude of <math>p</math> satisfies:

<math>||p||^2 = -p_x^2-p_y^2-p_z^2+E^2 = m_0^2c^4</math>

in any inertial reference frame. The magnitude of the 4-momentum, in any inertial frame, equals the rest mass <math>m_0</math> of the particle (in units where <math>c=1</math>).

== Paradoxes ==

The predictions of the theory of relativity throw up a number of apparent paradoxes and anomalies relating to the effects of time dilatation and length contraction. Whilst these paradoxes are consistent with the theory, they are contrary to everyday human experience and therefore can seem like impossibilities.

=== The Twin Paradox ===

The twin paradox is usually stated as a thought experiment involving two twins, one of whom is sent on a long journey in a spacecraft travelling at close to the speed of light, whilst the other remains on Earth. Time dilatation means that the travelling twin, on his return to Earth, is younger that the twin who has remained at home. However because neither twin is in a special position - each being in an inertial frame of reference - the reverse must also be true, and so the twin remaining on Earth must be younger. Hence each twin is younger than the other - a paradox.

The problem can be resolved in two ways. One is to examine the effects of General Relativity: to come back to Earth, the travelling twin must undergo acceleration in order to reverse his course, causing temporal effects which make him permanently the younger. Alternatively, it can be explained entirely using Special Relativity and noting that the twins are not in symmetrical situations: the one on earth has remained in a single inertial frame of reference, whilst the travelling twin has travelled in two<ref>http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm</ref>.

=== The Ehrenfest Paradox ===

The Ehrenfest Paradox considers a rigid wheel or disc rotating a bout its axis at high speed (somewhat like a bicycle wheel spinning freely on its axle). The rim of the wheel travels at close to the speed of light and therefore undergoes length contraction, whereas the radius (the spokes, for the bicycle wheel) does not. Hence the circumference is no longer equal to 2<big><math>\pi</math></big>r, which is paradoxical.

The apparent paradox was finally resolved in 1975 by the Norwegian scientist [[Øyvind Grøn]]<ref>http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=224955</ref>.

== Variable Speed of Light ==

The Theory of Relativity implies that physical constants like c, the speed of light in a vacuum, have remained constant. But at least one study suggests that physical constants, and possibly even the speed of light, have changed as the universe has aged.<ref>James Glanz and Dennis Overbye, "Cosmic Laws Like Speed of Light Might Be Changing, a Study Finds," August 15, 2001.[http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/15/science/15PHYS.html?ex=1185076800&en=d6467b6e3e346796&ei=5070]</ref>

"For the first time, scientists have experimentally demonstrated that sound pulses can travel at velocities faster than the speed of light, c. William Robertson's team from Middle Tennessee State University also showed that the group velocity of sound waves can become infinite, and even negative. ... Although such results may at first appear to violate special relativity (Einstein's law that no material object can exceed the speed of light), the actual significance of these experiments is a little different. These types of superluminal phenomena, Robertson et al. explain, violate neither causality nor special relativity, nor do they enable information to travel faster than c. In fact, theoretical work had predicted that the superluminal speed of the group velocity of sound waves should exist. 'The key to understanding this seeming paradox is that no wave energy exceeded the speed of light,' said Robertson."<ref>http://www.physorg.com/news88249076.html</ref>

"A team of researchers from the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) has successfully demonstrated, for the first time, that it is possible to control the speed of light – both slowing it down and speeding it up – in an optical fiber, using off-the-shelf instrumentation in normal environmental conditions. Their results, to be published in the August 22 issue of Applied Physics Letters, could have implications that range from optical [[computing]] to the fiber-optic telecommunications industry."<ref>http://www.scienceblog.com/light.html</ref> Both slowing down and speeding up of light within a substance other than a vacuum is made possible, because the light travels through the material, and that material affects the speed of light, i.e. a photon hits an electron, which then exits and emits a slightly lower energy photon out in the direction that the original photon was traveling, thus maintaining conservation of momentum. No matter how transparent an object may appear, it radically impacts the speed of the light traveling through it, as demonstrated by the refractive production of a rainbow by a crystal, which Newton himself discovered.

This apparent change in speed can be explained, however, by noting that the constant c refers to the speed of light in a vacuum, ie, when it is unimpeded. The speed of light when traveling through physical media is, in fact, variable.

"A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light - an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space and time. ... Dr Nimtz told New Scientist magazine: 'For the time being, this is the only violation of special relativity that I know of.'"<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/scispeed116.xml</ref>

==Pending research==

Today some physicists are working on hypothesizing how general relativity might have related to the other three forces of nature during the first fraction of a second of the [[Big Bang]]. Two of the more commonly studied attempts are [[string theory]] and [[loop quantum gravity]], but they have failed to produce any evidence that science mandates a science must have, and both typically take large amounts of work to even conform to what scientists believe. Critics increasingly point out that string theory and loop quantum gravity are largely untestable and unfalsifiable, and thus potentially unscientific under the principles of science advanced by [[Karl Popper]].<ref>See, for example, ''Not Even Wrong'', by Peter Woit</ref>

Relativity continues to be tested and some physics professors remain skeptical of the theory, such as University of Maryland physics professor Carroll Alley, who served as the principle physicist on the Apollo lunar project.<ref>http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm</ref>

== Political aspects of relativity ==

Some [[liberal]] politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, [[Democratic]] [[President of the United States of America|President]] [[Barack Obama]] helped publish an article by liberal law professor [[Laurence Tribe]] to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to [[abortion]].<ref>Tribe, acknowledging help by Obama, argued that the [[Constitution]] should be interpreted to establish a right to federally funded [[abortion]] and that, more generally, ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' does not go far enough. They insisted that a relativistic "curvature of space" could achieve this result by expanding application of the [[Constitution]] based on its impact on personal choice. "The ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' opinion ignored the way in which laws regulating pregnant women may shape the entire pattern of relationships among men, women, and children. It conceptualized abortion not in terms of the intensely public question of the subordination of women to men through the exploitation of pregnancy, but in terms of the purportedly private question of how women might make intimately personal decisions about their bodies and their lives. That vision described a part of the truth, but only what might be called the Newtonian part. ... [A] change in the surrounding legal setting can constitute state action that most threatens the sphere of personal choice. And it is a 'curved space' perspective on how law operates that leads one to focus less on the visible lines of legal force and more on how those lines are bent and directed by the law's geometry." Laurence H. Tribe, The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 16-17 (1989).</ref> As of June 2008, over 170 law review articles have cited this [[liberal]] application of the theory of relativity to legal arguments.<ref>Search conducted by [[User:Aschlafly]] in the LEXIS database "US Law Reviews and Journals, Combined," conducted June 1, 2008.</ref> Applications of the theory of relativity to change morality have also been common.<ref>"Mistakenly, in the minds of many, the theory of relativity became relativism."[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38081]</ref> Moreover, there is an unmistakable effort to censor or ostracize criticism of relativity.<ref>Although the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|liberally biased Wikipedia]] contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries, and even though publications like ''The Economist'' recognize the lack of scientific satisfaction in the theory (see, e.g., "Weighing the Universe," The Economist (Jan. 25, 2007)), Wikipedia's entry on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Relativity Theory of Relativity] omits one word of criticism.</ref>

Physicist [[Robert Dicke]] of Princeton University was a prominent critic<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html</ref> of general relativity, and Dicke's alternative "has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."<ref>"Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."[http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Essay_bekenstein.html] </ref> Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was repeatedly passed over for a [[Nobel Prize]], and in at least one case Dicke was insulted by the award being granted to others for contributions more properly credited to Dicke.

There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity.

===Government Support for Relativistic research===
The Theory of Relativity enjoys a disproportionate share of [[federal funding]] of physics research today.<ref>The Democratic Congress insisted on the $250 million LIGO project despite substantial criticism by scientists that it was wasting scarce research dollars. John Travis, "LIGO: a $ 250 million gamble; Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory; includes related article," ''Science'' p. 612 (Apr. 30, 1993). "Adding to the acrimony is LIGO's $ 250 million price tag, which some hold responsible for NSF's recent funding woes." ''Id.''</ref> In at least one case that research has been unsuccessful. The $365 million dollar [[LIGO]] project has failed to detect the gravity waves predicted by relativity.<ref>http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/sept/gravitywaves/index.html</ref>

{{Relativity}}

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

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]

==External Links ==
*[http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity, by H.A. Lorentz.]
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com Relativity Calculator - Learn Special Relativity Mathematics ] The mathematics of special relativity presented in as simple and comprehensive manner possible within philosophical and historical contexts.

Talk:Theory of relativity

2012-04-14T17:10:44Z

Jloveday: /* Why are adjustments needed to GPS? */

{| style=" width:95%; text-align:left; background:{{{background}}}; color:{{{color|black}}}; border:3px solid black; clear:both " align="center"
|-
|width="2%" style="text-align:center" cellpadding="5"|'''!'''
|'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''

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

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


== Mass depending on direction ==

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

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

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

== Neutrinos now obey speed limit ==

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

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

== Why does Conservapedia seek to discredit Relativity ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== GPS and Relativity ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Why are adjustments needed to GPS? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Logic and the GPS ==

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

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

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

== Newtonian explanation of Mercury's precession ==

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

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

::I'm curious as to the justification for changing a formula in Newtonian gravity. Do you change it for every situation, or just for this one special case? Can you give us the adjusted formula, and specify the exact change? For such a change in physics which has been in use for over 250 years I would like to see a reference, preferably several good references. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:25, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
:::The old Newcomb-Hall hypothesis. [http://books.google.at/books?id=oKGlHjDzGjQC&lpg=PA379&dq=newcomb%20hall%20precession&pg=PA379#v=onepage&q=newcomb%20hall%20precession&f=false This book] says that it contradicts the observations of the orbit of the moon, which rules out a change of exponent of of the required magnitude. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 18:30, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

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

Talk:E=mc²

2012-04-03T19:16:07Z

Jloveday: /* Political Pressure */

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

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

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

== Humbug ==

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

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

If not, just erase the first section.

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

== Nobel Lecture ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Some points ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::::The problem is that '''E=m2does not meaning anythimg that makes sense. Anyone is welcome to try to explain it here. Eating a pound of cake does not cause one's energy to increase by the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:06, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::No, it doesn't. It causes your energy to increase by a number of foot-pounds equal to '''one pound''' times the speed of light squared. I've explained this to you already and it isn't difficult. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:23, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
:At any rate, eating a pound of cake, is not nuclear physics, it is chemistry, where your cells digest and utilize the sugars within. Protiens are also converted into sugar.[[User:JonM|JonM]] 18:28, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Restoration ==

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

== Instead of the source - tag ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Move ==

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

== Experimental Facts ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Misleading footnote ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Protection of the Article ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Bare links ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== First sentence ==

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

== Political Pressure ==

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

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

:No, that would not explain why it "is impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of" E=mc2. Even if you think the formula is somehow true, surely you do not deny the political pressure in academia against anyone who might consider questioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:37, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

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

Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2011-09-23T17:39:45Z

Jloveday: deleted Jerusalem see talk page

There are many brilliant—and popular—conservative songs.

Here is our growing list:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Song
!Artist
!Comments
!Billboard Rank
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L--cqAI3IUI ''Wouldn't It Be Nice'']
|The [[Beach Boys]]
|Pro-marriage
|8
|-
|[http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Crying-in-the-Chapel-lyrics-Elvis-Presley/E547D833F0BBFADF48256874002B3358 ''Crying In The Chapel'']
|[[Elvis Presley]]
|Pro-marriage
|1
|-
|[http://www.ixlyrics.com/CLIVE-DUNN/GRANDAD.html ''Grandad'']
|Clive Dunn
|UK Number 1 hit, in praise of senior citizens and their values
|
|-
|[http://youtu.be/EgkBx8csEws ''Goodbye, Yellow Brick Road'']
|[[Elton John]]
|The same message as the [[Prodigal Son]]: look objectively at our own lives, and realize that "I should have listened to my old man."
|2
|-
|[http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/jones-george/gods-gonna-get-cha-for-that-6638.html ''God's Gonna Get 'Cha For That'']
|Tammy Wynette & George Jones
|You cannot escape God's gaze, no matter who you are
|25
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iYY2FQHFwE ''Okie From Muskogee'']
|[[Merle Haggard]]
|Anti-drug and anti-hippie; a song about praising the traditional American values in Mid-America. Was written in response to the Vietnam War protests and counter-culture movement.
|1 (Billboard Hot Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl6yilkU1LI ''Fast Car'']
|Tracy Chapman
|Self-help, free market, division of labor, and a criticism of alcohol. "I know things will get better/You'll find work and I'll get promoted/We'll move out of the shelter/Buy a bigger house and live in the suburbs"
|6
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw5RkzbHb-w ''You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)'']
|The Supremes
|Abstinence for rock fans. Also performed by Phil Collins.
|1
|-
|[http://youtu.be/o-z2D9lo9-8 ''Bush Was Right'']
|The Right Brothers
|Celebrating the Bush Administration's success and policies.
|
|-
|[http://youtu.be/BvPugOWeZiA ''Let It Be'']
|[[The Beatles]]
|Very popular in Russia under the Soviets
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6yLQRF-cEU ''Have You Forgotten?'']
|Darryl Worley
|Patriotic response to [[September 11, 2001 attacks]].<ref>http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=15568</ref>
|1 (US Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5aMMRes2u4 ''Still the One'']
|Orleans
|A tribute to fidelity in relationships.
|5
|-
|[http://youtu.be/oHg5SJYRHA0 ''Sweet Home Alabama'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereotyped attacks by [[liberal]], Canadian rocker Neil Young. "Well, I hope Neil Young will remember/A Southern man don't need him around anyhow."
|8
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-1_d6bbM1I ''My Love'']
|[[Petula Clark]]
|A Christian love in secular form.
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16u0wwCfoJ4 ''I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)'']
|The Crickets
|Its title says it all. The version by ''The Clash'' has a particularly good tempo.
|9 (Bobby Fuller Four version)
|-
|[http://youtu.be/cMfrLFirGWc ''Chapel of Love'']
|Dixie Cups
|Marriage in a church
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0heL2Czeraw ''I Am America'']
|Krista Branch
|American [[Tea Party Movement]] Song
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT88jBAoVIM ''Amazing Grace'']
|[[John Newton]]
|A Christian hymn published in 1779.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IStlBOX9F4o ''God's Gonna Cut You Down'']
|Traditional
|"Go tell that long tongue liar, go and tell that midnight rider, tell the rambler, the gambler, the back biter, tell 'em that God's gonna cut 'em down"
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/pEnLNWoln1c ''Anything Goes'']
|Guns N' Roses
|A blatant message about the dangers of premarital sex
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/6j7huh5Egew ''Seven Nation Army'']
|The White Stripes
|A song about the growing power of conservatism
|1 (Hot Modern Rock Tracks)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew ''Stand By Your Man'']
|[[Tammy Wynette]]
|Don't expect [[feminists]] to like that one! Or [[Hillary Clinton]]!
|1 (Hot Country Singles)
|-
|[http://youtu.be/r5Q8Xa0bPy8''Battle Hymn of the Republic'']
|[[Lee Greenwood]]
|"As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free."
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/lnk8SKD9zcA''You Light Up My Life'']
|Debby Boone
|One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np0solnL1XY ''Free Bird'']
|Lynyrd Skynyrd
|Because [[Conservatives]] want a free country, and [[liberals]] are in love with [[communism]].
|19-
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wahd2piIr4Q ''Brothers In Arms'']
|[[Dire Straits]]
|We're fools to make war on our brothers in arms.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeWZhuzFMM8 ''The Ascent of Stan'']
|[[Ben Folds]]
|Tells the story of a former "textbook hippie man" who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.
|NA
|-
|''Starting All Over Again''
|[[Petula Clark]]
|Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/bCFWyLwcR6E ''Thank You My Lord'']
|[[Petula Clark]]
|The title says it all.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/7NJMTmz7pkg ''Brick'']
|Ben Folds Five
|Shows the regret involved in abortion.
|6 (Modern Rock Tracks)
|-
|[http://youtu.be/Dw6qmYX1ny4 ''Alive'']
|P.O.D.
|About being thankful for the gift of life.
|2 (US Alternative)
|-
|[http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html ''Gotta Serve Somebody'']
|[[Bob Dylan]]
|"It may be the devil or it may be the Lord."
|24
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydBPm2KRaU ''Jesus, Take The Wheel'']
|[[Carrie Underwood]]
|A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.
|1 (US Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPBwXKgDTdE ''Mine'']
|[[Taylor Swift]]
|Talks about how her parents stooped to [[liberal values]] and divorced, and how she doesn't want that to happen with the guy she meets, dates, and marries.
|1 (US Adult Contemporary)
|-
|[http://youtu.be/FAvQSkK8Z8U ''Red Barchetta'']
|[[Rush]]
|Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/K5N2WJ1szHE ''Father of Mine'']
|Everclear
|A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.
|4
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM ''Taxman'']
|[[The Beatles]]
|George Harrison said, "Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes."
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4eonyfRet8&feature=related ''Back in the U.S.A.'']
|[[Chuck Berry]]
|A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.
|16
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZVPv9B-ZlM ''Government Cheese'']
|The Rainmakers
|Humorous spoof of welfare.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErPywgiMb4k ''Angry Young Man'']
|[[Billy Joel]]
|The doctrinaire leftist radical with "his fist in the air and his head in the sand" comes in for biting criticism.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzU2iJ9qfXg ''Gimme Back My Bullets'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|The name says it all.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPPlGFh6OpQ ''Spirit In The Sky'']
|Norman Greenbaum
|
|3
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38oeBgvbMYA ''Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun'']
|Grand Funk Railroad
|A father gives his son some sage advice.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=096LhjGNNCk ''Something For Nothing'']
|Rush
|"You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free."
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/kD5M_i6JceU ''Neighborhood Bully'']
|[[Bob Dylan]]
|Israel's right to exist and defend itself.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2duiu0W_TSA&feature=fvst ''New Divide'']
|Linkin Park
|Depicts a typical scenario of conservatives having to defend themselves from unreasonable liberal attacks and the ever-widening divide between the two ideologies.
|1
|-
|[http://youtu.be/4ZEE8utquP8 ''Get it Right the First Time'']
|Louisiana's LeRoux
|Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own. Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/QCQTr8ZYdhg ''Wish You Were Here'']
|Pink Floyd
|A song about wishing that a conservative president would return back to office.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o ''Yours Is No Disgrace'']
|[[Yes]]
|Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/zapGC2PrWiU ''Fair Exchange''] and [http://youtu.be/cnijc9wNpV4 ''Sparks of the Tempest'']
|[[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]
|Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 80s material, which has Christian lyrics.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/OtZ5YsvREi4 ''In America'']
|The [[Charlie Daniels]] Band
|Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
|11
|-
|''Storm the Embassy''
|The Stray Cats
|Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis. "Fifteen man taken captive in a hostile foreign land/Scorchin' sun beaming down onto miles and miles of sand..."
|NA
|-
|''We Must Take America Back''
|Steve Vaus
|Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.
|NA
|-
|''Renegade''
|[[Steppenwolf]]
|[[John Kay]]'s childhood escape from Communist [[East Germany]].
|NA
|-

|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqXAW2snGMI ''Capitalism'']
|Oingo Boingo
|There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/C68J1tJM6vU ''Unborn Child'']
|Seals and Crofts
|This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.
|66
|-
|[http://youtu.be/bHpw6CzprNY ''Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)'']
|Steve Taylor
|Takes aim at LA and NY hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and "the left-wing band with their head in the sand".
|NA
|-
|''Last Kiss''
|Wayne Cochran and the C.C. Riders
|"Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when."
|2 (J. Frank Wilson version)
|-
|''America USA''
|Joey Sudyka
|Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6XZDb045xU ''Red White & Blue (Love It or Leave)'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|
|27
|-SCHLAFLY IM HATE WHAT YOU REPRESENT, YOU NEED TO STAY MORE TRUE TO GODS BIBLE, AS A GOD FEARING MAN IM ASHAMED OF YOU!!!! BEGONE! LEAVE THIS WORLD FOUL DEMON! I BANISH YOU!!!!!! YOU ARE A SCOURGE UPON THIS EARTH AND SO IS YOUR MOTHER AND YOU"RE NOT EVEN THAT GOOD LOOKING! AND BESIDES, I READ ON ANOTHER CONSERVATIVE SITE THAT YOU'RE SECRETLY A COMMUNIST!!!!
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBohsCG8emk ''Simple Man'']
|[[Charlie Daniels]]
|A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.
|12
|-
|[http://youtu.be/p6q9nBusrq8 ''That Smell'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A very strong anti-drug use song by America's most well-known Southern rock band.
|NA
|-
|''Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)''
|[[Toby Keith]]
|A patriotic response to the Sept. 11 attacks
|1 (Hot Country Songs)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pldyz9VS2yY ''Under God'']
|[[Pat Boone]]
|
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/iq10bz3PxyY ''Christmas Shoes'']
|NewSong
|A Christmas song by a Christian band.
|1 (Adult Contemporary)
|-
|[http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/proudtobeamerican.html ''God Bless the USA'']
|Lee Greenwood
|
|7 (Hot Country)
|-
|''God Bless America''
|Irving Berlin
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU ''No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed'']
|Richie Havens (Covered by Yes)
|"...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you..."
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g ''Supper's Ready'']
|[[Genesis (band)|Genesis]]
|''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, "This is the supper of the mighty one", Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoaH0I9UwLI ''Your Love Is Extravagant'']
|Casting Crowns
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnnhYE1DhC4 ''What If His People Prayed'']
|Casting Crowns
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EBiei21-C8 ''King Without a Crown'']
|Matisyahu
|A Hasidic Jew raps about God as the source of happiness and salvation from the things of this world: "If you're drowning in the waters and you can't stay afloat ask Hashem for mercy and He'll throw you a rope."
|7 (Hot Modern Rock Tracks)
|-
|''Take Me Home, Country Roads''
|John Denver
|Celebrates Southern country landscape and traditions.
|2
|-
|[http://youtu.be/RCqxq6xqoXI ''Sin City'']
|The Flying Burrito Brothers
|Attacks modern decadence and predicts divine punishment for sin.
|NA
|-
|''I Saw The Light''
|Hank Williams
|Redemption of sin through faith.
|NA
|-
|''No Son of Mine''
|Genesis
|
|12
|-
|[http://youtu.be/v9BtLRWbkmA ''Don't Stop (Thinking About Tomorrow)'']
|Fleetwood Mac
|Used by Bill Clinton as his campaign theme song in 1992, but liberals often try to appeal to conservative themes for elections.
|3
|-
|[http://youtu.be/Ke-r2K0ymWc ''Lightning Crashes'']
|Live
|The joy and significance of childbirth.
|1
|-
|''Takin' Care of Business''
|Bachman-Turner Overdrive
|The work ethic and promoting self-employment.
|12
|-
|''Cat's In The Cradle''
|Harry Chapin
|The importance of traditional families and responsible fatherhood.
|1
|-
|[http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=6547 ''The Devil Went Down To Georgia'']
|[[Charlie Daniels]]
|A deeper message here, as Daniels explains.
|3
|-
|''The Big Money''
|Rush
|Pro-[[capitalism]]
|45
|-
|''Real American''
|Rick Derringer
|Patriotic anthem, known as [[Hulk Hogan]]'s pre-match song.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP5EfwBWgg0&feature=related ''Go Down Moses'']
|[[Louis Armstrong]]
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5zEP4kvfnc ''Walking Contradiction'']
|[[Green Day]]
|Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]], here [[Green Day]] mocks the often self-contradictory and inconsistent [[liberal]] ideologies, hence the term "walking contradiction".
|21
|-
|''God and Guns''
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A powerful new song that elaborates on the song title.
|NA
|-
|''Stayin' Alive''
|[[The Bee Gees]]
|Pro-people and pro-staying alive, and this: "we can try to understand/the [[New York Times]]' effect on man."
|1
|-
|''Sympathy for the Devil''
|The Rolling Stones
|Reminds humanity conservatives are perfect and evil is present in the world and needs to be fought.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVsZap7WBm8 ''All In'']
|Lifehouse
|Describes a relationship with God as being full of commitment and without reservations.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y5GDvN9_OE ''The Ballad of the Green Berets'']
|Sergeant Barry Sadler
|Pro-American and pro-military.
|1
|-
|''Iraq No Phobia''
|Pro-Pain
|It is a pro-American, pro-military heavy metal song about the first [[Gulf War]]: ''"Mohammed's no match for the great Uncle Sam."''
|NA
|-
|''Bus Stop''
|The Hollies
|Pro-[[chivalry]], pro-romance and pro-marriage: "Someday my name and hers are going to be the same."
|5
|-
|''Stranger in Blue Suede Shoes''
|Kevin Ayers
|Defends the right of businessmen to choose their customers: "we don't serve strangers in blue suede shoes".
|NA
|-
|''Union Sundown''
|Bob Dylan
|The title says it all.
|NA
|-
|''People Get Ready''
|Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions
|An all-time classic song about the glory of the [[Lord]].
|3
|-
|''Get a Job''
|The Silhouettes
|Self-explanatory; a rebuke to lazy [[liberals]] who want to sit around and wait for government handouts.
|1
|-
|''Pray''
|[[Justin Bieber]]
|A song about supporting your country.
|61
|-
|''Hypnotize''
|System of a Down
|SOAD is a rather left-ish band although this song is about liberals believing anything they see or hear in the media.
|1
|-
|''Gematria (The Killing Name)''
|Slipknot
|This song is about what the liberals of America, who can get ''very'' annoying sometimes.
|NA
|-
|''Don't Tread On Me''
|Metallica
|Name says it all!
|21
|-
|''Welcome to the Family''
|Avenged Sevenfold
|A song about death row, although not anti-death penalty.
|8
|-
|[http://youtu.be/fHvf20Y6eoM ''Turn, Turn, Turn'']
|The Byrds
|An almost word-for-word direct quotation from the [[Bible]], specifically [[Ecclesiastes]], with the addition of the refrain "Turn, Turn, Turn".
|1
|-
|''Critical Acclaim''
|Avenged Sevenfold
|Pro-America and pro-Military.
|NA
|-
|''The Star Spangled Banner''
|Francis Scott Key
|The American national anthem.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/pearl+jam/dissident_20106414.html ''Dissident'']
|Pearl Jam
|About a woman who engages in [[liberal values]] by being impregnated out of wedlock and having an abortion, but immediately regrets doing so.
|3
|-
|[http://www.justsomelyrics.com/767663/McCarthy-Keep-an-Open-Mind-or-Else-Lyrics ''Keep an Open Mind or Else'']
|McCarthy
|About the conservative value of keeping an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open mind]].
|NA
|-
|''Way Out Here''
|Josh Thompson
|"Our house is all protected by the good Lord and a Gun", and "We wont take a dime if we aint earned it, when it comes to weight, brother we pull our own". It is pro gun ownership, the Lord, and hard work. Also preaches the morals and ethics that are known from small towns.
|15 (US Country)
|-
|''D-I-V-O-R-C-E''
|[[Tammy Wynette]]
|This sad song was a huge hit in 1968.
|1
|-
|''Respect''
|Aretha Franklin
|This song is about respecting woman and their choices to be equal members in society.
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cxwIWPJV0I ''A Better Tomorrow'']
|Wu-Tang Clan
|A rap song about staying away from liberal excess and illegal acts in order to be a positive influence for the next generation.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/5Jxnt-QY-j4 ''Game of Love'']
|Wayne Fontana and the Mindbenders
|"The purpose of a man is to love a woman, and the purpose of a woman is to love a man... It started long ago in the Garden of Eden when Adam said to Eve 'Baby, you're for me.'"
|1
|-
|''It's America''
|Rodney Atkins
|Celebrates the American spirit and all the good things about the United States.
|1 (US Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eebfMFzJHNs&ob=av2e ''Warning'']
|[[Green Day]]
|Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]] and clearly supportive of [[liberal values]], here they once again challenge liberal values with this song that mocks the liberal Nanny-state.
|3 (US Alternative)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHAFmFsb9XM&feature=related ''The Fightin' Side of Me'']
|Merle Haggard
|A song about patriotism and standing up for [[America]].
|1 (Hot Country Singles)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA_H6C8iLPA ''Liberalism is a Mental Disorder'']
|The Infidel (Gregory Van Leer Jr.) with an opening from [[Michael Savage]]
|Clearly attacks [[liberal values]].
|NA
|-
|''The River''
|[[Bruce Springsteen]]
|Pre-marital sex and trade unionism punished by depression and redundancy.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=sex+pistols''Bodies'']
|The Sex Pistols
|Profane but graphically anti-abortion.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h1oRP7FfBw ''Sunny Afternoon'']
|The Kinks
|About a rich man trying to enjoy the simple things in life because the Nanny-state has nearly bankrupted him.
|14
|-
|''2+2=5 (The Lukewarm)''
|Radiohead
|A song chastising people for accepting the mainstream medias version of events and not paying attention.
|NA
|-
|''No Children''
|The Mountain Goats
|A song about a marriage falling apart because the couple has no children to hold the family together.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuUmLIPSasI ''God Loves My Country'']
|Balthrop, Alabama
|A song that declares that God loves America most of all.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J51LPlP-s9o ''Hallowed Be Thy Name'']
|Iron Maiden
|Quite possibly one of the most conservative metal songs ever: it's about death row but not anti-death penalty, the protagonist believes in the concepts of an afterlife and a soul, and the title and protagonist's final words are both based on the Lord's Prayer.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVOEoo1oXBs ''Declaration Day'']
|Iced Earth
|A song about the Revolutionary War.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1IpcvdF6jc ''Boulevard of Broken Dreams'']
|Green Day
|Though critical of the Bush Administration, they clearly depict what a liberal life is like.
|2
|-
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zZE0SrkyNE&ob=av2n ''Where'd You Go'']
|Fort Minor
|Shows the hardship of divorce, liberal values, and the possible future of the families of our service men who could be forced to serve in Libya.
|2
|-
|''Patriotism''
|Company Flow
|While containing bad language it endorses the US as a super-power
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ypkv0HeUvTc ''The Beautiful People'']
|Marilyn Manson
|Despite foul language, it endorses free thought and individuality while criticizing liberal hypocrisy and fascism.
|29
|-
|''Tribute''
|Tenacious D
|Comedy single, but it's also a very popular song about overcoming Satan and alludes to many other Christian themes such as heaven and hell.
|4
|-
|-
|''Country Trash''
|Johnny Cash
|In a comedic way, the song praises the small town conservative virtues of the people looked down upon by big city liberals as "Country trash"
|
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-pQBDE5Gbg ''Me Against The World'']
|Simple Plan
|As conservatives and Christians, [[liberal bias]] is all around us, in the media for example, trying to pressure us on a bandwagon to be like them and worship at the altar of liberalism and godlessness. It is up to us to stand up for what is right, even if we have to go up against the world.
|
|-
|''For Martha''
|The Smashing Pumpkins
|Being torn between the anguish of losing a lost one and the joy of knowing you will one day reunite them with in heaven
|
|-
|''Do You Hear the People Sing''
|Claude-Michel Schönberg
|Standing up to government in the name of freedom, from the musical ''Les Miserables''
|
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDIGzzeQjaE ''Dethharmonic'']
|Dethklok
|Anti-tax
|
|-
|}

Please add your best conservative picks.

== Debatable Whether Conservative ==

The top five in a poll of the greatest songs in the 20th century, according to the Recording Industry Association of America and the [[NEA]]:

*''Over the Rainbow'' (Judy Garland)
*''White Christmas'' (Bing Crosby)
*''Respect'' (Aretha Franklin)
*''American Pie'' (Don McLean)

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Essays]]
[[category:Music]]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2011-09-20T18:20:56Z

Jloveday: raise doubts about the inclusion of Jerusalem

See [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzZkNDU5MmViNzVjNzkzMDE3NzNlN2MyZjRjYTk4YjE= this]. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 10:04, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

: The [[neoconservative]] ''National Review'' list is 95% garbage, not [[conservative]] at all. I only found one tune on the list that should be added ours ("Stand by your man"), and National Review had it at #50.

: The contrast here with ''National Review'' illustrates the need for ''Conservapedia''. But thanks for your link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Oops... it seems that I added a bunch of songs from that list. Several of mine (Brick, Red Barchetta, I Can't Drive 55, Sweet Home Alabama, and Revolution 1) were on there. That's interesting, though... the NR person and I thought alike on this one. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:16, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Sweet Home Alabama? I love that song (and I'm a liberal)! Revolution's great, too.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 18:29, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Sorry? Why was my entry for The Fall's Pseud Mag Ed removed? They have always been the great deflators of liberal complacency. What is going on?

: Post a link to the lyrics of the song here and we'll see. Also, please sign your entries by using the signature button in the row above the edit box. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:16, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Can a song possibly be just a song, rather than a political statement? - BornAgainBrit

: Uh, sure, there are songs that lack any meaning at all. "I wanna hold your hand," for example, is a pleasant jingle from your homeland. I trust we'd agree that it is not the most meaningful song in the world. That tune is fun for reminiscing.

: But surely you don't deny that many songs do have political meaning. [[Liberal]] attempts to deny political bias are familiar to us and no one here is fooled. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:37, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

The deletion of Bob Dylan's song was not properly explained. Observing that people serve either the devil or the Lord is a conservative observation, and of course Bob Dylan was a born-again Christian who expressed his faith in song (but don't expect [[liberals]] to tell you that).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

:I didn't mean to step on any toes, but apathy towards devil worship doesn't seem to me like a very conservative trait. Unfortunately, the verses of the songs don't give us ''any'' meaning whatsoever, so the only meaning we can glean from the song are the four lines of the chorus, three of which are essentially the same :/ [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:06, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

::Paradise by the Dashboard light? I know its a song about having pre-marital sex, but the end is about how it screwed up his life.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 04:45, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

After reading this list, I've gotta ask, just how do you define a 'conservative' song?--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 15:27, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: [[Conservative]] is a term that is well-understood. A "conservative song" reflects some of those values without diluting them with a [[liberal]] message.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

I can't believe Okie from Muskogie isn't on here. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:23, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

I know this is being nitpicky, but I don't like the message of Last Kiss because it seems to suggest a works salvation, that one gets to heaven by doing good rather than accepting Jesus. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:30, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:... and on that note, let's open up a can of [[Mountain Dew]] and get ready to [[Debate:Are we saved by faith or works?]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:16, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

==Last Kiss==
Somebody just put up "Last Kiss;" actually I recall when it was a hit circa 1964 many adults, parents, teachers and ministers where horrified that a song about death was considered appropriate for young people. My my, how things had changed by 1967.... [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:08, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

Just like 'Teen Angel,' 'Leader of the Pack,' 'Dead Man's Curve,' and 'Tell Laura I Love Her.' [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:35, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

==Possible Addition==

Ok, I have a suggestion, but I want some feedback before putting it on the page. I was listening to the radio today, and Another Brick in the Wall by Pink Floyd came on. I was thinking that the song talks about the way that public schools brainwash children and turn them into "bricks" in the wall that is liberal society. In a way, the song is pro-homeschooling, because it's teachers that need to leave the kids alone so that parents can instruct their children correctly. Maybe I'm reaching a bit here, but I wanted to see what you all thought. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:23, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

: I'm open to comments and suggestions about this, but I've never viewed the famous song "another brick in the wall" as conservative. You may be right that the song properly complains about the effect of schooling, but the song doesn't offer any conservative solution that I can see.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:10, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

::"Another Brick In The Wall" is more of a neutral song. Its part of a concept album in which the main character slowly seperates himself from society. Most Pink Floyd songs are about madness, due to their original lead singer going insane. [[User:TobyKeet|TobyKeet]] 05:32, 24 November 2010 (EST)

==Love Me, I'm a Liberal==

:I'm glad the commies were thrown out
:Of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board

Hardly sounds like a Communist critique. Have you read all the lyrics of the song? [http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/ochs/lyrics/liberal.html] It's twitting liberals for their supposed concern for others, which is actually sorely lacking. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:14, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

:That song is pure sarcasm and Ochs assumes the role of a 1960s-era (Cold War era) "liberal" to attack them from the extreme left in a sarcastic way. Read the lyrics again, he is attacking the AFL-CIO for throwing out the commies. He is saying liberals aren't far left ''enough''. It's not a conservative song, it's an extreme leftist one. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 17:22, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

So there's a song on this list about breaking the law 'I can't Drive 55,' and one about obeying the law 'I fought the law.' Which is the conservative value? And the Bobby Fuller Four's version of the latter was the superior version, BTW. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:40, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

== Are these truly conservative? ==

While I understand completely some of these songs being on here, I don't really understand the why Bob Dylan, The Beatles, or Ben Folds (Five) would be on this list. These individual songs may be able to be warped into our mindset, but if one truly looks at these, they become overwhelmingly liberal.

For example: The Beatles - Revolution
While this song does indeed talk about how "Carrying pictures of Chairman Mao" will do no good, it also talks about how war and money can't solve problems. In addition, if a child is to read tis and decide to find out more about The Beatles, they will undoubtedly find some intensely liberal themes. The same idea goes for Bob Dylan. Look at any of his other songs. At the same time, Ben Folds does exactly the same thing.

I cannot argue with the songs and parts on this list, but I wonder if this is a slippery slope?
::It's possible that many of these songs were adopted by conservatives, such as Mike Huckabee playing John Cougar Mellencamp's hits. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:48, 18 February 2008 (EST)

: Many of the songs here have a powerful [[conservative]] message, and demonstrate that the music industry does not have to be [[liberal]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:00, 18 February 2008 (EST)

: P.S. [[Liberals]] do say [[conservative]] things from time to time. We're listing songs here, not artists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 18 February 2008 (EST)

I would just like add that Revolution 1 was written as a reaction against the protesters against the Vietnam War who were getting violent. All Revolution is saying is for the protesters to protest, but not violently, which is still liberal, but a message than other liberal songs. However, for other Beatles songs, they range from being liberal (Why Don't We Do It in the Road?) to be being kind of conservative (Let It Be). Most however, are pretty much neutral. You usually kind Paul McCartney as being more concervative, and Lennon as liberal. [[User:TobyKeet|TobyKeet]] 05:28, 24 November 2010 (EST)

:One problem with the above analysis: Why Don't We Do It In the Road was McCartney's; Lennon was rather famously not involved at all. Personally I've always thought of it as a kind of parody of the free love movement, though apparently that wasn't McCartney's intention. [[User:Ptorquemada|Ptorquemada]] 17:25, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

== In Your Eyes ==

Okay, the song can be considered to be about God, but that alone does not make it conservative. I think Peter Gabriel himself would object to the song's inclusion in this list. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 15:23, 18 February 2008 (EST)

: Peter Gabriel can object all he likes. "In Your Eyes" appeals to conservative values, as in "a thousand churches." Do you think we should object when a liberal says something conservative???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:27, 18 February 2008 (EST)
::Religion is not conservative. Fundamentalism is, but not religion. The presence of religion in a song does not make it conservative, even as adherence to religion does not make a person conservative. Look at me, I'm a Christian, but I'm also a communist. Obviously the two are not mutually exclusive. One's personal merely interpersonally-social morals under religion might be more "conservative", in the loosest sense of the term — not conservative, simply somewhat more so — than they would be otherwise; however, that does not automatically make one politically conservative.--[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 15:50, 18 February 2008 (EST)

::: The single best predictor of how conservative someone votes is how often he attends a place of worship of God. Your argument suggesting that you are a counterexample to that correlation means nothing. See point #2 in [[liberal logic]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 18 February 2008 (EST)

::::That wasn't irrelevant at all. Correlation != causation. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 16:08, 18 February 2008 (EST)
::::Sorry, my edit summary should have been "basic statistical interpretation". --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 16:09, 18 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Why did you cite your counterexample, if it wasn't an example of the logical fallacy #2 in [[liberal logic]]? Do you really think a counterexample disproves causation?

==Land of Confusion==
Does Genesis' ''Land of Confusion'' belong on the list? I remember the music video portraying Ronald Reagan (in puppet form) as inept, and it parodies several conservative leaders, including Margaret Thatcher, et. al. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 13:58, 5 March 2009 (EST)

: It's liberal lyric of "too many people" is enough reason to bounce it from the list. Thanks for catching this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 5 March 2009 (EST)

==Should Fortunate Son really be on this list?==

It's vehemently anti-war. Please correct if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's a very conservative belief. [[User:JRobbe|JRobbe]]

:I just looked the lyrics. Pretty confused stuff. I'd agree it's not conservative. Would you like to toss it from the list? Please feel free to do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:26, 7 January 2010 (EST)

:Done. [[User:JRobbe|JRobbe]]

== Long Black Train by Josh Turner? ==

To me, this song seems like a good candidate for this list. --[[User:Dfrischknecht|Dfrischknecht]] 07:14, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

== The Decision by Ricky Van Shelton ==

I think this is another good candidate for this list. It's a song about a teenage girl who gives in to peer pressure and gets pregnant and the consequences of that action. --[[User:Dfrischknecht|Dfrischknecht]] 09:02, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

== New Agey ==

I removed the new agey phrase of "the cycle of life, death and rebirth," for the "Lightning Crashes," by Live, but feel free to discuss here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:23, 22 September 2010 (EDT)

: That wasn't meant to seem "new agey" in the least, but I do understand what you're saying. The song presents a view of life as being cyclical, as the baby is being born an old woman dies, and "The confusion that was hers belongs now to the baby down the hall." I think the lyrics really speak to the significance of life (not just at childbirth), but as a whole. I don't think the song is necessarily about the old woman being reincarnated as the newborn child, but it definitely seems to speak of the circle of life.[[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 15:56, 22 September 2010 (EDT)

:: Perhaps a rewording would work then? How about replacing "the cycle of life, death and rebirth" with "the joy of childbirth in contrast with the end of life"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 22 September 2010 (EDT)

::: I agree that a rewording would work, thank you for working with me. Perhaps we could just say that the song celebrates the significance of life from birth until death, almost in an as one door closes another opens kind of way? [[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 20:00, 22 September 2010 (EDT)

== Song idea ==

"One Man, One Woman" sung by ABBA. Indirectly a tribute to traditional marriage and monogamy.--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 12:14, 12 January 2011 (EST)

: Sounds good by the title, so how about adding it where you think it would be appropriate in the list? Thanks for your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:17, 12 January 2011 (EST)

== Takin' Care of Business ==

This song by BTO is on the list for supporting "Hard work ethic", but its not. The refrain is jokingly ironic. "I love to work at nothing all day; and I've been taking care of business"

The body of the song describes a more easy going life just making music rather than waking up early, catching trains for work, etc.

I'm not saying it makes the song liberal, and not sure why its even necessary to classify songs along political lines, but it sure as heck ain't about working hard.
I'd suggest if someone wants to keep it here because its a good song, and if people can only enjoy it because it conforms to their political views, than change the reason to "Mike Huckabee performed the song" [comment by AndrewJackson]

:You left out how the song praises the self-employed, which is a very conservative, hard-working group of people.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:55, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

::Fair enough, but the praise you speak of is "If you ever get annoyed [with, based on earlier lyrics, either your traditional job or the unpleasant commute involved], look at me, I'm self-employed; I love to work at nothing all day." That could be taken as either "I made so much money as an entepreneur that I no longer need to work" or "My official job title is 'Bum'." Neither one of them really expresses admiration for "hard work" in its own right, though the former is certainly a more positive role model than the latter. I do ''like'' the song, but I'm not entirely sanguine about considering it "conservative." [[User:Ptorquemada|Ptorquemada]] 17:36, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

== Adonai My Lord ==

I'm going to delete this song from the list, as it is from the atheistic industrial metal genre. The lyrics reflect a sort of militant Christianity that does not reflect well on the religion as a whole. For example, this group has a song called "Christf---"...obviously they are not conservative. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 01:14, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

==No U2?==

Surely -- despite the band's liberal leanings -- one of U2's unashamedly Christian songs should make it in. Gloria seems the obvious choice. The chorus, you may remember, goes: "Gloria, in te domine/ Gloria, exultate/ Gloria, Gloria/ Oh Lord, loosen my lips." --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 12:34, 28 March 2011 (EDT)
:Agreed. Gloria is definitely a good choice. Perhaps "40"; its lyrics are directly lifted from Psalm 40. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 12:43, 28 March 2011 (EDT)
::You're kidding right? [http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/us-election/u2-honoured-to-be-involved-with-obama-celebrations-14145757.html Conservative indeed..] [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:06, 28 March 2011 (EDT)
:::Bono has had a relationship with every President since Clinton; for instance, he worked with Bush on issues relating to Africa and AIDS awareness. The band is very Christian and in no way ashamed of their Christianity. And, rare for rock stars, three of the four members of the band are married family men. They are known for their charitableness and philanthropy, which are of course [[conservative]] traits. Without a doubt, U2 is a conservative, Christian band and they should have representation on this list. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:21, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

::::''Gloria'''s a good choice, please add it if you agree. But U2 became increasingly liberal the more media attention it obtained.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:07, 29 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::Maybe it's possible to be Christian and pro-family, and yet left-leaning politically. Anyway, I vote for "Beautiful Day" ... The heart is a bloom / Shoots up through the stony ground / But there's no room / No space to rent in this town

:::::Reminds me of how inhospitable this fallen world can be to the spirits of believers trying to lead a godly life in the midst of a secular world which often seems to be ruled by the devil (John 12:31). Yet God's love is there, like sunshine! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:53, 29 March 2011 (EDT)

== Brothers in Arms - Dure Straits ==

I would like to suggest Brothers in Arms by Dire Straits. It's about war and having ones "brother's in arms" in support. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:32, 4 April 2011 (EDT)
:If there is no argument to it's inclusion I'll add it soon. Let me know your thoughts though...[[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:42, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

== YMCA? ==

I'd always heard that the Village People's YMCA was about [[homosexual]] men seducing other men? That doesn't sound very [[conservative]] to me. Is this just a rumor? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 12:45, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
:This was obviously added as a joke, and no one else seems to have realized it! [[User:TriciaS|TriciaS]] 12:25, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

::Nope - the song is a legitimate tribute to the Young Men's Christian Association.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:19, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Right. And Antony came to bury Caesar, not to praise him. "It's fun to stay at the Y-M-C-A. / They have everything that you need to enjoy, / You can hang out with all the boys..." [[User:TriciaS|TriciaS]] 13:32, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
::::It was probably written about more savory activities at the Y but later became identified as a gay anthem. I don't think it's a "conservative song" if it's overwhelmingly associated with homosexuality. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:43, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::The song is a good faith tribute and attempts to redefine it are not factual.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:10, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Does anyone have any solid sources one way or the other as to what this song means? I tried some brief googling, but didn't turn up anything at all trustworthy. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 22:35, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::: The band leader said it was a legitimate tribute to the Young Men's Christian Association, and we respect original meaning at ''Conservapedia''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:40, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Awesome. Do you have a source for that I can add?--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 21:28, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

== Really? Have You Looked Into These Songs? ==

I'd just like to say that I think it's really jacked that you're going around and trying to SAY what these songs mean. For example, Metallica is NOT a conservative band. James Hetfield was a heavy drinker until he went to rehab, Kirk Hammett suffered from drug addiction during his teen years, and if you listen to any other song you hear that they are NOT a conservative band.

Furthermore, Journey is NOT a conservative band. Steve Perry openly voted for Obama in 2008. --[[User:Beanna|Beanna]] 20:04, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

: This isn't a list of conservative bands. It's a list of conservative ''songs''. Even liberals are capable of occasionally singing a conservative song.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

== An idea... ==

I was looking at this list and realised that most of the songs listed here are big hit numbers. I was thinking that it might be interesting to look at whether the more conservative a song is the better it does on the charts. Even though the artist might be liberal it seems there bigger hits are in fact conservative songs! Maybe by charting something like this we could prove that people respond better to the conservative message and perhaps change the minds of some liberal singers. Just an idea. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:31, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
:We could add the respective chart ranking to this page and then collate the results by rank and date. Perhaps, like the conservative words, we might even see the same pattern repeated here! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:48, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

::Great idea!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
:::It'll be a big project though so it'll be awhile for me to collate the results but I fear that we'll find that the majority of new hits are liberal in nature (particulalry coming from M&M and Usher etc) but I think that is because of the "hollywood" influence. Interestingly artists distanced from "fame" have better messages and ''still'' produce amazing hits. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:11, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

== From a youngin' ==

Citizen/Soldier by 3 Doors Down. I don't know about the band themselves, but any song that supports the National Guard should be listed here, in my honest option. If no one minds, I'll add it.

== Wish you were here ==

This is a good list of songs, but as far as I know, ''Wish you were here'' (the title track, along with the entire eponymous album) was not dedicated to a conservative president, but rather to ex-Pink Floyd member Syd Barrett. --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 19:19, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

: I agree that this needs a citation, given that it is so contrary to the conventional story. I've looked for one, but every indication points to it being inspired by Syd Barrett, not a conservative leader (indeed; one would think, Pink Floyd being made up of Englishmen, that it would be a conservative PM, not President.). --[[User:Monty]]

== Two song suggestions ==

Hallowed Be Thy Name - Iron Maiden

1) Like Welcome to the Family, it's about death row, but not anti-death penalty.

2) Multiple references to an afterlife. "Tears they flow but why am I crying?/After all I am not afraid of dying/Don't I believe that there never is an end?" and later in the song: Mark my words believe my soul lives on/Don't worry now that I have gone/I've gone beyond to seek the truth".

3) The very title of the song is derived from the Lord's Prayer, which is also implied to be the protagonist (in the song)'s final words.

Declaration Day - Iced Earth

The whole thing is about the American war for independence, so it's probably a good choice for the list.

I'll add them for the time being, but if most of you think they don't go, I'll take them down.

: Thanks for suggesting them, but I don't see much that is conservative in your first suggestion other than acceptance of an afterlife (or judgment). That's an important message, but some of the religious references seem to be simply an attempt to give the song gravitas. Perhaps others have some insights about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:54, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

::Perhaps it's time to branch out and create a category or essay on "Songs of interest to conservatives" or [[Songs that Conservatives like]].

::I like a lot of songs, even if I would be hard pressed to say why they are "conservative songs". Not every song or book or movie I like is [[Conservative]], and I think it's important to be broad-minded enough not to condemn everything that isn't 100% in line with my beliefs and values.

::In fact, I go even further and say that one of the main differences between liberals and conservatives is that liberals are supremely narrow-minded. All the talk about "tolerance" is a one way street with them. They want us to tolerate their radical notions, but they are ready at the drop of a hat to kick us out of their cushy little world any time we offer a different idea.

::You would never hear of a Bible-belt Christian walking up to a famous liberal author and kicking his wine glass over at a picnic, saying, "We don't allow liberals here." (see [[Glen Beck in NYC]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:35, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

== I don't think Lola qualifies ==

IIRC, it ends with a complete lack of repentance -- "I'm glad I'm a man, and so is Lola". I don't think that this song qualifies as conservative if it celebrates that which we abhor.

:Our sister project, Wikipedia, says the song "details a romantic encounter between a young man and a transvestite" (hardly a conservative theme). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:09, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

== Overhaul the "Greatest Conservative Songs" ==

I think this is something that needs to happen before this Essay begins to get out of control. GCSs Essay needs to reorganized into some sort of categorical order—be it alphabetical or otherwise—in order to clean up the Essay and to provide clarity to avoid double posting. I will be happy to categorize it alphabetically by either the artist or song. -- [[User:Austenbosten|Austenbosten]] 13:00, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:I've just rewritten most of the page. Everything is nearly exactly the same, except for a small amount of rephrasing to keep things grammatically correct. I've added peak chart position for every song, but in the interest of making that data comparable, I've limited it to US chart positions. There are some songs (like Brothers In Arms) which charted well in other countries, but didn't chart at all in the US. I eliminated two duplicate entries - Ballad of the Green Berets, and God's Gonna Cut You Down. Enjoy. [[user:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]
::Good work CGoodwin. Maybe we can have the same revision for [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies]]. [[User:KBarnett|KBarnett]] 15:47, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

:::CGoodwin, your tabular format and ranking information is interesting. Well done. But surely ''Amazing Grace'' has been more popular than just about every other song on the list. How should the table reflect that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:05, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Billboard popularity only measures against how everything else is selling at the same time. If an song sold 100 copies a week for 20 years, it would never crack the charts. The other thing is that there are over 3000 recorded versions of the song. The highest charting individual version I've found is Elvis's, which reached #79. If you want to reflect a broader historical sense of popularity, I'd suggest doing a personal ranking. [[user:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

:::::Great Job CGoodwin! Very clean and will definatly help those looking to post songs to check to see if they are or are not already posted. -- [[User:Austenbosten|Austenbosten]] 16:32, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== Particle man? Really? ==

I think someone must be sabotaging this page. I fail to see how "Particle man" qualifies as an allegory, rather than fun wordplay around a tune not entirely unlike the Spiderman theme song.

:I have to agree on this one, I looked up what people think is the meaning, and seems its more likely an atheist song then a conservative one. [[User:KenN|KenN]]

== No Johnny Cash? ==

Have there really been no suggestions for Johnny Cash songs here? So many of his works discuss the importance of faith, of accepting Jesus, or praise the values of small town country life over the extravagant lifestyles many liberals seem to push for.--[[User:MorrisF|MorrisF]] 12:54, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
::I put in a traditional song and gave the Johnny Cash version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IStlBOX9F4o [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I think Man in Black should make the list as well.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 20:43, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
::::You could make a good argument for a good percentage of his work. I added Country Trash, mostly because it's a fun favorite of mine, and I'm sure a bunch more of his would fit too.--[[User:MorrisF|MorrisF]] 00:40, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

==YMCA==
"YMCA", "In the Navy", "San Francisco", and "Macho Man" are NOT conservative songs. They're celebrations of the gay lifestyle. They never did any conservative songs. Have you actually listened to the words
:This point has already been discussed above. Also, please sign your posts. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 21:12, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
::Sorry, this is my first post here. Seem to have omitted a heading as well. [[User:Nealstar|Nealstar]] 19:22, 19 August 2011 (MST)

== Tenacious D ==

I would like to put Tribute by Tenacious D forward. I know it's a comedy single, but it's also a very popular song about overcoming Satan and alludes to many other Christian themes such as heaven and hell.[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 14:00, 28 August 2011 (BST)

== Deep sixed YMCA by Village People, keep it buried ==

These are not conservative lyrics in the song YMCA: "You can get yourself clean, you can have a good meal, '''You can do whatever you feel'''" [http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/y-m-c-a-lyrics-village-people/33e3d31bddce747748256df20009b2a5] This is not a conservative video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9OO0S5w2k

I think a lot of the songs listed should be scrapped. This was the most egregious case. For example, how conservative are songs written by long haired guy rockers or homosexual rockers? Shouldn't the authors of the songs have any bearing? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:19, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
:I withhold judgment on how conservative the song is. As Andy said, further up this page '''"This isn't a list of conservative bands. It's a list of conservative songs. Even liberals are capable of occasionally singing a conservative song."''' [[user:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]
::Andy did not realize the song had the verse: '''"You can do whatever you feel"''' [http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/y-m-c-a-lyrics-village-people/33e3d31bddce747748256df20009b2a5] Definitely not conservative. And please tell me why you think this video is conservative: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9OO0S5w2k Again, not conservative. Staying buried - no resurrection here folks, move on. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:16, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
:::So, a young man getting in touch with his emotions, crying because he's down in the world, and being hugged by another sympathetic boy is wrong? Duly noted. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 22:17, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
::::Why don't we wait until Andy has commented as he wanted to keep it in and we should defer to him. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:21, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::Does this mean we should go back and analyze ever music video too? In "Alive" by POD, the person is violating the law by not wearing a seatbealt.
:::::And for a song suggestion, "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsWr6mHRqgI Hands Held High]" by Linkin Park. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 22:44, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Victor Willis, the ''heterosexual'' ex-lead singer of the Village People and writer of "Y.M.C.A." actually did intend the song to be a legitimate tribute to the Young Men's Christian Association, according to an interview from [http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Entertainment/20070802/village_people_070802/ this article]. He "never intended the homosexual innuendo that many fans read into the song," and really the only thing gay about the video posted by User:Conservative is the fact that some of the people in it actually are gay. Did you know that Victor Willis left the band because he was frustrated with the flamboyancy of some of his gay band-mates and with the band's gay image? --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 19:01, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Your comment is misleading and (perhaps deliberately) ignores the writer's well-known liking for double entendre; the reference in the group's name ("Village People") the gay lifestyle of [[Greenwich Village]], and that (as even Wikipedia concedes) the group was "Originally created to target disco's gay audience". [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_People]

:::::::I think you need to find another project to join. You're not helping us provide trustworthy information. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:07, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

== ''This Land Is Your Land'' (Woody Guthrie) ==

The removal makes sense. The song seems to be an ode against private property.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:19, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

:It's hard to say. Guthrie took the side of the laboring man against the (perceived) indifference of the wealthy, at a time when unions had only recently appeared on the scene to provide [[collective bargaining]] power and relieve the masses from exploitation on the heels of the Industrial Revolution. But the line, "This land was made for you and me" could refer either to the [[abolition of private property]] (as advocated by [[Karl Marx]] and the [[Communists]]), or to God's bountiful blessing upon the settlers of the [[New World]].

:Like all great art, this song contains some ambiguity and requires the listener's interpretation. Like "Consider Yourself" (from [[Oliver!]]), there's a mixture of idealistic brotherhood with hint of the sort of knavery we associate with [[Robin Hood]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:58, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

== "Jerusalem"

: I don't think that Jerusalem is a conservative song. We were taught at school that it was a call to arms against industrialisation and hence is it is also anti-capitalist, also I don't think that any song Billy Bragg has recorded can be called conservative.--14:20, 20 September 2011 (EDT)[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]]

Westminster Abbey

2011-09-08T18:06:14Z

Jloveday:

'''The Collegiate Church of St Peter, Westminster''', commonly referred to as "Westminster Abbey", is a [[church]] in [[London]], [[England]]. It has been used as a [[coronation]] church since [[King Harold]] and [[William the Conqueror]] were both crowned there in 1066. All subsequent English and British [[monarch]]s have been crowned in the church, with the exception of [[Henry III]], and [[Louis-VIII|Louis-I]], [[Edward V]], and [[Edward VIII]] who were never crowned. The coronation ceremony is normally carried out by the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]], the primate of England, and at the moment of coronation the monarch is seated on a throne called [[King Edward's Chair]], named for [[Edward the Confessor]]. Between 1296 and 1996, the throne contained the [[Stone of Scone]] upon which kings of [[Scotland]] were traditionally crowned. The Stone was returned to Scotland and transported to [[Edinburgh Castle]]. It will be temporarily restored to the throne for future coronations.

[[Category:United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Tourist Attractions]]

Westminster Abbey

2011-09-08T18:04:04Z

Jloveday: fixed various inaccuracies--~~~~

'''The Collegiate Church of St Peter, Westminster''', commonly referred to as "Westminster Abbey", is a [[church]] in [[London]], [[England]]. It has been used as a [[coronation]] church since [[King Harold]] and [[William the Conqueror]] were both crowned there in 1066. All subsequent English and British [[monarch]]s have been crowned in the church, with the exception of [[Henry III]], and [[Louis-I|Louis-VIII]], [[Edward V]], and [[Edward VIII]] who were never crowned. The coronation ceremony is normally carried out by the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]], the primate of England, and at the moment of coronation the monarch is seated on a throne called [[King Edward's Chair]], named for [[Edward the Confessor]]. Between 1296 and 1996, the throne contained the [[Stone of Scone]] upon which kings of [[Scotland]] were traditionally crowned. The Stone was returned to Scotland and transported to [[Edinburgh Castle]]. It will be temporarily restored to the throne for future coronations.

[[Category:United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Tourist Attractions]]

Westminster Abbey

2011-09-08T17:52:28Z

Jloveday: removed reference to Saint Edward being England's only canonized king. Charles I is also canonized--~~~~

'''The Collegiate Church of St Peter, Westminster''', commonly referred to as "Westminster Abbey", is a [[church]] in [[London]], [[England]]. It has been used as a [[coronation]] church since [[King Harold]] and [[William the Conqueror]] were both crowned there in 1066. All subsequent English and British [[monarch]]s have been crowned in the church, excluding [[Lady Jane Grey]], [[Edward V]], [[Edward VIII]] and [[Henry III]]. The coronation ceremony is carried out by the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]], and at the moment of coronation the monarch is seated on a throne called [[King Edward's Chair]], named for [[Edward the Confessor]]. Between 1296 and 1996, the throne contained the [[Stone of Scone]] upon which kings of [[Scotland]] were traditionally crowned. This was returned to Scotland and transported to [[Edinburgh Castle]]. It will be temporarily restored to the throne for future coronations.

[[Category:United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Tourist Attractions]]

Template talk:Nb english monarchs

2011-09-08T17:45:48Z

Jloveday: /* Talk */

==Talk==
Shouldn't it be <nowiki>{{nowrap|[[William III]] and [[Mary II]] •}}</nowiki>, since they reigned together? And would it be possible to include a link to the later UK monarchs? --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 12:54, 12 January 2010 (EST)

Oliver and Richard Cromwell should be listed separately. They were not monarchs but Lord Protectors
--[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 13:45, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

== William I ==

the link in this template for William I goes to a disambiguation page. It should be directed to the [[William the Conqueror]] page. [[User:BenDylan|BenDylan]] 20:07, 15 April 2011 (EDT)

Egbert

2011-09-08T17:27:39Z

Jloveday:

'''Egbert''' was the King of [[Wessex]] from 802-839, and in 829 defeated King [[Wiglaf]] of [[Mercia]] and became [[Bretwalda]] of the other English kingdoms of the [[Heptarchy]]. He is therefore widely considered one of the first Kings of a unified England. The Current Queen of the United Kingdom , [[Queen Elizabeth II]] is a direct descendent of King Egbert.

{{Nb english monarchs}}

Egbert

2011-09-08T17:26:09Z

Jloveday: Removed comment about all subsequent english and british Monarchs being descended from Egbert. It is not true. William-I and II and Henry -I weren't and neither were Cnut (Canute) or Swein Forkbeard

'''Egbert''' was the King of [[Wessex]] from 802-839, and in 829 defeated King [[Wiglaf]] of [[Mercia]] and became [[Bretwalda]] of the other English kingdoms of the [[Heptarchy]]. He is therefore widely considered one of the first Kings of a unified England. The Current Queen of the United Kingdom , [[Queen Elisabeth II]] is a direct descendent of King Egbert.

{{Nb english monarchs}}

Viking

2011-09-06T17:59:39Z

Jloveday: /* Raids */ Fixed mixed quotation from A-S chronicle and corrected statement that the Holy Island raid in 793 was the first viking raid. It wasn't (see talk page) ~~~~

{{Middle Ages}}
[[File:Vikings.jpg|thumb|280px]]
'''Viking''' is the name used for the warrior/trader people of [[Scandinavia]] ([[Norway]], [[Sweden]], and [[Denmark]]) from about A.D. 750 to 1050.
==Raids==
In their own culture, the word "viking" referred only to their pillaging raids on other people, usually carried out by sea in distinctive boats that were advanced for their time. These raids were famously devastating, and had a major impact on the history of Britain and France. The spread of Christianity through the British Isles had led to the building of many large and wealthy [[Monastery|monasteries]] which were attractive and easy targets for Viking raids. The contemporary [[Anglo-Saxon Chronicle]] describes an early Viking raid on the coast of Britain, at the monastery at [[Lindisfarne Abbey]] in A.D. 793.

"on the sixth day before the ides of January in the same year, the harrowing inroads of heathen men made lamentable havoc in the church of God in Holy-island, by rapine and slaughter."

==Exploration==
Along with their destructive habits, Vikings were also well-known traders, explorers and settlers. They settled the islands of [[Iceland]] (870), [[Greenland]] (985) and briefly [[Newfoundland]] (around 1000), establishing a colony called [[Vinland]] nearly five centuries before [[Christopher Columbus|Columbus]]. They founded the city of [[Dublin]], Ireland, as a trading center. Vikings also expanded toward the East. They were involved in the founding of [[Russia]], and were important in the history of the Eastern Roman Empire at [[Constantinople]].

At home, Vikings were industrious farmers and fishermen. They had a distinctive culture that valued honor, hospitality, and generosity.
==Religion==
Vikings had a polytheistic society. They had many gods, such as [[Tyr]], [[Odin]], [[Thor]], and [[Freya]]. Stories about these gods are now called Norse Myths. Many Vikings violently opposed Christianity, but for the most part eventually succumbed to it through persuasion, example and use of force<ref>http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/420178/Norway/39303/Christianization</ref>.

Vikings who are still famous in our time are [[Eric the Red]], discoverer of Greenland, and his son [[Leif Ericson]], the first known European to land in North America.

==Further reading==
* Brøndsted, Johannes. ''The Vikings'' (1965) [http://www.questia.com/read/24547835?title=The%20Vikings online edition]
* Haywood, John. ''The Penguin Historical Atlas of the Vikings'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Penguin-Historical-Atlas-Vikings-Hist/dp/0140513280/ref=pd_sim_dbs_b_2 excerpt and text search]
* Jones, Gwyn. ''A History of the Vikings'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Vikings-Gwyn-Jones/dp/0192801341/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240117986&sr=8-7 excerpt and text search]
* Roesdahl, Else. ''The Vikings'' (2nd ed. 1999) [http://www.amazon.com/Vikings-Revised-Else-Roesdahl/dp/0140252827/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240117986&sr=8-12 excerpt and text search]
* Sawyer, Peter. ''The Oxford Illustrated History of the Vikings'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Illustrated-History-Vikings-Histories/dp/0192854348/ref=pd_sim_b_2 excerpt and text search]
== References ==
<references/>

== See also ==
* [[Normans]]
* [[Norway]]
* [[Odin]]

==Sources==
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/vikings/ BBC education]
*[http://www.mnh.si.edu/vikings/start.html MNH education]
*[http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/ Viking Answer Lady]
*[http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/657 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle] at [[Project Gutenberg]]

[[Category:Medieval History]]

Talk:Viking

2011-08-22T13:37:33Z

Jloveday:

'''Date and place of first raid on England'''

The page as it currently stands quotes the anglo saxon chronicle entry for the raid on Portland in 787 or 789 as refering to the Holy Island (Lindesfarne) raid of 793.

"...there came for the first time three ships; and then the reeve rode there and wanted to compel [the Vikings] to go to the king's town, because he did not know what they were; and they killed him. Those were the first ships of the Danish men which sought out the land of the English race."

Any objections to changing the entry?

[[User:Jloveday|jloveday]]

WRT the claim about days of the week: Sunday = Sun Day (Sunna), Monday = Moon Day (Mani), Tuesday = Tiw's Day (Germanic form of Tyr), Wednesday = Woden's Day (Anglo-Saxon form of Odin), Thursday = Thor's Day, Friday = Frigga's Day or Freya's Day, probably the former. Only Saturday = Saturn's Day is a Roman reference. Interesting side note: in most pagan mythologies, the sun is male and the moon is female, but in Norse mythology, it's the other way around. --[[User:Abell|Abell]] 13:25, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't know that that's right. See Online Etymology Dictionary which indicates that Sunday and Monday are loan translations for "day of the sun" and "day of the moon", and doesn't mention the names of the "gods" you mention.

[[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=Sunday&searchmode=none Sunday]]

[[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=Monday&searchmode=none Monday]]

: You will find [http://www.crowl.org/Lawrence/time/days.html] [http://encarta.msn.com/media_701500637_761573003_-1_1/Days_of_the_Week.html] to be a good refrence for reading.
: Monday - Moon Day
: Tuesday - Tyr's Day. Tyr = Norse god of war. In French (from Latin) it is mardi - Mars Day. Mars = Roman god of war
: Wensday - Odin's Day. Odin = Norse god of the traveler. In Frech, it is mercredi - Mercury's Day. Mercury = Roman god of travel.
: Thursday - Thor's Day. Thor = Norse god of lightning. In French it is jeudi - Jupiter's Day. Jupiter = Roman god of lightning
: Friday - Frigga or Freya's day. Frigg and Freya were both ferility goddesses. In french it is vendredi - Venus's Day. Venus = Roman god of fertility
: --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:26, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::Abell has asserted that Sunday and Monday are named for Sunna and Mani, but neither the Concise Oxford English Dictionary on my shelf nor the Online Etymology Dictionary bear out this assertion. I'd propose that someone confirm the etymology of the two days' names with the full OED and we accept that as the final source on the matter. In any event, the Anglo-Saxons were not Vikings....they were a Germanic culture made up largely of conquered Celts, so why is the sentence on the days of the week being named after Anglo-Saxon gods at all relevant to the Viking entry? I'm going to delete the sentence, but it might be added into an article about Scandivaian/Teutonic mythology, as trivia, or an article on the Anglo-Saxons. : --[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 20:59, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

==Source on Landings contradicts Statement==

The source used to contest the idea of vikings landing in North America explicitly mentions that they did:

:"Everybody does, however, agree the Vikings made it to North America 500 years before Christopher Columbus in 1492. And few question the fur-clad Ericson and his crew of explorers dropped anchor from their open plank boats off the beach near what is now L’Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland, Canada, the site that would become the only authenticated Viking settlement in North America."

The article was about vikings not having landed in what is now New England. Unless the L’Anse aux Meadows findings can be proven wrong, the contention in this article that they never landed in North America needs to be removed as misleading. -[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:59, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

With respect to Toffeeman, I think the article ought to reflect the vast majority of scholarly opinion. There's a great deal of historical and archaeological evidence that the Vikings settled for a few decades in Newfoundland. Whether they penetrated any further in North America is more controversial. I've simply reverted Toffeeman's reversion but if others wish to improve on my text, please do. But let's all please stick to the facts, not label well-established conclusions from decades of scholarship as 'liberal myths'. [[User:Googly|Googly]] 16:57, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Viking

2011-08-22T13:25:07Z

Jloveday:

'''Date at place of first raid on England'''

The page as it currently stands quotes the anglo saxon chronicle entry for the raid on Portland in 787 or 789 as refering to the Holy Island (Lindesfarne) raid of 793.

"...there came for the first time three ships; and then the reeve rode there and wanted to compel [the Vikings] to go to the king's town, because he did not know what they were; and they killed him. Those were the first ships of the Danish men which sought out the land of the English race."

Any objections to changing the entry?

[[User:Jloveday|jloveday]]

WRT the claim about days of the week: Sunday = Sun Day (Sunna), Monday = Moon Day (Mani), Tuesday = Tiw's Day (Germanic form of Tyr), Wednesday = Woden's Day (Anglo-Saxon form of Odin), Thursday = Thor's Day, Friday = Frigga's Day or Freya's Day, probably the former. Only Saturday = Saturn's Day is a Roman reference. Interesting side note: in most pagan mythologies, the sun is male and the moon is female, but in Norse mythology, it's the other way around. --[[User:Abell|Abell]] 13:25, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't know that that's right. See Online Etymology Dictionary which indicates that Sunday and Monday are loan translations for "day of the sun" and "day of the moon", and doesn't mention the names of the "gods" you mention.

[[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=Sunday&searchmode=none Sunday]]

[[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=Monday&searchmode=none Monday]]

: You will find [http://www.crowl.org/Lawrence/time/days.html] [http://encarta.msn.com/media_701500637_761573003_-1_1/Days_of_the_Week.html] to be a good refrence for reading.
: Monday - Moon Day
: Tuesday - Tyr's Day. Tyr = Norse god of war. In French (from Latin) it is mardi - Mars Day. Mars = Roman god of war
: Wensday - Odin's Day. Odin = Norse god of the traveler. In Frech, it is mercredi - Mercury's Day. Mercury = Roman god of travel.
: Thursday - Thor's Day. Thor = Norse god of lightning. In French it is jeudi - Jupiter's Day. Jupiter = Roman god of lightning
: Friday - Frigga or Freya's day. Frigg and Freya were both ferility goddesses. In french it is vendredi - Venus's Day. Venus = Roman god of fertility
: --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:26, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::Abell has asserted that Sunday and Monday are named for Sunna and Mani, but neither the Concise Oxford English Dictionary on my shelf nor the Online Etymology Dictionary bear out this assertion. I'd propose that someone confirm the etymology of the two days' names with the full OED and we accept that as the final source on the matter. In any event, the Anglo-Saxons were not Vikings....they were a Germanic culture made up largely of conquered Celts, so why is the sentence on the days of the week being named after Anglo-Saxon gods at all relevant to the Viking entry? I'm going to delete the sentence, but it might be added into an article about Scandivaian/Teutonic mythology, as trivia, or an article on the Anglo-Saxons. : --[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 20:59, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

==Source on Landings contradicts Statement==

The source used to contest the idea of vikings landing in North America explicitly mentions that they did:

:"Everybody does, however, agree the Vikings made it to North America 500 years before Christopher Columbus in 1492. And few question the fur-clad Ericson and his crew of explorers dropped anchor from their open plank boats off the beach near what is now L’Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland, Canada, the site that would become the only authenticated Viking settlement in North America."

The article was about vikings not having landed in what is now New England. Unless the L’Anse aux Meadows findings can be proven wrong, the contention in this article that they never landed in North America needs to be removed as misleading. -[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:59, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

With respect to Toffeeman, I think the article ought to reflect the vast majority of scholarly opinion. There's a great deal of historical and archaeological evidence that the Vikings settled for a few decades in Newfoundland. Whether they penetrated any further in North America is more controversial. I've simply reverted Toffeeman's reversion but if others wish to improve on my text, please do. But let's all please stick to the facts, not label well-established conclusions from decades of scholarship as 'liberal myths'. [[User:Googly|Googly]] 16:57, 5 August 2008 (EDT)