Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2010-04-09T04:20:00Z

Yill: /* Reversion explained */

'''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.'''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Counterexample 4 (limiting behavior) ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== lack of a single useful device ==

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

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

GPS seems to be a useful device!

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

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

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

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

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

::Accelerators have applications beyond basic research!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== GPS revisited ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Several Clarification/Corrections ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:REPLY BELOW:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Curvature of Space ==

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

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

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

== Reversion explained ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2010-04-06T18:57:18Z

Yill: /* Reversion explained */

'''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.'''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Counterexample 4 (limiting behavior) ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== lack of a single useful device ==

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

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

GPS seems to be a useful device!

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

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

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

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

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

::Accelerators have applications beyond basic research!

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

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

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

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

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

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

== GPS revisited ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Several Clarification/Corrections ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:REPLY BELOW:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Curvature of Space ==

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

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

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

== Reversion explained ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2010-04-06T03:25:29Z

Yill: /* Reversion explained */

'''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.'''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Counterexample 4 (limiting behavior) ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== lack of a single useful device ==

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

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

GPS seems to be a useful device!

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

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

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

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

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

::Accelerators have applications beyond basic research!

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

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

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

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

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

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

== GPS revisited ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Several Clarification/Corrections ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:REPLY BELOW:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Curvature of Space ==

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

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

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

== Reversion explained ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2010-04-06T02:56:10Z

Yill: /* Reversion explained */

'''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.'''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Counterexample 4 (limiting behavior) ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== lack of a single useful device ==

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

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

GPS seems to be a useful device!

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

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

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

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

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

::Accelerators have applications beyond basic research!

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

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

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

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

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

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

== GPS revisited ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Several Clarification/Corrections ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:REPLY BELOW:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Curvature of Space ==

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

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

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

== Reversion explained ==

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

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

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

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

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

:::The flatness problem refers to the fact that, in an ''inflation-free'' universe, the FRW metric with matter and radiation equation-of-state parameters predicts that any initial nonzero curvature will increase vastly in magnitude, leaving a highly curved universe at present. Inflation is proposed as a ''solution'' to the flatness problem; it is not the cause of it. The process of inflation drastically flattens any initial curvature in the universe so dramatically that even after the curvature increase undergone under normal evolution, the universe still appears nearly perfectly flat. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 22:55, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2010-04-06T02:55:17Z

Yill: /* Reversion explained */

'''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.'''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Counterexample 4 (limiting behavior) ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== lack of a single useful device ==

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

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

GPS seems to be a useful device!

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

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

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

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

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

::Accelerators have applications beyond basic research!

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

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

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

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

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

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

== GPS revisited ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Several Clarification/Corrections ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:REPLY BELOW:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Curvature of Space ==

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

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

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

== Reversion explained ==

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

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

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

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

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

:::The flatness problem refers to the fact that, in an ''inflation-free'' universe, the FRW metric with matter and radiation equation-of-state parameters predicts that any initial nonzero curvature will increase vastly in magnitude, leaving a highly curved universe at present. Inflation is proposed as a ''solution'' to the flatness problem; it is not the cause of it. The process of inflation drastically flattens any initial curvature in the universe so drastically that even after the curvature increase undergone under normal evolution, the universe still appears nearly perfectly flat. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 22:55, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

Counterexamples to Relativity

2010-04-06T00:50:28Z

Yill:

The [[theory of relativity]] is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.<ref>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 counterexamples, and if only one of these is true, then the theory fails:

#The [[Pioneer anomaly]].
#Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23410705/</ref>
#Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, which show a shift outside the margin of error predicted by relativity.<ref>See, e.g., the discussion at [[Talk:Essay:Quantifying_Order]].</ref>
#The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light. Note that this "discontinuity" exists for both the momentum formula in relativity and the momentum formula in classical physics.
#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>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 dominate.
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] of [[quantum entanglement]].<ref>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]].
#The failure to discover [[gravitons]], despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
#The inability of the theory to produce anything of value, contrary to every other theory of physics.
#The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.
#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>
#"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 violated 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>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 ... "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 a single useful device developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.

(add to list)

{{Relativity}}

== See also ==
* [[Counterexamples to Evolution]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:physics]]

Counterexamples to Relativity

2010-04-06T00:49:46Z

Yill:

The [[theory of relativity]] is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.<ref>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 counterexamples, and if only one of these is true, then the theory fails:

#The [[Pioneer anomaly]].
#Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23410705/</ref>
#Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, which show a shift outside the margin of error predicted by relativity.<ref>See, e.g., the discussion at [[Talk:Essay:Quantifying_Order]].</ref>
#The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light. Note that this "discontinuity" exists for both the momentum formula in relativity and the momentum formula in classical physics.
#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>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 dominate.
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] of [[quantum entanglement]].<ref>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]] .
#The failure to discover [[gravitons]], despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
#The inability of the theory to produce anything of value, contrary to every other theory of physics.
#The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.
#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>
#"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 violated 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>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 ... "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 a single useful device developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.

(add to list)

{{Relativity}}

== See also ==
* [[Counterexamples to Evolution]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:physics]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2010-04-06T00:48:25Z

Yill: /* Reversion explained */

'''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.'''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Counterexample 4 (limiting behavior) ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== lack of a single useful device ==

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

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

GPS seems to be a useful device!

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

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

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

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

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

::Accelerators have applications beyond basic research!

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

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

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

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

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

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

== GPS revisited ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Several Clarification/Corrections ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. #14 is again the problem of the incompatibility of general relativity and quantum field theory (namely that QFT is not background-invariant). This is not a problem with general relativity, other than in the sense that it is only an approximation (like, say, Maxwellian electrodynamics are just an approximation to quantum electrodynamics).

8. #15, aside from the obvious grammatical error (''violated'' instead of the correct ''violate''), is again not a counterexample to general relativity. General relativity predicts wormholes ''only'' on the assumption that so-called "exotic matter" exists. This is matter that has net negative mass/energy, and so is predicted not to exist for precisely the reasons listed here (time travel and the like). But this is not a counterexample to general relativity itself, merely the observation that a mathematically possible solution does not have a physical manifestation.

9. #16 is again a quantum gravity issue. It is wrong to call black holes "highly ordered (and thus low entropy)", though. The fact is that science does not yet know how to count black hole microstates, so we don't know whether they are highly ordered or extremely disordered. But the best explanation seems to be that general relativity and the Second Law together suggest that black holes should have extremely ''high'' entropy, not low entropy. But again, this is not a counterexample to general relativity per se, since it makes no predictions about what black hole entropy should be.

10. #18 appears to be a restatement of #11, and is thus both redundant, and not a counterexample for the reasons listed discussion #11.

I apologize for the length of this list of edits, but something really must be done to improve the quality of this article. I hope that someone with the appropriate access sees fit to make the necessary changes soon.
[[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:12, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:REPLY BELOW:

::1. It is unclear what #6 is referring to by "overall space". Is this a reference to the flatness problem in cosmology? If so, that should be made explicit, and the most commonly accepted solution (inflation) should be mentioned for completeness. If not, the curvature of space locally is clearly demonstrated by the observed phenomenon of gravitational lensing.

::: I'll clarify the obvious. It's still a counterexample. Science is not done by consensus, and inflation does not explain the overall flatness of space if relativity were true.

::::You needn't be so condescending. I wasn't saying that it isn't a problem with general relativity, I was just saying that since this is an encyclopedia, relevant information should be included. Since a proposed solution exists, it should be mentioned, and perhaps debunked if it is flawed. So you could mention inflation, and then say why it fails to solve the flatness problem. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::The theory of inflation does nothing "to solve the flatness problem" with respect its role as a counterexample to relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::Could you clarify this point? Perhaps you could state exactly what you believe the flatness problem is and how it is a counterexample to GR, just to be sure we aren't talking past each other, as I fear we may have been so far. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:55, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::2. 7: is just a feature of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum field theory. In this sense, general relativity is of course wrong (just as Newtonian mechanics is, for example), because it doesn't apply accurately below distance scales where quantum effects emerge.

:::So at what distances do you declare general relativity to be false? Is there a discontinuity at that distance? Such an approach is absurd.

::::I mean, technically it is false at ''all'' length scales, just like any classical (non-quantum) theory (Newtonian mechanics, Maxwellian electromagnetism, classical statistical mechanics, etc.). But there exists a range of length scales at which it is extremely accurate, and those are the only ones to which it makes claims having any epistemological value. There is no discontinuity, it just gets progressively worse as quantum effects become more and more apparent, which occurs at smaller and smaller length scales. Quantum effects definitely need to be taken into account around the level of a nanometer or so in most systems of interest, so I would say this is about the regime where GR needs to stop being used. But of course, it depends on the system in question. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Not "technically it is false," but "it is false." So teach it that way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::See KrisJ's discussion below. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::3. 8 is not a problem because quantum nonlocality doesn't allow for information transfer. Hence special relativity is not violated.

:::Your statement is a non sequitur, and may not be true. Special relativity does deny non-locality.

::::It's not a non sequitur; the problem as I thought it was stated on the page is that special relativity does not allow information transfer faster than the speed of light. Since quantum entanglement cannot actually transfer information, this does not violate that provision of special relativity. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Special relativity does not define "information" nor was it developed in that context.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::It is true that SR does not define information, but it does define causality (only events within each other's lightcones can be causally connected). Physical transfer of information (as defined by Shannon, and encoded in physical systems in Minkowski spacetime) between points in spacetime can only occur if those points are causally connected. (This SR fact is what the horizon problem, which is cited as another GR counterexample, relies on.) [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

:::Will respond to your other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

::::I appreciate your attention to my concerns, and I hope I have adequately outlined them. Also, I hope I would not be asking too much to request formatting consistency (like adding periods at the ends of nos. 7, 8, and 9). It would make it look more professional, like other articles I've seen on Conservapedia. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Yill, your grand total of contributions to this site has been 3 edits to this page, all easily refutable. Frankly, I don't think greater efforts at "formatting consistency" are justified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:01, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::Your not going to be able to attract many users if you disparage newcomers with respect to how few edits they've made. I would like to be a positive contributor to this site, but I have to start somewhere. I would appreciate encouragement and constructive criticism, not condescension and personal attacks. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Yill, good grammar requires "you're", not "your", in your statement above. All your edits have been 100% talk, in violation of our [[90/10 rule]], and honestly I see no insights in your talk. I suggest you try contributing substantively to [[Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)]]; it is on a much higher educational level and you'll benefit enormously from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: You're right, I had a typo there; I apologize for the error. And I am well aware of the 90/10 rule, but seeing as the page I'm working on is protected, I'm not actually able to make any edits. If it were unblocked or I were given the ability to edit it, I would be more than happy to stop posting on this talk page and instead edit the article itself. And frankly I don't particularly see how it's relevant whether you personally happen to see any insights in my talk; my understanding is that Conservapedia is shaped and edited by its users, with appropriate oversight from administrators to ensure accuracy and prevent the chaos of Wikipedia. If need be, I'll appeal to those administrators to get the article fixed, since none seem to have come forward to help. I would love it if you would be willing to work with me to improve this article, but as it stands you seem to have little interest in doing so, having made no further contributions to the substance of the discussion. If you change your mind, I would be happy to work with you on this endeavor.

::::::::As for your suggested article for me to work on, I don't really understand what you mean by it being on a "much higher educational level." However, as I have no expertise in Biblical Greek, I don't think I'd be able to make any meaningful contributions to the translation. I'll let the experts in that subject deal with that article. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:37, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

Yill, you raise excellent points, most of which have not been raised before. We should sharpen those points, here on this page, and then address them on the actual article page. This will take a fair amount of discussion. I could start by bringing up the discussion of point 7, inaccuracy of relativity at the quantum mechanical scale. One question that was raised was "Is there a discontinuity at that [microscopic boundary] distance? Such an approach is absurd.". No. The way quantum mechanics and classical theories interact at the (microscopic) scales where this happens is well known. It is, of course, generally known as the Bohr correspondence principle, described in any textbook on quantum mechanics, and known in more detail as Ehrenfest's theorem, described in more advanced textbooks. (Very briefly, the quantum mechanical realm eases into the classical realm according to the Ehrenfest theorem.) We should make some citations to those, and put in a careful explanation that, under QM, '''all''' classical theories are incorrect, and QM is the correct theory for everything, from atoms to planets. Classical theories are just extremely good approximations outside of the quantum-mechanical realm. And, of course, we do not know how that quantum-mechanical realm operated immediately after the big bang (that's what inflation theory is about), but that doesn't affect what we ''do'' know about general relativity in the macroscopic realm.

The item about point 10 is excellent. Gravitons arose ''after GR'', from attempts to unify the theories. They have nothing to do with the macroscopic aspects of GR, which is what GR is actually all about.

[[User:KrisJ|KrisJ]] 10:04, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

: Teach that relativity is incorrect, if you concede the point. There are relativists who claim their theory is the most precisely verified theory of all.

::Those relativists claim that with respect to the macroscopic realm, as KrisJ referred to above. We are discussing how it breaks down at the microscopic level, when QM starts to play a role. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

: Gravitons are based on GR, and they are non-existent. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:37, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::No, for gravitons to be a counterexample to GR, they must be predicted by it. But they are not, just as photons are not predicted by Maxwellian electrodynamics. They are the "quantum" of the gravitational field, as photons are for the electromagnetic field, and are quantum ''by definition''. GR is ''not'' a quantum theory; it manifestly does not predict them. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

:KrisJ, I appreciate your assistance with this project. I absolutely agree with your suggestions about 7 and 10, and hopefully we can find an editor with the ability to edit protected pages to help us implement them. If you know of any that could help us, you should ask if they would be willing. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

I guess I was wrong about not being able to edit this article. I'm going to delete #10, as per above, and make some formatting changes. I may also make some other clarifying edits. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:45, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

I also deleted the references to relativity being useful, since those have nothing to do with its epistemological validity. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:52, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

== Curvature of Space ==

Re [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&curid=97238&diff=766130&oldid=742826 this] edit: I don't disagree, but the example is a bad one. Based on local observations, one would assume that the Earth itself is flat, but it clearly isn't. My own point of view is that since the Universe can never be proved to be one thing or another, it is part of God's own ineffable being - it is almost folly to inquire further. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:24, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

: No, one would not assume the Earth is flat based on local observations, as a ship can be observed to "rise" over the horizon. I don't agree with the "nature is God" view either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:34, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
::Funny coincidence(?) that a defender of relativity invokes pantheism, since it was Einstein's (and Spinoza's) "god." [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:50, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

:I actually think the edit has merit, as long as the word "initial" is inserted before curvature, since the problem is that any initial curvature should be vastly amplified over time as the universe undergoes its usual expansion. And it is in fact the global curvature that is the issue here; ''any'' manifold we use to model the universe is by definition locally flat (since this is a fundamental property of manifolds). The ship and horizon observation is not a local observation, since it is fundamentally predicated on the global curvature of the Earth. "Local" means that it can be done at arbitrarily small distance scales, which that observation cannot. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:06, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Reversion was necessary for two reasons: first, to restore material that was improperly censored, and second, to revert an imprecise label put on one of the counterexamples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:53, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:I don't want to get into an edit war here, so I won't undo your reversion for now. But I fail to understand your reasoning, so perhaps you could clarify a bit instead of making the one sentence assertions that have made up your discourse so far. There is no censorship here, merely deletion of objectively incorrect statements. Perhaps you could actually bother to respond to my points above, rather than just reverting my edits without justification. In the meantime, I will replace the periods I added at the end of several of the counterexamples for formatting consistency; hopefully you don't consider ''that'' to be "censorship" as well. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 20:48, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

Counterexamples to Relativity

2010-04-05T21:54:03Z

Yill:

The [[theory of relativity]] is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.<ref>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 counterexamples, and if only one of these is true, then the theory fails:

#The [[Pioneer anomaly]].
#Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23410705/</ref>
#Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, which show a shift outside the margin of error predicted by relativity.<ref>See, e.g., the discussion at [[Talk:Essay:Quantifying_Order]].</ref>
#The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light. Note that this "discontinuity" exists for both the momentum formula in relativity and the momentum formula in classical physics.
#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, known as the "flatness problem".<ref>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 dominate.
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] of [[quantum entanglement]].<ref>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]].
#The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.
#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>
#"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 violated 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>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 ... "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.

(add to list)

{{Relativity}}

== See also ==
* [[Counterexamples to Evolution]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:physics]]

Counterexamples to Relativity

2010-04-05T21:53:33Z

Yill:

The [[theory of relativity]] is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.<ref>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 counterexamples, and if only one of these is true, then the theory fails:

#The [[Pioneer anomaly]].
#Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23410705/</ref>
#Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, which show a shift outside the margin of error predicted by relativity.<ref>See, e.g., the discussion at [[Talk:Essay:Quantifying_Order]].</ref>
#The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light. Note that this "discontinuity" exists for both the momentum formula in relativity and the momentum formula in classical physics.
#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, known as the "flatness problem".<ref>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 dominate.
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] of [[quantum entanglement]]<ref>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]].
#The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.
#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>
#"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 violated 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>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 ... "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.

(add to list)

{{Relativity}}

== See also ==
* [[Counterexamples to Evolution]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:physics]]

Counterexamples to Relativity

2010-04-05T21:52:57Z

Yill:

The [[theory of relativity]] is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.<ref>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 counterexamples, and if only one of these is true, then the theory fails:

#The [[Pioneer anomaly]].
#Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23410705/</ref>
#Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, which show a shift outside the margin of error predicted by relativity.<ref>See, e.g., the discussion at [[Talk:Essay:Quantifying_Order]].</ref>
#The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light. Note that this "discontinuity" exists for both the momentum formula in relativity and the momentum formula in classical physics.
#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>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 dominate
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] of [[quantum entanglement]]<ref>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]]
#The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.
#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>
#"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 violated 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>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 ... "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.

(add to list)

{{Relativity}}

== See also ==
* [[Counterexamples to Evolution]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:physics]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2010-04-05T21:52:22Z

Yill: /* Several Clarification/Corrections */

'''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.'''

Andy, can you clarify #4 for me? I'm not sure I understand it. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:50, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:Sure, I welcome discussion of these important points. As I've said, I have an open mind about this and if something is true, then I accept it. But if something is false, I'll criticize it.

:The theory of relativity has taught for decades that as the velocity of a mass increases, then its (scalar) relativistic mass increases per the Lorentzian transformation. Now apply a force ORTHOGONAL to the velocity. Does that force encounter the increased mass, as relativity says, or encounter the rest mass, as logic would dictate?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:02, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Ah, I see what you mean. May I suggest a re-wording? "The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass." I think that might be a little clearer than it is currently stated. Your thoughts? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:06, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::Please do. Your edits are always welcome, and you've suggested an improvement here. Thank you for making this change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:20, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Why would logic dictate that? Mass is a scalar, and a force from any direction should encounter the same increased mass, not different masses from different directions.

::I suppose that under Newtonian mechanics, a moving object has a velocity of 0 within the plane perpendicular to its line of motion, and any forces operating in that plane will act on the object as if it is at rest. But that's not what ''logic'' dictates, that's what the ''previous theory'' dictates.

::Essentially your counterexample to relativity is that it makes a prediction that contradicts Newton's laws. This is neithe r a contradiction nor a logical problem, and it is should be edited out.[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

:::No, it's a logical problem. If you're suggesting that one force can affect the inertial in an entirely independent, orthogonal direction, that's illogical. One thing cannot affect something else that is entirely independent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:40, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::: Why is that illogical? What logical principle does it violate?

:::: See, in relativity, orthogonal doesn't ''mean'' independent. In relativity, velocity vectors ''do not add.'' In relativity, the effect of a new force is not independent of the object's existing momentum. And there is nothing illogical about that; it's just a new theory that contradicts the intuition from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

::::: Ng, something cannot be independent (orthogonal) and yet dependent at the same time. Unfortunately, you're arguing with your own theory at this point. Even most relativity promoters have abandoned the position you take here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:37, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::::::It seems that his point is that something can be orthogonal and dependent. I agree: The cross-product of two vectors is orthogonal to both and yet obviously dependent on both. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 21:41, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::::::: OK, good point, an orthogonal vector can be a function of other orthogonal vectors. But that's a bit different from what we're discussing. Here it's an orthogonal force that is not dependent on anything else, and yet Ng says it encounters relativistic mass due to a different orthogonal force.

::::::: I think relativists have abandoned Ng's position, so he's really arguing with his own side at this point. As a result, I urge him to reconsider his views with an open mind once he confirms that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: First of all, relativity has not "abandoned" the prediction we're talking about. The velocity addition formulas for both parallel and perpendicular velocities have not changed, and they still predict that an orthogonal force will have a harder time accelerating a fast-moving object. Physicists may have changed their informal interpretation of this formula, but not the formula itself, nor its predictions.

:::::: Note also that relativity's prediction can't be all that illogical, because this is what we ''actually observe happening to particles at high speeds.'' If you think that fast-moving particles commit some terrible offense against basic logic, take it up with God.

:::::: There is a very simple way to settle this matter: write an encyclopedia article where the material is properly sourced. If this is indeed some counterexample or logical flaw in relativity, then one can easily find a book or paper exposing that flaw, and cite it.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Sun Dec 13 17:55:04 EST 2009

:::::OK, I think I see part of the problem you people are having. The word "independent" has two different meanings. Being ''linearly'' independent is a concept from pure mathematics. Being ''causally'' independent is an unrelated metaphysical concept. Whether a force pushing on something causes it to move, and by how much, is completely, umm, independent of whether the vectors involved are linearly independent (orthogonal). Please try to be very careful about the meanings of the terms. [[User:SaraT|SaraT]] 17:00, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: I don't think that's the source of our confusion. I think the main problem is that, according to Newtonian mechanics and thus according to our mechanical intuition, orthogonal things tend to operate independently. Not only that, but a force exerted on an object is usually independent of the object's momentum.

:::::: In relativity, none of these things are true, due to the fact that velocities no longer add like vectors (and thus acceleration no longer incurs a cumulative change in velocity in the usual way.) This is seen as some sort of logical flaw or paradox simply because it contradicts the deeply ingrained intuition that came from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Sun Dec 13 18:10:46 EST 2009

::::::: Theories that don't produce anything useful are often a waste of time, or simply false. I realize that [[liberals]] tend to downplay accountability -- a [[Best New Conservative Words|conservative insight]], but theories should be accountable by what value they yield, particularly when taxpayer dollars are spent (wasted) on the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:55, 7 January 2010 (EST)

== Counterexample 4 (limiting behavior) ==

For the fourth "counterexample," the author points out that the momentum <math>p=mv\gamma</math> does not approach the momentum of light as <math>m\rightarrow 0</math> and <math>v\rightarrow c</math>

Aside from the mathematical sloppiness of taking two independent variables to a limit at the same time, at unspecified rates, these sorts of "discontinuities" can be found in just about any scientific theory. In Newtonian mechanics, for example, take the orbit of a planet as the planet's mass goes to 0. For any nonzero mass the orbit is an ellipse; at m=0 it is suddenly a straight line. Is this a "counterexample" to Newton's laws?

Or in electronics, I=V/R. The limiting case is no voltage, no resistance, no current; but if someone foolishly took V/R as both V and R go to zero, he would get a nonsensical answer. Let them both go at the same rate and you get I=1. Is this a "counterexample" to basic electronics?

Or more to the point, momentum in Newtonian mechanics is <math>p=mv</math>, and this also fails to give the momentum of a photon at m=0, v=c. Again, is that a "counterexample" to <math>p=mv</math>? Will we see this entry in a corresponding page of "Counterexamples to Newton's laws?"

But none of these are counterexamples or "discontinuities": they are just a misinterpretation of the formulas. You don't get the momentum of a photon by taking the momentum formula for a mass and setting m=0 and v=c. That's just not what the formula means, or what they are for. This item should also be removed.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Tue Dec 15 10:16:21 EST 2009

== Counterexample 9 (Jesus action-at-a-distance) ==

The quoted verse doesn't strongly suggest "action-at-a-distance" in the relativistic sense. Light could travel the distances mentioned in the passage in a fraction of a second, which is well within the precision given in the verse (an hour). The verse and relativity are not in contradiction here. This should be removed.

:I have an open mind about it. In the the healing of the centurion's servant, if the Greek is translated as same "moment" then relativity is impossible, but if translated as the same "hour" then there is no conflict with relativity.

:But the healing of the centurion's servant is probably not the only place where there is [[action at a distance]] in the [[Bible]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:52, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::Any distance on the earth is less than 20,000km. A force acting with the speed of light takes less than 1/15,000 ≈ 0.0000667 seconds for this distance.

::I don't think how eyewitnesses could spot such a short time...

::So, there may probably be no other places where [[action at a distance]] is described in the [[Bible]].

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:17, 5 January 2010 (EST)

:::You make an interesting point, Frank. But according to this site, it takes 1/7.4 seconds for light to circle the globe, which is much longer than your figure.[http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_times_does_light_go_around_the_Earth_in_one_second] More generally and more importantly, there is the issue of how this action in the Bible ''isn't'' light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::::Indeed, an error in my calculation: 20,000,000m / 300,000,000 m/sec = 1/15 seconds.
::::Fast enough, still.
::::Whether the action in the Bible ''isn't'' light doesn't matter: it is indistinguishable from an action happening at the speed of light for the witnesses of the time, so it doesn't say anything about the validity of the theory of relativity...
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 19:46, 5 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Frank you make an interesting point, and I have an open mind about it. But I'm not entirely convinced. When the woman cured herself of bleeding and Jesus felt power leaving him, that sounds more like heat than light. And for heat to travel virtually instantaneously (or at the speed of light) WOULD violate the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::::::Yes, it would. And it would also violate classical physics, the laws of thermodynamics etc.

::::::But of course a miracle is going to violate the laws of physics. I don't see how this can be cited to discredit one physical theory over another.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

I have to respectfully disagree with you on that point, Andy - I'm not sure this action could comment on relativity any more than the sun stopping for Joshua could comment on the Copernican model of the solar system. If God wanted heat/light to travel at some finite speed except in certain instances, how is that different from the sun and moon moving in the sky, except in certain instances? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:32, 5 January 2010 (EST)

: I have an open mind about this. You make good points, Jacob. But your analogy is not perfect because:

*the Joshua account might be understood as the ''perception'' of the army that they sun did not set until they completed their job, but the healing in the [[New Testament]] cannot be explained as mere perception
*if the Joshua account is taken absolutely literally, Newtonian mechanics does not say it is impossible, while relativity does say [[action-at-a-distance]] is impossible

I look forward to our translation work on the Joshua passage (and New Testament passages) to see if that brings forth insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)
:Your second point is a good one, and I suppose my example wasn't very good. But on a different note, what makes you say that the Joshua account might be understood as only a perception of the army? I think I'm going to go translate that chapeter, I'll be interested to see what Hebrew words are used for that bit. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:49, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::Shall we look at it next? Joshua 10:11-14, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:18, 5 January 2010 (EST)

IMO, the discussion is a little bit bizarre: Following [[David Hume]]'s definition of a [[miracle]] as a "a violation of the laws of nature", for evaluating the ''laws of natures'', miracles can't be taken into account.

As I said earlier: we shouldn't try to restrict God with the laws of our logic - or even physics.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Frank, perhaps what you mean is that you don't want the logic of the Bible to be used to evaluate claims by scientists. If so, I completely disagree. And so would [[Isaac Newton]] and most great scientists.

:As our [[Conservative Bible Translation]] project is revealing, Jesus said his works were not miracles, but signs. So any definition of miracle by Hume (who, by the way, leaned toward atheistic rather than Christianity) is not terribly helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:00, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::So, what's the definition of a ''sign'', then? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:06, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::The same as its name suggests: a disclosure of reality, rather than a violation of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:35, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::*I took Hume's definition as I found it on conservapedia's page on [[miracle]]s.
::::*The page on [[sign]]s doesn't describe Jesu works - perhaps you can fix this
::::*If you don't like Hume, what's about [[Thomas Aquinas]]:

:::::''Now, there are various degrees and orders of these miracles. Indeed, the highest rank among miracles is held by those events in which something is done by God which nature never could do. For example, that two bodies should be coincident; that the sun reverse its course, or stand still; that the sea open up and offer a way through which people may pass. And even among these an order may be observed. For the greater the things that God does are, and the more they are removed from the capacity of nature, the greater the miracle is. Thus, it is more miraculous for the sun to reverse its course than for the sea to be divided.

:::::''Then, the second degree among miracles is held by those events in which God does something which nature can do, but not in this order. It is a work of nature for an animal to live, to see, and to walk; but for it to live after death, to see after becoming blind, to walk after paralysis of the limbs, this nature cannot do—but God at times does such works miraculously. Even among this degree of miracles a gradation is evident, according as what is done is more removed from the capacity of nature.

:::::''Now, the third degree of miracles occurs when God does what is usually done by the working of nature, but without the operation of the principles of nature. For example, a person may be cured by divine power from a fever which could be cured naturally, and it may rain independently of the working of the principles of nature.

::::*Acts 2:43 ''Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles'' (KJB) So, we have ''miraculous signs'' and ''wonders''

::::*John 2:11 ''This was the first of the miracles Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and by doing showed his glory, and so his disciples believed in him. '' (CBP) ''Changing water into wine'' is something nature never could do: it's an outright miracle, miraculous sign, whatever...

::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:00, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::That's great recitation, Frank, but how about simply applying logic yourself? You're a bright guy, why simply hunt and repeat quotes from others? On this site we encourage ''thinking'' in a logical way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:21, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::I'm trying to use the fact that I'm standing on the shoulder of giants... [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:23, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::How about using "the fact" of simple logic and the power of your ''own'' mind?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::::To make it as clear as possible in my own words:
::::::::*I won't restrict God by laws which men made or observed. Can I understand God's ways? Can I expect God to act the way I think to be logical? That would be [[hubris]].
::::::::*Testing scientific hypotheses using God's miracles or signs seems to be odd!
::::::::But which part of Thomas Aquinas's definition of miraculous events didn't you like? Granted, he had a slightly other view of the ''capacity of nature'' than we have today, but his line of reasoning was as valid in the 15th century as it is today! I hoped that his definition would be more ''helpful'' than that of David Hume.

::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:41, 6 January 2010 (EST)

A miraculous healing seems to violate the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] - whether it happens on a distance or not. Does this mean that [[John 4:46-54]] is a counterexample to the laws of thermodynamics, too?
[[User:PhilG|PhilG]] 09:58, 2 February 2010 (EST)

: How so? Do you think eating an apple to feel better, or taking an aspirin to alleviate a headache, also violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:02, 2 February 2010 (EST)

== lack of a single useful device ==

At conservapedia's article on the [[Global Positioning System]], one can read:

''These receivers rely on precisely timing signals sent from GPS satellites, with corrections for atmospheric attenuation and relativistic effects.''

GPS seems to be a useful device!

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:53, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Great catch of a misleading statement, Frank! I've corrected it.

:Our [[theory of relativity]] entry explains how it did not aid the development of [[GPS]]. The repeated attempt by relativists to falsely claim credit for [[GPS]] ''reinforces'' the lack of any legitimate contributions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::Well, you are consistent! Just another question: What's about [[particle accelerator]]s? Generally, the theory of relativity is used to explain why it takes more energy to accelerate an electron from 200,000,000 m/sec to 200,002,000 m/sec than from 2,000 m/sec to 4,000 m/sec.

::Have you thought about an explanation for this phenomenon?

::Accelerators have applications beyond basic research!

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:02, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::Frank, I have an open mind about this, but I'm not aware of a single benefit from what you describe, nor do you identify one. Do you have an open mind about this?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::*Synchrotron radiation is [http://www.physik.uni-kiel.de/kfs/Anwendung/medicine.php used in medicine]
::::*So, may I ask again: what your explanation for the phenomenon? I suppose you are aware of the phenomenon I described above?
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 15:47, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Frank, inventors and doctors and engineers don't typically even bother learning relativity. Should I repeat that? Complain to engineering departments and medical schools if you think that should change. Nothing useful has even been designed or built using relativity. If you want to look and look and look for a counterexample then you'll be wasting your time. I'm not going to waste mine. This is my final reply on this topic for now. Do something logical, such as editing the Bible, and after benefiting from that experience we can revisit this issue in a month or so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:52, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::Why does it matter whether the users of the invention learn relativity? Most users of microwaves never learn Maxwell's equations either. That doesn't mean that the laws are irrelevant to the gadget's operation.

::::::Likewise, the engineers who correct the clocks of GPS satellites may not know or care that relativistic effects are behind the clock skew. But that dodges the point that relativistic effects are real, observable, and must be corrected for in several useful inventions.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

== GPS revisited ==

The same Tom von Flandern who is quoted in the article on the [[theory of relativity]] saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein", wrote in an article in 1998:

''So we can state that the clock rate effect predicted by GR is confirmed to within no worse than ±200 / 45,900 or about 0.7%, and that predicted by SR is confirmed to within ±200 / 7,200 or about 3%. This is a very conservative estimate. In an actual study, most of that maximum 200 ns/day variance would almost certainly be accounted for by differences between planned and achieved orbits, and the predictions of relativity would be confirmed with much better precision.''

As for how the satellites take into account the relativistic effects, here is his explanation of the so-called ''factory offset'' of the atomic clocks for the satellites:

''GPS atomic clocks in orbit would run at rates quite different from ground clocks if allowed to do so, and this would complicate usage of the system. So the counter of hyperfine cesium transitions (or the corresponding phenomenon in the case of rubidium atomic clocks) is reset on the ground before launch so that, once in orbit, the clocks will tick off whole seconds at the same average rate as ground clocks. GPS clocks are therefore seen to run slow compared to ground clocks before launch, but run at the same rate as ground clocks after launch when at the correct orbital altitude.''

Seems to me that relativistic effects have to be taken into account.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:13, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Frank, your intuition ("seems to me") is wrong here, and the entry explains it clearly. GPS is a work of engineering and any timing discrepancies between the satellite and ground are obviously better handled directly by synchronization rather than asking a physicist what he thinks of relativity. Engineers don't even bother taking general relativity courses, let alone try to build a satellite system using them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 6 January 2010 (EST)

== Several Clarification/Corrections ==

I am new to Conservapedia, so I don't fully understand exactly how this site is structured; in particular who has the ability to edit protected pages. This page is apparently protected, but in need of dire work even on the formatting/punctuation/style side of things. I hope someone with the required access to protected pages can incorporate some of these changes. In any event, here are some things that need to be clarified or corrected:

1. It is unclear what #6 is referring to by "overall space". Is this a reference to the flatness problem in cosmology? If so, that should be made explicit, and the most commonly accepted solution (inflation) should be mentioned for completeness. If not, the curvature of space locally is clearly demonstrated by the observed phenomenon of gravitational lensing.

2. #7 is just a feature of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum field theory. In this sense, general relativity is of course wrong (just as Newtonian mechanics is, for example), because it doesn't apply accurately below distance scales where quantum effects emerge.

3. #8 is not a problem because quantum nonlocality doesn't allow for information transfer. Hence special relativity is not violated.

4. #10 is not a counterexample because gravitons are not predicted by general relativity. They are expected to exist and be predicted by a successful ''quantum'' theory of gravity, but general relativity is not such a theory.

5. #11 is not a counterexample to the theory at all. It may be an argument for why the theory should not be studied, but that doesn't mean it is ''false'', and thus is not a counterexample.

6. #13 is presumably a reference to the horizon problem of cosmology. This should be stated, and, as for the flatness problem, the theory of cosmological inflation should be mentioned. (I realize inflation has not been empirically verified, but since the majority of cosmologists believe it is the correct explanation, it deserves a mention in an encyclopedia article.)

7. #14 is again the problem of the incompatibility of general relativity and quantum field theory (namely that QFT is not background-invariant). This is not a problem with general relativity, other than in the sense that it is only an approximation (like, say, Maxwellian electrodynamics are just an approximation to quantum electrodynamics).

8. #15, aside from the obvious grammatical error (''violated'' instead of the correct ''violate''), is again not a counterexample to general relativity. General relativity predicts wormholes ''only'' on the assumption that so-called "exotic matter" exists. This is matter that has net negative mass/energy, and so is predicted not to exist for precisely the reasons listed here (time travel and the like). But this is not a counterexample to general relativity itself, merely the observation that a mathematically possible solution does not have a physical manifestation.

9. #16 is again a quantum gravity issue. It is wrong to call black holes "highly ordered (and thus low entropy)", though. The fact is that science does not yet know how to count black hole microstates, so we don't know whether they are highly ordered or extremely disordered. But the best explanation seems to be that general relativity and the Second Law together suggest that black holes should have extremely ''high'' entropy, not low entropy. But again, this is not a counterexample to general relativity per se, since it makes no predictions about what black hole entropy should be.

10. #18 appears to be a restatement of #11, and is thus both redundant, and not a counterexample for the reasons listed discussion #11.

I apologize for the length of this list of edits, but something really must be done to improve the quality of this article. I hope that someone with the appropriate access sees fit to make the necessary changes soon.
[[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:12, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:REPLY BELOW:

::1. It is unclear what #6 is referring to by "overall space". Is this a reference to the flatness problem in cosmology? If so, that should be made explicit, and the most commonly accepted solution (inflation) should be mentioned for completeness. If not, the curvature of space locally is clearly demonstrated by the observed phenomenon of gravitational lensing.

::: I'll clarify the obvious. It's still a counterexample. Science is not done by consensus, and inflation does not explain the overall flatness of space if relativity were true.

::::You needn't be so condescending. I wasn't saying that it isn't a problem with general relativity, I was just saying that since this is an encyclopedia, relevant information should be included. Since a proposed solution exists, it should be mentioned, and perhaps debunked if it is flawed. So you could mention inflation, and then say why it fails to solve the flatness problem. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::The theory of inflation does nothing "to solve the flatness problem" with respect its role as a counterexample to relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::Could you clarify this point? Perhaps you could state exactly what you believe the flatness problem is and how it is a counterexample to GR, just to be sure we aren't talking past each other, as I fear we may have been so far. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:55, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::2. 7: is just a feature of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum field theory. In this sense, general relativity is of course wrong (just as Newtonian mechanics is, for example), because it doesn't apply accurately below distance scales where quantum effects emerge.

:::So at what distances do you declare general relativity to be false? Is there a discontinuity at that distance? Such an approach is absurd.

::::I mean, technically it is false at ''all'' length scales, just like any classical (non-quantum) theory (Newtonian mechanics, Maxwellian electromagnetism, classical statistical mechanics, etc.). But there exists a range of length scales at which it is extremely accurate, and those are the only ones to which it makes claims having any epistemological value. There is no discontinuity, it just gets progressively worse as quantum effects become more and more apparent, which occurs at smaller and smaller length scales. Quantum effects definitely need to be taken into account around the level of a nanometer or so in most systems of interest, so I would say this is about the regime where GR needs to stop being used. But of course, it depends on the system in question. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Not "technically it is false," but "it is false." So teach it that way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::See KrisJ's discussion below. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::3. 8 is not a problem because quantum nonlocality doesn't allow for information transfer. Hence special relativity is not violated.

:::Your statement is a non sequitur, and may not be true. Special relativity does deny non-locality.

::::It's not a non sequitur; the problem as I thought it was stated on the page is that special relativity does not allow information transfer faster than the speed of light. Since quantum entanglement cannot actually transfer information, this does not violate that provision of special relativity. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Special relativity does not define "information" nor was it developed in that context.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::It is true that SR does not define information, but it does define causality (only events within each other's lightcones can be causally connected). Physical transfer of information (as defined by Shannon, and encoded in physical systems in Minkowski spacetime) between points in spacetime can only occur if those points are causally connected. (This SR fact is what the horizon problem, which is cited as another GR counterexample, relies on.) [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

:::Will respond to your other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

::::I appreciate your attention to my concerns, and I hope I have adequately outlined them. Also, I hope I would not be asking too much to request formatting consistency (like adding periods at the ends of nos. 7, 8, and 9). It would make it look more professional, like other articles I've seen on Conservapedia. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Yill, your grand total of contributions to this site has been 3 edits to this page, all easily refutable. Frankly, I don't think greater efforts at "formatting consistency" are justified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:01, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::Your not going to be able to attract many users if you disparage newcomers with respect to how few edits they've made. I would like to be a positive contributor to this site, but I have to start somewhere. I would appreciate encouragement and constructive criticism, not condescension and personal attacks. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Yill, good grammar requires "you're", not "your", in your statement above. All your edits have been 100% talk, in violation of our [[90/10 rule]], and honestly I see no insights in your talk. I suggest you try contributing substantively to [[Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)]]; it is on a much higher educational level and you'll benefit enormously from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: You're right, I had a typo there; I apologize for the error. And I am well aware of the 90/10 rule, but seeing as the page I'm working on is protected, I'm not actually able to make any edits. If it were unblocked or I were given the ability to edit it, I would be more than happy to stop posting on this talk page and instead edit the article itself. And frankly I don't particularly see how it's relevant whether you personally happen to see any insights in my talk; my understanding is that Conservapedia is shaped and edited by its users, with appropriate oversight from administrators to ensure accuracy and prevent the chaos of Wikipedia. If need be, I'll appeal to those administrators to get the article fixed, since none seem to have come forward to help. I would love it if you would be willing to work with me to improve this article, but as it stands you seem to have little interest in doing so, having made no further contributions to the substance of the discussion. If you change your mind, I would be happy to work with you on this endeavor.

::::::::As for your suggested article for me to work on, I don't really understand what you mean by it being on a "much higher educational level." However, as I have no expertise in Biblical Greek, I don't think I'd be able to make any meaningful contributions to the translation. I'll let the experts in that subject deal with that article. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:37, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

Yill, you raise excellent points, most of which have not been raised before. We should sharpen those points, here on this page, and then address them on the actual article page. This will take a fair amount of discussion. I could start by bringing up the discussion of point 7, inaccuracy of relativity at the quantum mechanical scale. One question that was raised was "Is there a discontinuity at that [microscopic boundary] distance? Such an approach is absurd.". No. The way quantum mechanics and classical theories interact at the (microscopic) scales where this happens is well known. It is, of course, generally known as the Bohr correspondence principle, described in any textbook on quantum mechanics, and known in more detail as Ehrenfest's theorem, described in more advanced textbooks. (Very briefly, the quantum mechanical realm eases into the classical realm according to the Ehrenfest theorem.) We should make some citations to those, and put in a careful explanation that, under QM, '''all''' classical theories are incorrect, and QM is the correct theory for everything, from atoms to planets. Classical theories are just extremely good approximations outside of the quantum-mechanical realm. And, of course, we do not know how that quantum-mechanical realm operated immediately after the big bang (that's what inflation theory is about), but that doesn't affect what we ''do'' know about general relativity in the macroscopic realm.

The item about point 10 is excellent. Gravitons arose ''after GR'', from attempts to unify the theories. They have nothing to do with the macroscopic aspects of GR, which is what GR is actually all about.

[[User:KrisJ|KrisJ]] 10:04, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

: Teach that relativity is incorrect, if you concede the point. There are relativists who claim their theory is the most precisely verified theory of all.

::Those relativists claim that with respect to the macroscopic realm, as KrisJ referred to above. We are discussing how it breaks down at the microscopic level, when QM starts to play a role. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

: Gravitons are based on GR, and they are non-existent. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:37, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::No, for gravitons to be a counterexample to GR, they must be predicted by it. But they are not, just as photons are not predicted by Maxwellian electrodynamics. They are the "quantum" of the gravitational field, as photons are for the electromagnetic field, and are quantum ''by definition''. GR is ''not'' a quantum theory; it manifestly does not predict them. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

:KrisJ, I appreciate your assistance with this project. I absolutely agree with your suggestions about 7 and 10, and hopefully we can find an editor with the ability to edit protected pages to help us implement them. If you know of any that could help us, you should ask if they would be willing. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

I guess I was wrong about not being able to edit this article. I'm going to delete #10, as per above, and make some formatting changes. I may also make some other clarifying edits. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:45, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

I also deleted the references to relativity being useful, since those have nothing to do with its epistemological validity. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:52, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

== Curvature of Space ==

Re [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&curid=97238&diff=766130&oldid=742826 this] edit: I don't disagree, but the example is a bad one. Based on local observations, one would assume that the Earth itself is flat, but it clearly isn't. My own point of view is that since the Universe can never be proved to be one thing or another, it is part of God's own ineffable being - it is almost folly to inquire further. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:24, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

: No, one would not assume the Earth is flat based on local observations, as a ship can be observed to "rise" over the horizon. I don't agree with the "nature is God" view either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:34, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
::Funny coincidence(?) that a defender of relativity invokes pantheism, since it was Einstein's (and Spinoza's) "god." [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:50, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

:I actually think the edit has merit, as long as the word "initial" is inserted before curvature, since the problem is that any initial curvature should be vastly amplified over time as the universe undergoes its usual expansion. And it is in fact the global curvature that is the issue here; ''any'' manifold we use to model the universe is by definition locally flat (since this is a fundamental property of manifolds). The ship and horizon observation is not a local observation, since it is fundamentally predicated on the global curvature of the Earth. "Local" means that it can be done at arbitrarily small distance scales, which that observation cannot. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:06, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

Counterexamples to Relativity

2010-04-05T21:48:06Z

Yill:

The [[theory of relativity]] is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.<ref>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 counterexamples, and if only one of these is true, then the theory fails:

#The [[Pioneer anomaly]].
#Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23410705/</ref>
#Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, which show a shift outside the margin of error predicted by relativity.<ref>See, e.g., the discussion at [[Talk:Essay:Quantifying_Order]].</ref>
#The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light. Note that this "discontinuity" exists for both the momentum formula in relativity and the momentum formula in classical physics.
#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, known as the ''flatness problem''.<ref>If space has nonzero curvature in the early universe, 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 dominate.
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] of [[quantum entanglement]]<ref>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]] .
#The inability of the theory to produce anything of value, contrary to every other theory of physics.
#The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.
#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>
#"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 violated 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>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 ... "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 a single useful device developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.

(add to list)

{{Relativity}}

== See also ==
* [[Counterexamples to Evolution]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:physics]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2010-04-05T21:45:27Z

Yill: /* Several Clarification/Corrections */

'''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.'''

Andy, can you clarify #4 for me? I'm not sure I understand it. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:50, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:Sure, I welcome discussion of these important points. As I've said, I have an open mind about this and if something is true, then I accept it. But if something is false, I'll criticize it.

:The theory of relativity has taught for decades that as the velocity of a mass increases, then its (scalar) relativistic mass increases per the Lorentzian transformation. Now apply a force ORTHOGONAL to the velocity. Does that force encounter the increased mass, as relativity says, or encounter the rest mass, as logic would dictate?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:02, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Ah, I see what you mean. May I suggest a re-wording? "The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass." I think that might be a little clearer than it is currently stated. Your thoughts? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:06, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::Please do. Your edits are always welcome, and you've suggested an improvement here. Thank you for making this change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:20, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Why would logic dictate that? Mass is a scalar, and a force from any direction should encounter the same increased mass, not different masses from different directions.

::I suppose that under Newtonian mechanics, a moving object has a velocity of 0 within the plane perpendicular to its line of motion, and any forces operating in that plane will act on the object as if it is at rest. But that's not what ''logic'' dictates, that's what the ''previous theory'' dictates.

::Essentially your counterexample to relativity is that it makes a prediction that contradicts Newton's laws. This is neithe r a contradiction nor a logical problem, and it is should be edited out.[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

:::No, it's a logical problem. If you're suggesting that one force can affect the inertial in an entirely independent, orthogonal direction, that's illogical. One thing cannot affect something else that is entirely independent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:40, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::: Why is that illogical? What logical principle does it violate?

:::: See, in relativity, orthogonal doesn't ''mean'' independent. In relativity, velocity vectors ''do not add.'' In relativity, the effect of a new force is not independent of the object's existing momentum. And there is nothing illogical about that; it's just a new theory that contradicts the intuition from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

::::: Ng, something cannot be independent (orthogonal) and yet dependent at the same time. Unfortunately, you're arguing with your own theory at this point. Even most relativity promoters have abandoned the position you take here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:37, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::::::It seems that his point is that something can be orthogonal and dependent. I agree: The cross-product of two vectors is orthogonal to both and yet obviously dependent on both. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 21:41, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::::::: OK, good point, an orthogonal vector can be a function of other orthogonal vectors. But that's a bit different from what we're discussing. Here it's an orthogonal force that is not dependent on anything else, and yet Ng says it encounters relativistic mass due to a different orthogonal force.

::::::: I think relativists have abandoned Ng's position, so he's really arguing with his own side at this point. As a result, I urge him to reconsider his views with an open mind once he confirms that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: First of all, relativity has not "abandoned" the prediction we're talking about. The velocity addition formulas for both parallel and perpendicular velocities have not changed, and they still predict that an orthogonal force will have a harder time accelerating a fast-moving object. Physicists may have changed their informal interpretation of this formula, but not the formula itself, nor its predictions.

:::::: Note also that relativity's prediction can't be all that illogical, because this is what we ''actually observe happening to particles at high speeds.'' If you think that fast-moving particles commit some terrible offense against basic logic, take it up with God.

:::::: There is a very simple way to settle this matter: write an encyclopedia article where the material is properly sourced. If this is indeed some counterexample or logical flaw in relativity, then one can easily find a book or paper exposing that flaw, and cite it.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Sun Dec 13 17:55:04 EST 2009

:::::OK, I think I see part of the problem you people are having. The word "independent" has two different meanings. Being ''linearly'' independent is a concept from pure mathematics. Being ''causally'' independent is an unrelated metaphysical concept. Whether a force pushing on something causes it to move, and by how much, is completely, umm, independent of whether the vectors involved are linearly independent (orthogonal). Please try to be very careful about the meanings of the terms. [[User:SaraT|SaraT]] 17:00, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: I don't think that's the source of our confusion. I think the main problem is that, according to Newtonian mechanics and thus according to our mechanical intuition, orthogonal things tend to operate independently. Not only that, but a force exerted on an object is usually independent of the object's momentum.

:::::: In relativity, none of these things are true, due to the fact that velocities no longer add like vectors (and thus acceleration no longer incurs a cumulative change in velocity in the usual way.) This is seen as some sort of logical flaw or paradox simply because it contradicts the deeply ingrained intuition that came from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Sun Dec 13 18:10:46 EST 2009

::::::: Theories that don't produce anything useful are often a waste of time, or simply false. I realize that [[liberals]] tend to downplay accountability -- a [[Best New Conservative Words|conservative insight]], but theories should be accountable by what value they yield, particularly when taxpayer dollars are spent (wasted) on the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:55, 7 January 2010 (EST)

== Counterexample 4 (limiting behavior) ==

For the fourth "counterexample," the author points out that the momentum <math>p=mv\gamma</math> does not approach the momentum of light as <math>m\rightarrow 0</math> and <math>v\rightarrow c</math>

Aside from the mathematical sloppiness of taking two independent variables to a limit at the same time, at unspecified rates, these sorts of "discontinuities" can be found in just about any scientific theory. In Newtonian mechanics, for example, take the orbit of a planet as the planet's mass goes to 0. For any nonzero mass the orbit is an ellipse; at m=0 it is suddenly a straight line. Is this a "counterexample" to Newton's laws?

Or in electronics, I=V/R. The limiting case is no voltage, no resistance, no current; but if someone foolishly took V/R as both V and R go to zero, he would get a nonsensical answer. Let them both go at the same rate and you get I=1. Is this a "counterexample" to basic electronics?

Or more to the point, momentum in Newtonian mechanics is <math>p=mv</math>, and this also fails to give the momentum of a photon at m=0, v=c. Again, is that a "counterexample" to <math>p=mv</math>? Will we see this entry in a corresponding page of "Counterexamples to Newton's laws?"

But none of these are counterexamples or "discontinuities": they are just a misinterpretation of the formulas. You don't get the momentum of a photon by taking the momentum formula for a mass and setting m=0 and v=c. That's just not what the formula means, or what they are for. This item should also be removed.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Tue Dec 15 10:16:21 EST 2009

== Counterexample 9 (Jesus action-at-a-distance) ==

The quoted verse doesn't strongly suggest "action-at-a-distance" in the relativistic sense. Light could travel the distances mentioned in the passage in a fraction of a second, which is well within the precision given in the verse (an hour). The verse and relativity are not in contradiction here. This should be removed.

:I have an open mind about it. In the the healing of the centurion's servant, if the Greek is translated as same "moment" then relativity is impossible, but if translated as the same "hour" then there is no conflict with relativity.

:But the healing of the centurion's servant is probably not the only place where there is [[action at a distance]] in the [[Bible]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:52, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::Any distance on the earth is less than 20,000km. A force acting with the speed of light takes less than 1/15,000 ≈ 0.0000667 seconds for this distance.

::I don't think how eyewitnesses could spot such a short time...

::So, there may probably be no other places where [[action at a distance]] is described in the [[Bible]].

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:17, 5 January 2010 (EST)

:::You make an interesting point, Frank. But according to this site, it takes 1/7.4 seconds for light to circle the globe, which is much longer than your figure.[http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_times_does_light_go_around_the_Earth_in_one_second] More generally and more importantly, there is the issue of how this action in the Bible ''isn't'' light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::::Indeed, an error in my calculation: 20,000,000m / 300,000,000 m/sec = 1/15 seconds.
::::Fast enough, still.
::::Whether the action in the Bible ''isn't'' light doesn't matter: it is indistinguishable from an action happening at the speed of light for the witnesses of the time, so it doesn't say anything about the validity of the theory of relativity...
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 19:46, 5 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Frank you make an interesting point, and I have an open mind about it. But I'm not entirely convinced. When the woman cured herself of bleeding and Jesus felt power leaving him, that sounds more like heat than light. And for heat to travel virtually instantaneously (or at the speed of light) WOULD violate the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::::::Yes, it would. And it would also violate classical physics, the laws of thermodynamics etc.

::::::But of course a miracle is going to violate the laws of physics. I don't see how this can be cited to discredit one physical theory over another.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

I have to respectfully disagree with you on that point, Andy - I'm not sure this action could comment on relativity any more than the sun stopping for Joshua could comment on the Copernican model of the solar system. If God wanted heat/light to travel at some finite speed except in certain instances, how is that different from the sun and moon moving in the sky, except in certain instances? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:32, 5 January 2010 (EST)

: I have an open mind about this. You make good points, Jacob. But your analogy is not perfect because:

*the Joshua account might be understood as the ''perception'' of the army that they sun did not set until they completed their job, but the healing in the [[New Testament]] cannot be explained as mere perception
*if the Joshua account is taken absolutely literally, Newtonian mechanics does not say it is impossible, while relativity does say [[action-at-a-distance]] is impossible

I look forward to our translation work on the Joshua passage (and New Testament passages) to see if that brings forth insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)
:Your second point is a good one, and I suppose my example wasn't very good. But on a different note, what makes you say that the Joshua account might be understood as only a perception of the army? I think I'm going to go translate that chapeter, I'll be interested to see what Hebrew words are used for that bit. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:49, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::Shall we look at it next? Joshua 10:11-14, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:18, 5 January 2010 (EST)

IMO, the discussion is a little bit bizarre: Following [[David Hume]]'s definition of a [[miracle]] as a "a violation of the laws of nature", for evaluating the ''laws of natures'', miracles can't be taken into account.

As I said earlier: we shouldn't try to restrict God with the laws of our logic - or even physics.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Frank, perhaps what you mean is that you don't want the logic of the Bible to be used to evaluate claims by scientists. If so, I completely disagree. And so would [[Isaac Newton]] and most great scientists.

:As our [[Conservative Bible Translation]] project is revealing, Jesus said his works were not miracles, but signs. So any definition of miracle by Hume (who, by the way, leaned toward atheistic rather than Christianity) is not terribly helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:00, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::So, what's the definition of a ''sign'', then? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:06, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::The same as its name suggests: a disclosure of reality, rather than a violation of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:35, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::*I took Hume's definition as I found it on conservapedia's page on [[miracle]]s.
::::*The page on [[sign]]s doesn't describe Jesu works - perhaps you can fix this
::::*If you don't like Hume, what's about [[Thomas Aquinas]]:

:::::''Now, there are various degrees and orders of these miracles. Indeed, the highest rank among miracles is held by those events in which something is done by God which nature never could do. For example, that two bodies should be coincident; that the sun reverse its course, or stand still; that the sea open up and offer a way through which people may pass. And even among these an order may be observed. For the greater the things that God does are, and the more they are removed from the capacity of nature, the greater the miracle is. Thus, it is more miraculous for the sun to reverse its course than for the sea to be divided.

:::::''Then, the second degree among miracles is held by those events in which God does something which nature can do, but not in this order. It is a work of nature for an animal to live, to see, and to walk; but for it to live after death, to see after becoming blind, to walk after paralysis of the limbs, this nature cannot do—but God at times does such works miraculously. Even among this degree of miracles a gradation is evident, according as what is done is more removed from the capacity of nature.

:::::''Now, the third degree of miracles occurs when God does what is usually done by the working of nature, but without the operation of the principles of nature. For example, a person may be cured by divine power from a fever which could be cured naturally, and it may rain independently of the working of the principles of nature.

::::*Acts 2:43 ''Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles'' (KJB) So, we have ''miraculous signs'' and ''wonders''

::::*John 2:11 ''This was the first of the miracles Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and by doing showed his glory, and so his disciples believed in him. '' (CBP) ''Changing water into wine'' is something nature never could do: it's an outright miracle, miraculous sign, whatever...

::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:00, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::That's great recitation, Frank, but how about simply applying logic yourself? You're a bright guy, why simply hunt and repeat quotes from others? On this site we encourage ''thinking'' in a logical way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:21, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::I'm trying to use the fact that I'm standing on the shoulder of giants... [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:23, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::How about using "the fact" of simple logic and the power of your ''own'' mind?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::::To make it as clear as possible in my own words:
::::::::*I won't restrict God by laws which men made or observed. Can I understand God's ways? Can I expect God to act the way I think to be logical? That would be [[hubris]].
::::::::*Testing scientific hypotheses using God's miracles or signs seems to be odd!
::::::::But which part of Thomas Aquinas's definition of miraculous events didn't you like? Granted, he had a slightly other view of the ''capacity of nature'' than we have today, but his line of reasoning was as valid in the 15th century as it is today! I hoped that his definition would be more ''helpful'' than that of David Hume.

::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:41, 6 January 2010 (EST)

A miraculous healing seems to violate the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] - whether it happens on a distance or not. Does this mean that [[John 4:46-54]] is a counterexample to the laws of thermodynamics, too?
[[User:PhilG|PhilG]] 09:58, 2 February 2010 (EST)

: How so? Do you think eating an apple to feel better, or taking an aspirin to alleviate a headache, also violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:02, 2 February 2010 (EST)

== lack of a single useful device ==

At conservapedia's article on the [[Global Positioning System]], one can read:

''These receivers rely on precisely timing signals sent from GPS satellites, with corrections for atmospheric attenuation and relativistic effects.''

GPS seems to be a useful device!

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:53, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Great catch of a misleading statement, Frank! I've corrected it.

:Our [[theory of relativity]] entry explains how it did not aid the development of [[GPS]]. The repeated attempt by relativists to falsely claim credit for [[GPS]] ''reinforces'' the lack of any legitimate contributions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::Well, you are consistent! Just another question: What's about [[particle accelerator]]s? Generally, the theory of relativity is used to explain why it takes more energy to accelerate an electron from 200,000,000 m/sec to 200,002,000 m/sec than from 2,000 m/sec to 4,000 m/sec.

::Have you thought about an explanation for this phenomenon?

::Accelerators have applications beyond basic research!

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:02, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::Frank, I have an open mind about this, but I'm not aware of a single benefit from what you describe, nor do you identify one. Do you have an open mind about this?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::*Synchrotron radiation is [http://www.physik.uni-kiel.de/kfs/Anwendung/medicine.php used in medicine]
::::*So, may I ask again: what your explanation for the phenomenon? I suppose you are aware of the phenomenon I described above?
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 15:47, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Frank, inventors and doctors and engineers don't typically even bother learning relativity. Should I repeat that? Complain to engineering departments and medical schools if you think that should change. Nothing useful has even been designed or built using relativity. If you want to look and look and look for a counterexample then you'll be wasting your time. I'm not going to waste mine. This is my final reply on this topic for now. Do something logical, such as editing the Bible, and after benefiting from that experience we can revisit this issue in a month or so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:52, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::Why does it matter whether the users of the invention learn relativity? Most users of microwaves never learn Maxwell's equations either. That doesn't mean that the laws are irrelevant to the gadget's operation.

::::::Likewise, the engineers who correct the clocks of GPS satellites may not know or care that relativistic effects are behind the clock skew. But that dodges the point that relativistic effects are real, observable, and must be corrected for in several useful inventions.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

== GPS revisited ==

The same Tom von Flandern who is quoted in the article on the [[theory of relativity]] saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein", wrote in an article in 1998:

''So we can state that the clock rate effect predicted by GR is confirmed to within no worse than ±200 / 45,900 or about 0.7%, and that predicted by SR is confirmed to within ±200 / 7,200 or about 3%. This is a very conservative estimate. In an actual study, most of that maximum 200 ns/day variance would almost certainly be accounted for by differences between planned and achieved orbits, and the predictions of relativity would be confirmed with much better precision.''

As for how the satellites take into account the relativistic effects, here is his explanation of the so-called ''factory offset'' of the atomic clocks for the satellites:

''GPS atomic clocks in orbit would run at rates quite different from ground clocks if allowed to do so, and this would complicate usage of the system. So the counter of hyperfine cesium transitions (or the corresponding phenomenon in the case of rubidium atomic clocks) is reset on the ground before launch so that, once in orbit, the clocks will tick off whole seconds at the same average rate as ground clocks. GPS clocks are therefore seen to run slow compared to ground clocks before launch, but run at the same rate as ground clocks after launch when at the correct orbital altitude.''

Seems to me that relativistic effects have to be taken into account.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:13, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Frank, your intuition ("seems to me") is wrong here, and the entry explains it clearly. GPS is a work of engineering and any timing discrepancies between the satellite and ground are obviously better handled directly by synchronization rather than asking a physicist what he thinks of relativity. Engineers don't even bother taking general relativity courses, let alone try to build a satellite system using them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 6 January 2010 (EST)

== Several Clarification/Corrections ==

I am new to Conservapedia, so I don't fully understand exactly how this site is structured; in particular who has the ability to edit protected pages. This page is apparently protected, but in need of dire work even on the formatting/punctuation/style side of things. I hope someone with the required access to protected pages can incorporate some of these changes. In any event, here are some things that need to be clarified or corrected:

1. It is unclear what #6 is referring to by "overall space". Is this a reference to the flatness problem in cosmology? If so, that should be made explicit, and the most commonly accepted solution (inflation) should be mentioned for completeness. If not, the curvature of space locally is clearly demonstrated by the observed phenomenon of gravitational lensing.

2. #7 is just a feature of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum field theory. In this sense, general relativity is of course wrong (just as Newtonian mechanics is, for example), because it doesn't apply accurately below distance scales where quantum effects emerge.

3. #8 is not a problem because quantum nonlocality doesn't allow for information transfer. Hence special relativity is not violated.

4. #10 is not a counterexample because gravitons are not predicted by general relativity. They are expected to exist and be predicted by a successful ''quantum'' theory of gravity, but general relativity is not such a theory.

5. #11 is not a counterexample to the theory at all. It may be an argument for why the theory should not be studied, but that doesn't mean it is ''false'', and thus is not a counterexample.

6. #13 is presumably a reference to the horizon problem of cosmology. This should be stated, and, as for the flatness problem, the theory of cosmological inflation should be mentioned. (I realize inflation has not been empirically verified, but since the majority of cosmologists believe it is the correct explanation, it deserves a mention in an encyclopedia article.)

7. #14 is again the problem of the incompatibility of general relativity and quantum field theory (namely that QFT is not background-invariant). This is not a problem with general relativity, other than in the sense that it is only an approximation (like, say, Maxwellian electrodynamics are just an approximation to quantum electrodynamics).

8. #15, aside from the obvious grammatical error (''violated'' instead of the correct ''violate''), is again not a counterexample to general relativity. General relativity predicts wormholes ''only'' on the assumption that so-called "exotic matter" exists. This is matter that has net negative mass/energy, and so is predicted not to exist for precisely the reasons listed here (time travel and the like). But this is not a counterexample to general relativity itself, merely the observation that a mathematically possible solution does not have a physical manifestation.

9. #16 is again a quantum gravity issue. It is wrong to call black holes "highly ordered (and thus low entropy)", though. The fact is that science does not yet know how to count black hole microstates, so we don't know whether they are highly ordered or extremely disordered. But the best explanation seems to be that general relativity and the Second Law together suggest that black holes should have extremely ''high'' entropy, not low entropy. But again, this is not a counterexample to general relativity per se, since it makes no predictions about what black hole entropy should be.

10. #18 appears to be a restatement of #11, and is thus both redundant, and not a counterexample for the reasons listed discussion #11.

I apologize for the length of this list of edits, but something really must be done to improve the quality of this article. I hope that someone with the appropriate access sees fit to make the necessary changes soon.
[[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:12, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:REPLY BELOW:

::1. It is unclear what #6 is referring to by "overall space". Is this a reference to the flatness problem in cosmology? If so, that should be made explicit, and the most commonly accepted solution (inflation) should be mentioned for completeness. If not, the curvature of space locally is clearly demonstrated by the observed phenomenon of gravitational lensing.

::: I'll clarify the obvious. It's still a counterexample. Science is not done by consensus, and inflation does not explain the overall flatness of space if relativity were true.

::::You needn't be so condescending. I wasn't saying that it isn't a problem with general relativity, I was just saying that since this is an encyclopedia, relevant information should be included. Since a proposed solution exists, it should be mentioned, and perhaps debunked if it is flawed. So you could mention inflation, and then say why it fails to solve the flatness problem. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::The theory of inflation does nothing "to solve the flatness problem" with respect its role as a counterexample to relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::Could you clarify this point? Perhaps you could state exactly what you believe the flatness problem is and how it is a counterexample to GR, just to be sure we aren't talking past each other, as I fear we may have been so far. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:55, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::2. 7: is just a feature of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum field theory. In this sense, general relativity is of course wrong (just as Newtonian mechanics is, for example), because it doesn't apply accurately below distance scales where quantum effects emerge.

:::So at what distances do you declare general relativity to be false? Is there a discontinuity at that distance? Such an approach is absurd.

::::I mean, technically it is false at ''all'' length scales, just like any classical (non-quantum) theory (Newtonian mechanics, Maxwellian electromagnetism, classical statistical mechanics, etc.). But there exists a range of length scales at which it is extremely accurate, and those are the only ones to which it makes claims having any epistemological value. There is no discontinuity, it just gets progressively worse as quantum effects become more and more apparent, which occurs at smaller and smaller length scales. Quantum effects definitely need to be taken into account around the level of a nanometer or so in most systems of interest, so I would say this is about the regime where GR needs to stop being used. But of course, it depends on the system in question. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Not "technically it is false," but "it is false." So teach it that way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::See KrisJ's discussion below. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::3. 8 is not a problem because quantum nonlocality doesn't allow for information transfer. Hence special relativity is not violated.

:::Your statement is a non sequitur, and may not be true. Special relativity does deny non-locality.

::::It's not a non sequitur; the problem as I thought it was stated on the page is that special relativity does not allow information transfer faster than the speed of light. Since quantum entanglement cannot actually transfer information, this does not violate that provision of special relativity. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Special relativity does not define "information" nor was it developed in that context.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::It is true that SR does not define information, but it does define causality (only events within each other's lightcones can be causally connected). Physical transfer of information (as defined by Shannon, and encoded in physical systems in Minkowski spacetime) between points in spacetime can only occur if those points are causally connected. (This SR fact is what the horizon problem, which is cited as another GR counterexample, relies on.) [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

:::Will respond to your other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

::::I appreciate your attention to my concerns, and I hope I have adequately outlined them. Also, I hope I would not be asking too much to request formatting consistency (like adding periods at the ends of nos. 7, 8, and 9). It would make it look more professional, like other articles I've seen on Conservapedia. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Yill, your grand total of contributions to this site has been 3 edits to this page, all easily refutable. Frankly, I don't think greater efforts at "formatting consistency" are justified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:01, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::Your not going to be able to attract many users if you disparage newcomers with respect to how few edits they've made. I would like to be a positive contributor to this site, but I have to start somewhere. I would appreciate encouragement and constructive criticism, not condescension and personal attacks. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Yill, good grammar requires "you're", not "your", in your statement above. All your edits have been 100% talk, in violation of our [[90/10 rule]], and honestly I see no insights in your talk. I suggest you try contributing substantively to [[Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)]]; it is on a much higher educational level and you'll benefit enormously from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: You're right, I had a typo there; I apologize for the error. And I am well aware of the 90/10 rule, but seeing as the page I'm working on is protected, I'm not actually able to make any edits. If it were unblocked or I were given the ability to edit it, I would be more than happy to stop posting on this talk page and instead edit the article itself. And frankly I don't particularly see how it's relevant whether you personally happen to see any insights in my talk; my understanding is that Conservapedia is shaped and edited by its users, with appropriate oversight from administrators to ensure accuracy and prevent the chaos of Wikipedia. If need be, I'll appeal to those administrators to get the article fixed, since none seem to have come forward to help. I would love it if you would be willing to work with me to improve this article, but as it stands you seem to have little interest in doing so, having made no further contributions to the substance of the discussion. If you change your mind, I would be happy to work with you on this endeavor.

::::::::As for your suggested article for me to work on, I don't really understand what you mean by it being on a "much higher educational level." However, as I have no expertise in Biblical Greek, I don't think I'd be able to make any meaningful contributions to the translation. I'll let the experts in that subject deal with that article. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:37, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

Yill, you raise excellent points, most of which have not been raised before. We should sharpen those points, here on this page, and then address them on the actual article page. This will take a fair amount of discussion. I could start by bringing up the discussion of point 7, inaccuracy of relativity at the quantum mechanical scale. One question that was raised was "Is there a discontinuity at that [microscopic boundary] distance? Such an approach is absurd.". No. The way quantum mechanics and classical theories interact at the (microscopic) scales where this happens is well known. It is, of course, generally known as the Bohr correspondence principle, described in any textbook on quantum mechanics, and known in more detail as Ehrenfest's theorem, described in more advanced textbooks. (Very briefly, the quantum mechanical realm eases into the classical realm according to the Ehrenfest theorem.) We should make some citations to those, and put in a careful explanation that, under QM, '''all''' classical theories are incorrect, and QM is the correct theory for everything, from atoms to planets. Classical theories are just extremely good approximations outside of the quantum-mechanical realm. And, of course, we do not know how that quantum-mechanical realm operated immediately after the big bang (that's what inflation theory is about), but that doesn't affect what we ''do'' know about general relativity in the macroscopic realm.

The item about point 10 is excellent. Gravitons arose ''after GR'', from attempts to unify the theories. They have nothing to do with the macroscopic aspects of GR, which is what GR is actually all about.

[[User:KrisJ|KrisJ]] 10:04, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

: Teach that relativity is incorrect, if you concede the point. There are relativists who claim their theory is the most precisely verified theory of all.

::Those relativists claim that with respect to the macroscopic realm, as KrisJ referred to above. We are discussing how it breaks down at the microscopic level, when QM starts to play a role. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

: Gravitons are based on GR, and they are non-existent. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:37, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::No, for gravitons to be a counterexample to GR, they must be predicted by it. But they are not, just as photons are not predicted by Maxwellian electrodynamics. They are the "quantum" of the gravitational field, as photons are for the electromagnetic field, and are quantum ''by definition''. GR is ''not'' a quantum theory; it manifestly does not predict them. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

:KrisJ, I appreciate your assistance with this project. I absolutely agree with your suggestions about 7 and 10, and hopefully we can find an editor with the ability to edit protected pages to help us implement them. If you know of any that could help us, you should ask if they would be willing. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

I guess I was wrong about not being able to edit this article. I'm going to delete #10, as per above, and make some formatting changes. I may also make some other clarifying edits. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:45, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

== Curvature of Space ==

Re [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&curid=97238&diff=766130&oldid=742826 this] edit: I don't disagree, but the example is a bad one. Based on local observations, one would assume that the Earth itself is flat, but it clearly isn't. My own point of view is that since the Universe can never be proved to be one thing or another, it is part of God's own ineffable being - it is almost folly to inquire further. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:24, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

: No, one would not assume the Earth is flat based on local observations, as a ship can be observed to "rise" over the horizon. I don't agree with the "nature is God" view either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:34, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
::Funny coincidence(?) that a defender of relativity invokes pantheism, since it was Einstein's (and Spinoza's) "god." [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:50, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

:I actually think the edit has merit, as long as the word "initial" is inserted before curvature, since the problem is that any initial curvature should be vastly amplified over time as the universe undergoes its usual expansion. And it is in fact the global curvature that is the issue here; ''any'' manifold we use to model the universe is by definition locally flat (since this is a fundamental property of manifolds). The ship and horizon observation is not a local observation, since it is fundamentally predicated on the global curvature of the Earth. "Local" means that it can be done at arbitrarily small distance scales, which that observation cannot. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:06, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

Cosmic microwave background

2010-04-05T21:27:33Z

Yill:

'''{{PAGENAME}}''' (CMB) radiation describes the [[electromagnetic wave]]s that propagate through our entire universe. It is thought to be left over radiation from the [[big bang]], namely the radiation scattering off of the opaque, dense plasma of the early universe just before the transition to the transparent universe we observe today. This transition, called "last scattering", is believed to have occurred approximately 380,000 years after the big bang.

One interesting feature of the CMB is that it provides a rest frame against which one can measure the motion of galaxies and other astronomical objects. Since the cosmic microwave background is made of electromagnetic waves, a moving observer will observe a [[Doppler shift]] of the cosmic microwave background, whereas a stationary observer will not. Since the frequency of the cosmic microwave background is known (160.2 GHz <ref name="physorg">http://www.physorg.com/tags/cosmic+microwave+background/</ref>), the velocity of the observer can easily be calculated. Our very Earth sees a Doppler shift in the cosmic microwave background, a shift that must be subtracted from measurements of the CMB to obtain its true temperature distribution.

The thermal black-body spectrum of the cosmic microwave background is 2.725 K. <ref name="physorg" />

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category: Physics]]
[[Category: Astronomy]]
[[Category: Cosmology]]

AdS/CFT Correspondence

2010-04-05T21:18:32Z

Yill:

'''AdS/CFT''' ('''Anti-de Sitter'''/'''Conformal Field Theory''') Correspondence or '''Holographic duality''' is a conjecture by Princeton University physicist, Juan Maldacena, which states that a [[quantum field theory]] defined on the conformal boundary of an anti-de Sitter space M is equivalent to a quantum gravity theory defined in the interior of M.

The AdS/CFT Correspondence can explain the temperature and evaporation of a black hole through Hawking radiation in the interior of an anti-de Sitter space M as caused by the interaction of elementary particles on the conformal boundary of M.

== References ==
* [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9711200 Maldacena, ''The Large N Limit of Superconformal Field Theories and Supergravity'']
[[category: physics]]

Black hole

2010-04-05T21:03:23Z

Yill: /* Mathematics */

[[Image:Iu8969hu.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Artist's conception of a binary system consisting of a black hole and a main sequence star. The black hole is drawing matter from the main sequence star via an [[accretion disk]] around it, and some of this matter forms a gas jet.]]
A '''black hole''' is a collapsed object, usually a [[star]], which has become so [[dense]] that within a certain radius its [[escape velocity]] exceeds the [[speed of light]]. Thus, it absorbs all matter and energy within that radius. Light and matter can enter, but nothing can ever escape.

Black holes were first predicted by the [[theory of relativity]]. They have become an increasingly popular topic for magazines, the science page of the [[New York Times]], and science fiction, but whether they really exist remains uncertain. As with the related theoretical concept of a "[[wormhole]]",<ref>The prediction of the existence of wormholes, and its naming in 1957, predates the prediction and naming (1967) of a black hole.[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/science/14wheeler.html?pagewanted=print]</ref> it is impossible to prove that no black hole exists anywhere, and thus they fail the [[falsifiability]] requirement of science.

==History of the idea==
The theoretical model of what we now call a black hole has evolved considerably over the centuries. The [[corpuscular theory of light]] held that light was made up of invisibly small particles, and that these particles moved along ballistic trajectories, like tiny bullets. In this framework, it was believed possible that a distant star could be so massive that light emitted from its surface would be dragged back down again. This theory was first advanced by John Michell, who wrote in 1783, "If the semi-diameter of a sphere of the same density as the Sun in the proportion of five hundred to one, and by supposing light to be attracted by the same force in proportion to its [mass] with other bodies, all light emitted from such a body would be made to return towards it, by its own proper gravity."<ref name="r1">http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200911/physicshistory.cfm</ref>

Suggesting the same possibility independently, Pierre-Simon Laplace wrote in 1796, "It is therefore possible that the greatest luminous bodies in the universe are on this account invisible."<ref name="r1" />

As the corpuscular theory gave way to the [[wave theory of light]] in the early 1800s, the idea of "dark" or "invisible" stars fell from favor. At that time, it was believed that light was a wave which had no mass and therefore was unaffected by gravity.

Research into the [[photoelectric effect]], however, reignited interest in the light-as-particles view, ultimately resulting in the modern notion of [[wave-particle duality]]. Under this theory, light could be affected by gravity, so the question of whether light could be emitted from extraordinarily massive bodies was once again open.

===General Relativity===
As it happened, the question became unavoidable shortly after the publication in 1915 of Einstein's [[general theory of relativity]]. [[Schwarzschild]] solved the Einstein field equations in a way that describes the geometry of spacetime outside a spherically symmetric, uncharged, non-rotating distribution of mass. Well away from the center of this distribution of mass, the Schwarzschild solution closely matches the Newtonian model of a gravitational field; only close to the mass, where the curvature of spacetime is large, do significant differences between the two models appear. But if the diameter of the mass distribution is taken to be arbitrarily small, then the region of spacetime immediately surrounding the mass appears to take on extremely curious properties, properties so curious that many questioned whether they had any physical interpretation at all. Therefore, Schwarzschild showed that black holes were possible under the theory of [[general relativity]].

[[File:Cygnusx1.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Jet-powered nebula formed from the accretion disk of the binary star Cygnus-X1]]
However, neither Schwarzschild himself nor [[Albert Einstein]], who developed the theory of relativity, believed that black holes actually existed<ref>http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/blackholes/lesson/whatisit/history.html</ref>. Einstein even tried to re-work general relativity to render these singularities impossible. However, Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking proved the first of many Singularity Theorems, which states that singularities must form if certain conditions are present. This demonstrated that, rather than mathematical oddities, singularities are a fairly generic consequence of realistic solutions to relativity: any mass with radius less than its Schwarzschild radius is a black hole. Since then, support for black holes among the scientific community has grown.

==Nature of a Black Hole==
===Mathematics===

There are several solutions of the Einstein field equations that are used to model black holes. The simplest of these is the Schwarzchild metric. From this metric, one can calculate the Schwarzschild radius, which defines the boundary (event horizon) of the black hole, to be
:<math>r_s=\frac{2GM}{c^2}</math>,
where
* rs is the Schwarzschild radius;
* G is the gravitational constant;
* M is the mass of the gravitating object;
* c is the speed of light in vacuum.

If the black hole has a nonzero electric charge, it is modeled by the Reissner-Nordström metric. Astronomical objects are generally electrically neutral, since otherwise they would attracted charged particles of opposite sign and quickly become neutral. Therefore the Reissner-Nordström metric is largely of theoretical interest.

A far more realistic situation occurs when the black hole is spinning (i.e. has nonzero angular momentum). Then the Schwarzschild solution is insufficient (as it was for the charged case), and instead one turns to the Kerr metric. Since astrophysical black holes are generically believed to have angular momentum, this is the solution that best describes them. Among the more interesting consequences of the Kerr metric is the phenomenon of frame dragging, in which the rotating black hole literally pulls nearby spacetime along with it.

If one wishes to consider a black hole that is both charged and spinning, one employs the Kerr-Newman metric, which combines the Reissner-Nordström and Kerr metrics. Since the no-hair theorem states that (non-quantum) black holes are unique up to mass, charge, and angular momentum, the Kerr-Newman metric is sufficient to describe any classical black hole.

===Time and Distance===
Within a certain distance from an arbitrarily small distribution of mass — a distance now known as the [[Schwarzschild radius]] — the curvature of spacetime becomes so great that no paths leading away from the mass exist. That is to say, a test particle released inside the Schwarzschild radius will inevitably move in toward the mass, not because the force of gravity is great as in the Newtonian approximation, but because spacetime is curved to such an extent that ''no other directions exist.'' A particle within the Schwarzschild radius can no more move further from the central mass than it can go backwards in time. In fact, from the frame of reference of an infalling observer beyond the Schwarzschild radius, all directions that once pointed away from the central mass now point backwards in time. Once inside the Schwarzschild radius, further motion toward the central mass is as inevitable as further motion through time is for any other observer.

For some time after the publication of the Schwarzschild solution, the validity of these results was hotly debated. In the solution's original coordinate frame, some terms in the equations ''diverged,'' or became infinite, at the Schwarzschild radius, leading physicists to wonder whether the results of the equations in that region had any valid physical interpretation. One proposed interpretation was that at the Schwarzschild radius, all time for the infalling observer would stop. This led to the use of the term "frozen stars;" it wasn't believed frozen stars were cold, but rather that they were literally frozen in time.

Later refinement of the Schwarzschild solution demonstrated that the apparent infinities were merely an artifact of the coordinate frame chosen, and that an infalling observer in fact can pass beyond the Schwarzchild radius. In fact, the equations predicted he would notice no effects when doing so. But any attempt on the part of that infalling observer to communicate with the outside universe, say by sending a radio message, would be doomed to failure, as the radio waves would traverse geodesics through the severely curved spacetime and end up bent toward the central mass. From this, we can say that nothing that occurs within the Schwarzschild radius can ever affect events outside the Schwarzschild radius. This gives the Schwarzschild radius of a non-rotating black hole its other name: the [[event horizon]].

===Inside the Event Horizon===
What actually exists inside the event horizon of a black hole is a question physics is unable to answer. Some postulate that within the event horizon exists a point of zero (or nearly zero) volume but infinite energy density, a point sometimes referred to as a ''gravitational singularity,'' after the notion of a mathematical singularity (a term equaling infinity) in a field equation. Others suspect that infinite energy density is a physical impossibility, and that a black hole contains actual finitely-dense matter compressed into a [[degenerate matter|degenerate]] form, such as quark-degenerate matter. Since all black holes are surrounded by an event horizon which prevents any information or messages from leaving, all these theories are non-[[falsifiable]]; we can never be sure what the interior structure of a black hole is like.

===Properties of Black Holes===

Black holes only have three properties by which one differs from another: mass, electric charge, and angular momentum. Mass describes the amount of matter inside the event horizon. It increases when matter falls into the black hole, and decreases as the hole emits Hawking radiation and shrinks. Angular momentum refers to whether the black hole is stationary or rotating around an axis. While the singularity of a non-rotating black hole may be an infinitely small point, the singularity of a rotating black hole would be in the shape of an infinitely thin ring. Matter entering a spinning black hole is first swirled around by the black hole’s gravity, causing it to heat up and emit x-rays, which can be used to detect the black hole. In the supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies, some of the matter does not fall into the black hole. Instead it is blasted into space in twin jets of hot gas perpendicular to the accretion disc, in a phenomenon known as an Active Galactic Nucleus.

==Origins of Black Holes==
[[Image:Hs-2005-02-e-web.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The [[red supergiant]] star V838 Monocerotis, an example of one type of star which may become a black hole.]]
Stellar-mass black holes are said to form when stars more than ten times the mass of the Sun run out of fuel and die. The process of death occurs when stars that have fused the products of their own fusion into larger and larger elements, up to iron. The star then tries to fuse the iron core that forms as a result, but this does not produce enough energy to hold the outer layers of the star apart against the pull of gravity. When this happens, the iron core at the center of the star implodes in a supernova, and the outer layers of the star are blasted into space in one of the most energetic events in the universe—one star going out in a supernova can give off as much light as an entire galaxy. Not all supernovae result in black holes, but if the mass of the core is large enough, about 1.5-3.0 times the mass of the Sun (this value is termed the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit, and its value is not yet known to great precision), the leftover gravity of the shrinking core stalls the outward rush of the initial blast, and crushes the core into a point of infinite density: a black hole.

Extremely small black holes, with masses of around 1015 grams, have been theorized to have formed in the early universe. Any sufficiently small primordial black hole would be expected to evaporate within the lifetime of the universe, but the rate of evaporation is not currently known with any certainty.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, objects with the characteristics of supermassive black holes, millions or billions of times more massive than the sun, have been detected at the centers of many [[galaxies]], including our own [[Milky Way]]. In our galaxy, the hypothesized supermassive black hole is in the constellation Sagittarius, and is known as Sagittarius A* (pronounced "A star"). Based on the extraordinary angular velocity of stars near the galactic center, Sagittarius A* is believed to be on the order of two to three million solar masses. It is unknown how supermassive black holes form, though several models have been proposed. One hypothesis simply begins with a black hole of stellar mass which grows over the lifetime of the galaxy that surrounds it. Another proposal describes supermassive black holes as a natural, in fact nearly unavoidable, consequence of galactic formation. To date, no one theory of supermassive black hole formation is favored over all others.

==Observation and Controversy==

Since black holes are literally invisible by traditional means of observation and so cannot be directly observed, it can never be conclusively demonstrated whether or not they exist. However, scientists have attempted to find black holes through indirect means, such as the effect of their gravitational pull on nearby stars. Stars that are near black holes, e.g. by being part of a binary star system that contains one, show wobbles in their orbits similar to the tidal effects of the moon on Earth’s oceans. <ref>http://library.thinkquest.org/C007571/english/advance/english.htm</ref><ref>''Black Holes'' by Heather Cooper and Nigel Henbest (book)</ref> Scientists have also observed stellar objects which have density consistent with black holes <ref>http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/blackholes/lesson/whatisit/history.html</ref>.

While matter and energy, even light, may not escape a black hole, Stephen Hawking has shown that they should emit [[Hawking radiation]], which absent of an influx of mass-energy would lead to the evaporation of the black hole in a burst of gamma rays. Scientists are currently working to pick up one of these bursts, or the radiation itself, with any of several land- and space-based telescopes. However, the matter falling into black holes as well as the [[cosmic microwave background]] obscures the radiation and makes detection extremely difficult.

==Speculative Future Exploration==

Scientists have speculated that if a rotating black hole is large enough, a person could pass through the center of the ring-shaped singularity and possibly enter a wormhole. However, it would have to be a very large hole, for if it were not, the hypothetical astronaut would never survive to reach the event horizon due to tidal forces.

Matter coming close to the event horizon of a small black hole undergoes a process called spaghettification, a term coined by Stephen Hawking in his book ''A Brief History of Time'' to describe extraordinarily strong tidal forces. Because the mass at the center of the black hole is so dense, the gravitational pull on the near end of an object is much greater than the pull on the object’s far end. This causes the object to be stretched out in a way resembling a piece of spaghetti, and generally torn in two.

==White Holes==
Because the [[Quantitative Introduction to General Relativity|general relativity equations]] are symmetric with respect to time, one can take a negative square root instead of positive to yield an equation describing a hypothetical object which expels, rather than attracts, matter and energy.<ref>http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q10</ref> As this is the exact opposite of a black hole, it is called a '''white hole'''.

However, there is no evidence white holes actually exist. If they generate new matter and energy, this would violate the [[Law of the conservation of mass]]. Therefore, some scientists have proposed that matter falling into black holes goes through a [[wormhole]] to emerge at a white hole. While such wormholes are allowed by general relativity, they would be extremely unstable<ref>http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schww.html</ref>, and there is no evidence that they exist.

Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] used a white hole in his model of the universe during [[Creation week]] to allow millions of years to pass in outer space while only three days passed on Earth.

==In Popular Culture==

Black holes have been a device in science fiction ever since their discovery. Many sci-fi books, movies, and television shows use black holes as a method of travel (see the Potential Future Exploration section above) or as a threat to a space-going vessel. In at least one season of the show ''Star Trek: the Next Generation'' by Gene Roddenberry, artificially created miniature black holes are used as power sources for spaceships and natural ones as incubators for the young of an alien race. Neither of these uses has much of a basis in reality, of course.

Contrary to popular myth, a black hole is not a cosmic vacuum cleaner. In other words, a one-solar-mass black hole is no better than any other one-solar-mass object (such as, for example, the Sun) at "sucking in" distant objects. However, a one-solar-mass black hole has the same amount of matter as any other one-solar-mass object but compressed into a much smaller space, making it impossible to move fast enough to leave a black hole once there. If a spaceship could land on a black hole, it would never be able to take off again.

The term "black hole" is also used as a metaphor for a place that it is hard to get out of, generally containing a high concentration of something unpleasant. Ex: "The inner city is a black hole of crime and drug use." Note that the Black Hole of Calcutta is ''not'' a reference to the celestial object; the name of the place predates the discovery of black holes in space and the Black Hole of Calcutta was a horrible underground prison in [[Calcutta]], India.

{{Relativity}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

*[http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/black_holes.html Black Holes]
*[http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html Black Holes (Frequently Asked Questions)]

[[category: physics]]
[[Category:Relativity]]

Black hole

2010-04-05T20:50:06Z

Yill: /* Mathematics */

[[Image:Iu8969hu.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Artist's conception of a binary system consisting of a black hole and a main sequence star. The black hole is drawing matter from the main sequence star via an [[accretion disk]] around it, and some of this matter forms a gas jet.]]
A '''black hole''' is a collapsed object, usually a [[star]], which has become so [[dense]] that within a certain radius its [[escape velocity]] exceeds the [[speed of light]]. Thus, it absorbs all matter and energy within that radius. Light and matter can enter, but nothing can ever escape.

Black holes were first predicted by the [[theory of relativity]]. They have become an increasingly popular topic for magazines, the science page of the [[New York Times]], and science fiction, but whether they really exist remains uncertain. As with the related theoretical concept of a "[[wormhole]]",<ref>The prediction of the existence of wormholes, and its naming in 1957, predates the prediction and naming (1967) of a black hole.[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/science/14wheeler.html?pagewanted=print]</ref> it is impossible to prove that no black hole exists anywhere, and thus they fail the [[falsifiability]] requirement of science.

==History of the idea==
The theoretical model of what we now call a black hole has evolved considerably over the centuries. The [[corpuscular theory of light]] held that light was made up of invisibly small particles, and that these particles moved along ballistic trajectories, like tiny bullets. In this framework, it was believed possible that a distant star could be so massive that light emitted from its surface would be dragged back down again. This theory was first advanced by John Michell, who wrote in 1783, "If the semi-diameter of a sphere of the same density as the Sun in the proportion of five hundred to one, and by supposing light to be attracted by the same force in proportion to its [mass] with other bodies, all light emitted from such a body would be made to return towards it, by its own proper gravity."<ref name="r1">http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200911/physicshistory.cfm</ref>

Suggesting the same possibility independently, Pierre-Simon Laplace wrote in 1796, "It is therefore possible that the greatest luminous bodies in the universe are on this account invisible."<ref name="r1" />

As the corpuscular theory gave way to the [[wave theory of light]] in the early 1800s, the idea of "dark" or "invisible" stars fell from favor. At that time, it was believed that light was a wave which had no mass and therefore was unaffected by gravity.

Research into the [[photoelectric effect]], however, reignited interest in the light-as-particles view, ultimately resulting in the modern notion of [[wave-particle duality]]. Under this theory, light could be affected by gravity, so the question of whether light could be emitted from extraordinarily massive bodies was once again open.

===General Relativity===
As it happened, the question became unavoidable shortly after the publication in 1915 of Einstein's [[general theory of relativity]]. [[Schwarzschild]] solved the Einstein field equations in a way that describes the geometry of spacetime outside a spherically symmetric, uncharged, non-rotating distribution of mass. Well away from the center of this distribution of mass, the Schwarzschild solution closely matches the Newtonian model of a gravitational field; only close to the mass, where the curvature of spacetime is large, do significant differences between the two models appear. But if the diameter of the mass distribution is taken to be arbitrarily small, then the region of spacetime immediately surrounding the mass appears to take on extremely curious properties, properties so curious that many questioned whether they had any physical interpretation at all. Therefore, Schwarzschild showed that black holes were possible under the theory of [[general relativity]].

[[File:Cygnusx1.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Jet-powered nebula formed from the accretion disk of the binary star Cygnus-X1]]
However, neither Schwarzschild himself nor [[Albert Einstein]], who developed the theory of relativity, believed that black holes actually existed<ref>http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/blackholes/lesson/whatisit/history.html</ref>. Einstein even tried to re-work general relativity to render these singularities impossible. However, Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking proved the first of many Singularity Theorems, which states that singularities must form if certain conditions are present. This demonstrated that, rather than mathematical oddities, singularities are a fairly generic consequence of realistic solutions to relativity: any mass with radius less than its Schwarzschild radius is a black hole. Since then, support for black holes among the scientific community has grown.

==Nature of a Black Hole==
===Mathematics===

There are several solutions of the Einstein field equations that are used to model black holes. The simplest of these is the Schwarzchild metric. From this metric, one kind calculate the Schwarzschild radius, which defines the boundary (event horizon) of the black hole, to be
:<math>r_s=\frac{2GM}{c^2}</math>,
where
* rs is the Schwarzschild radius;
* G is the gravitational constant;
* M is the mass of the gravitating object;
* c is the speed of light in vacuum.

===Time and Distance===
Within a certain distance from an arbitrarily small distribution of mass — a distance now known as the [[Schwarzschild radius]] — the curvature of spacetime becomes so great that no paths leading away from the mass exist. That is to say, a test particle released inside the Schwarzschild radius will inevitably move in toward the mass, not because the force of gravity is great as in the Newtonian approximation, but because spacetime is curved to such an extent that ''no other directions exist.'' A particle within the Schwarzschild radius can no more move further from the central mass than it can go backwards in time. In fact, from the frame of reference of an infalling observer beyond the Schwarzschild radius, all directions that once pointed away from the central mass now point backwards in time. Once inside the Schwarzschild radius, further motion toward the central mass is as inevitable as further motion through time is for any other observer.

For some time after the publication of the Schwarzschild solution, the validity of these results was hotly debated. In the solution's original coordinate frame, some terms in the equations ''diverged,'' or became infinite, at the Schwarzschild radius, leading physicists to wonder whether the results of the equations in that region had any valid physical interpretation. One proposed interpretation was that at the Schwarzschild radius, all time for the infalling observer would stop. This led to the use of the term "frozen stars;" it wasn't believed frozen stars were cold, but rather that they were literally frozen in time.

Later refinement of the Schwarzschild solution demonstrated that the apparent infinities were merely an artifact of the coordinate frame chosen, and that an infalling observer in fact can pass beyond the Schwarzchild radius. In fact, the equations predicted he would notice no effects when doing so. But any attempt on the part of that infalling observer to communicate with the outside universe, say by sending a radio message, would be doomed to failure, as the radio waves would traverse geodesics through the severely curved spacetime and end up bent toward the central mass. From this, we can say that nothing that occurs within the Schwarzschild radius can ever affect events outside the Schwarzschild radius. This gives the Schwarzschild radius of a non-rotating black hole its other name: the [[event horizon]].

===Inside the Event Horizon===
What actually exists inside the event horizon of a black hole is a question physics is unable to answer. Some postulate that within the event horizon exists a point of zero (or nearly zero) volume but infinite energy density, a point sometimes referred to as a ''gravitational singularity,'' after the notion of a mathematical singularity (a term equaling infinity) in a field equation. Others suspect that infinite energy density is a physical impossibility, and that a black hole contains actual finitely-dense matter compressed into a [[degenerate matter|degenerate]] form, such as quark-degenerate matter. Since all black holes are surrounded by an event horizon which prevents any information or messages from leaving, all these theories are non-[[falsifiable]]; we can never be sure what the interior structure of a black hole is like.

===Properties of Black Holes===

Black holes only have three properties by which one differs from another: mass, electric charge, and angular momentum. Mass describes the amount of matter inside the event horizon. It increases when matter falls into the black hole, and decreases as the hole emits Hawking radiation and shrinks. Angular momentum refers to whether the black hole is stationary or rotating around an axis. While the singularity of a non-rotating black hole may be an infinitely small point, the singularity of a rotating black hole would be in the shape of an infinitely thin ring. Matter entering a spinning black hole is first swirled around by the black hole’s gravity, causing it to heat up and emit x-rays, which can be used to detect the black hole. In the supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies, some of the matter does not fall into the black hole. Instead it is blasted into space in twin jets of hot gas perpendicular to the accretion disc, in a phenomenon known as an Active Galactic Nucleus.

==Origins of Black Holes==
[[Image:Hs-2005-02-e-web.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The [[red supergiant]] star V838 Monocerotis, an example of one type of star which may become a black hole.]]
Stellar-mass black holes are said to form when stars more than ten times the mass of the Sun run out of fuel and die. The process of death occurs when stars that have fused the products of their own fusion into larger and larger elements, up to iron. The star then tries to fuse the iron core that forms as a result, but this does not produce enough energy to hold the outer layers of the star apart against the pull of gravity. When this happens, the iron core at the center of the star implodes in a supernova, and the outer layers of the star are blasted into space in one of the most energetic events in the universe—one star going out in a supernova can give off as much light as an entire galaxy. Not all supernovae result in black holes, but if the mass of the core is large enough, about 1.5-3.0 times the mass of the Sun (this value is termed the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit, and its value is not yet known to great precision), the leftover gravity of the shrinking core stalls the outward rush of the initial blast, and crushes the core into a point of infinite density: a black hole.

Extremely small black holes, with masses of around 1015 grams, have been theorized to have formed in the early universe. Any sufficiently small primordial black hole would be expected to evaporate within the lifetime of the universe, but the rate of evaporation is not currently known with any certainty.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, objects with the characteristics of supermassive black holes, millions or billions of times more massive than the sun, have been detected at the centers of many [[galaxies]], including our own [[Milky Way]]. In our galaxy, the hypothesized supermassive black hole is in the constellation Sagittarius, and is known as Sagittarius A* (pronounced "A star"). Based on the extraordinary angular velocity of stars near the galactic center, Sagittarius A* is believed to be on the order of two to three million solar masses. It is unknown how supermassive black holes form, though several models have been proposed. One hypothesis simply begins with a black hole of stellar mass which grows over the lifetime of the galaxy that surrounds it. Another proposal describes supermassive black holes as a natural, in fact nearly unavoidable, consequence of galactic formation. To date, no one theory of supermassive black hole formation is favored over all others.

==Observation and Controversy==

Since black holes are literally invisible by traditional means of observation and so cannot be directly observed, it can never be conclusively demonstrated whether or not they exist. However, scientists have attempted to find black holes through indirect means, such as the effect of their gravitational pull on nearby stars. Stars that are near black holes, e.g. by being part of a binary star system that contains one, show wobbles in their orbits similar to the tidal effects of the moon on Earth’s oceans. <ref>http://library.thinkquest.org/C007571/english/advance/english.htm</ref><ref>''Black Holes'' by Heather Cooper and Nigel Henbest (book)</ref> Scientists have also observed stellar objects which have density consistent with black holes <ref>http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/blackholes/lesson/whatisit/history.html</ref>.

While matter and energy, even light, may not escape a black hole, Stephen Hawking has shown that they should emit [[Hawking radiation]], which absent of an influx of mass-energy would lead to the evaporation of the black hole in a burst of gamma rays. Scientists are currently working to pick up one of these bursts, or the radiation itself, with any of several land- and space-based telescopes. However, the matter falling into black holes as well as the [[cosmic microwave background]] obscures the radiation and makes detection extremely difficult.

==Speculative Future Exploration==

Scientists have speculated that if a rotating black hole is large enough, a person could pass through the center of the ring-shaped singularity and possibly enter a wormhole. However, it would have to be a very large hole, for if it were not, the hypothetical astronaut would never survive to reach the event horizon due to tidal forces.

Matter coming close to the event horizon of a small black hole undergoes a process called spaghettification, a term coined by Stephen Hawking in his book ''A Brief History of Time'' to describe extraordinarily strong tidal forces. Because the mass at the center of the black hole is so dense, the gravitational pull on the near end of an object is much greater than the pull on the object’s far end. This causes the object to be stretched out in a way resembling a piece of spaghetti, and generally torn in two.

==White Holes==
Because the [[Quantitative Introduction to General Relativity|general relativity equations]] are symmetric with respect to time, one can take a negative square root instead of positive to yield an equation describing a hypothetical object which expels, rather than attracts, matter and energy.<ref>http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q10</ref> As this is the exact opposite of a black hole, it is called a '''white hole'''.

However, there is no evidence white holes actually exist. If they generate new matter and energy, this would violate the [[Law of the conservation of mass]]. Therefore, some scientists have proposed that matter falling into black holes goes through a [[wormhole]] to emerge at a white hole. While such wormholes are allowed by general relativity, they would be extremely unstable<ref>http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schww.html</ref>, and there is no evidence that they exist.

Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] used a white hole in his model of the universe during [[Creation week]] to allow millions of years to pass in outer space while only three days passed on Earth.

==In Popular Culture==

Black holes have been a device in science fiction ever since their discovery. Many sci-fi books, movies, and television shows use black holes as a method of travel (see the Potential Future Exploration section above) or as a threat to a space-going vessel. In at least one season of the show ''Star Trek: the Next Generation'' by Gene Roddenberry, artificially created miniature black holes are used as power sources for spaceships and natural ones as incubators for the young of an alien race. Neither of these uses has much of a basis in reality, of course.

Contrary to popular myth, a black hole is not a cosmic vacuum cleaner. In other words, a one-solar-mass black hole is no better than any other one-solar-mass object (such as, for example, the Sun) at "sucking in" distant objects. However, a one-solar-mass black hole has the same amount of matter as any other one-solar-mass object but compressed into a much smaller space, making it impossible to move fast enough to leave a black hole once there. If a spaceship could land on a black hole, it would never be able to take off again.

The term "black hole" is also used as a metaphor for a place that it is hard to get out of, generally containing a high concentration of something unpleasant. Ex: "The inner city is a black hole of crime and drug use." Note that the Black Hole of Calcutta is ''not'' a reference to the celestial object; the name of the place predates the discovery of black holes in space and the Black Hole of Calcutta was a horrible underground prison in [[Calcutta]], India.

{{Relativity}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

*[http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/black_holes.html Black Holes]
*[http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html Black Holes (Frequently Asked Questions)]

[[category: physics]]
[[Category:Relativity]]

Black hole

2010-04-05T20:49:21Z

Yill: /* Math */

[[Image:Iu8969hu.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Artist's conception of a binary system consisting of a black hole and a main sequence star. The black hole is drawing matter from the main sequence star via an [[accretion disk]] around it, and some of this matter forms a gas jet.]]
A '''black hole''' is a collapsed object, usually a [[star]], which has become so [[dense]] that within a certain radius its [[escape velocity]] exceeds the [[speed of light]]. Thus, it absorbs all matter and energy within that radius. Light and matter can enter, but nothing can ever escape.

Black holes were first predicted by the [[theory of relativity]]. They have become an increasingly popular topic for magazines, the science page of the [[New York Times]], and science fiction, but whether they really exist remains uncertain. As with the related theoretical concept of a "[[wormhole]]",<ref>The prediction of the existence of wormholes, and its naming in 1957, predates the prediction and naming (1967) of a black hole.[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/science/14wheeler.html?pagewanted=print]</ref> it is impossible to prove that no black hole exists anywhere, and thus they fail the [[falsifiability]] requirement of science.

==History of the idea==
The theoretical model of what we now call a black hole has evolved considerably over the centuries. The [[corpuscular theory of light]] held that light was made up of invisibly small particles, and that these particles moved along ballistic trajectories, like tiny bullets. In this framework, it was believed possible that a distant star could be so massive that light emitted from its surface would be dragged back down again. This theory was first advanced by John Michell, who wrote in 1783, "If the semi-diameter of a sphere of the same density as the Sun in the proportion of five hundred to one, and by supposing light to be attracted by the same force in proportion to its [mass] with other bodies, all light emitted from such a body would be made to return towards it, by its own proper gravity."<ref name="r1">http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200911/physicshistory.cfm</ref>

Suggesting the same possibility independently, Pierre-Simon Laplace wrote in 1796, "It is therefore possible that the greatest luminous bodies in the universe are on this account invisible."<ref name="r1" />

As the corpuscular theory gave way to the [[wave theory of light]] in the early 1800s, the idea of "dark" or "invisible" stars fell from favor. At that time, it was believed that light was a wave which had no mass and therefore was unaffected by gravity.

Research into the [[photoelectric effect]], however, reignited interest in the light-as-particles view, ultimately resulting in the modern notion of [[wave-particle duality]]. Under this theory, light could be affected by gravity, so the question of whether light could be emitted from extraordinarily massive bodies was once again open.

===General Relativity===
As it happened, the question became unavoidable shortly after the publication in 1915 of Einstein's [[general theory of relativity]]. [[Schwarzschild]] solved the Einstein field equations in a way that describes the geometry of spacetime outside a spherically symmetric, uncharged, non-rotating distribution of mass. Well away from the center of this distribution of mass, the Schwarzschild solution closely matches the Newtonian model of a gravitational field; only close to the mass, where the curvature of spacetime is large, do significant differences between the two models appear. But if the diameter of the mass distribution is taken to be arbitrarily small, then the region of spacetime immediately surrounding the mass appears to take on extremely curious properties, properties so curious that many questioned whether they had any physical interpretation at all. Therefore, Schwarzschild showed that black holes were possible under the theory of [[general relativity]].

[[File:Cygnusx1.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Jet-powered nebula formed from the accretion disk of the binary star Cygnus-X1]]
However, neither Schwarzschild himself nor [[Albert Einstein]], who developed the theory of relativity, believed that black holes actually existed<ref>http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/blackholes/lesson/whatisit/history.html</ref>. Einstein even tried to re-work general relativity to render these singularities impossible. However, Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking proved the first of many Singularity Theorems, which states that singularities must form if certain conditions are present. This demonstrated that, rather than mathematical oddities, singularities are a fairly generic consequence of realistic solutions to relativity: any mass with radius less than its Schwarzschild radius is a black hole. Since then, support for black holes among the scientific community has grown.

==Nature of a Black Hole==
===Mathematics===

There are several solutions of the Einstein field equations that are used to model black holes. The simplest of these is the Schwarzchild metric. From this metric, one kind calculate the Schwarzschild radius, which defines the boundary of the black hole, to be
:<math>r_s=\frac{2GM}{c^2}</math>,
where
* rs is the Schwarzschild radius;
* G is the gravitational constant;
* M is the mass of the gravitating object;
* c is the speed of light in vacuum.

===Time and Distance===
Within a certain distance from an arbitrarily small distribution of mass — a distance now known as the [[Schwarzschild radius]] — the curvature of spacetime becomes so great that no paths leading away from the mass exist. That is to say, a test particle released inside the Schwarzschild radius will inevitably move in toward the mass, not because the force of gravity is great as in the Newtonian approximation, but because spacetime is curved to such an extent that ''no other directions exist.'' A particle within the Schwarzschild radius can no more move further from the central mass than it can go backwards in time. In fact, from the frame of reference of an infalling observer beyond the Schwarzschild radius, all directions that once pointed away from the central mass now point backwards in time. Once inside the Schwarzschild radius, further motion toward the central mass is as inevitable as further motion through time is for any other observer.

For some time after the publication of the Schwarzschild solution, the validity of these results was hotly debated. In the solution's original coordinate frame, some terms in the equations ''diverged,'' or became infinite, at the Schwarzschild radius, leading physicists to wonder whether the results of the equations in that region had any valid physical interpretation. One proposed interpretation was that at the Schwarzschild radius, all time for the infalling observer would stop. This led to the use of the term "frozen stars;" it wasn't believed frozen stars were cold, but rather that they were literally frozen in time.

Later refinement of the Schwarzschild solution demonstrated that the apparent infinities were merely an artifact of the coordinate frame chosen, and that an infalling observer in fact can pass beyond the Schwarzchild radius. In fact, the equations predicted he would notice no effects when doing so. But any attempt on the part of that infalling observer to communicate with the outside universe, say by sending a radio message, would be doomed to failure, as the radio waves would traverse geodesics through the severely curved spacetime and end up bent toward the central mass. From this, we can say that nothing that occurs within the Schwarzschild radius can ever affect events outside the Schwarzschild radius. This gives the Schwarzschild radius of a non-rotating black hole its other name: the [[event horizon]].

===Inside the Event Horizon===
What actually exists inside the event horizon of a black hole is a question physics is unable to answer. Some postulate that within the event horizon exists a point of zero (or nearly zero) volume but infinite energy density, a point sometimes referred to as a ''gravitational singularity,'' after the notion of a mathematical singularity (a term equaling infinity) in a field equation. Others suspect that infinite energy density is a physical impossibility, and that a black hole contains actual finitely-dense matter compressed into a [[degenerate matter|degenerate]] form, such as quark-degenerate matter. Since all black holes are surrounded by an event horizon which prevents any information or messages from leaving, all these theories are non-[[falsifiable]]; we can never be sure what the interior structure of a black hole is like.

===Properties of Black Holes===

Black holes only have three properties by which one differs from another: mass, electric charge, and angular momentum. Mass describes the amount of matter inside the event horizon. It increases when matter falls into the black hole, and decreases as the hole emits Hawking radiation and shrinks. Angular momentum refers to whether the black hole is stationary or rotating around an axis. While the singularity of a non-rotating black hole may be an infinitely small point, the singularity of a rotating black hole would be in the shape of an infinitely thin ring. Matter entering a spinning black hole is first swirled around by the black hole’s gravity, causing it to heat up and emit x-rays, which can be used to detect the black hole. In the supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies, some of the matter does not fall into the black hole. Instead it is blasted into space in twin jets of hot gas perpendicular to the accretion disc, in a phenomenon known as an Active Galactic Nucleus.

==Origins of Black Holes==
[[Image:Hs-2005-02-e-web.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The [[red supergiant]] star V838 Monocerotis, an example of one type of star which may become a black hole.]]
Stellar-mass black holes are said to form when stars more than ten times the mass of the Sun run out of fuel and die. The process of death occurs when stars that have fused the products of their own fusion into larger and larger elements, up to iron. The star then tries to fuse the iron core that forms as a result, but this does not produce enough energy to hold the outer layers of the star apart against the pull of gravity. When this happens, the iron core at the center of the star implodes in a supernova, and the outer layers of the star are blasted into space in one of the most energetic events in the universe—one star going out in a supernova can give off as much light as an entire galaxy. Not all supernovae result in black holes, but if the mass of the core is large enough, about 1.5-3.0 times the mass of the Sun (this value is termed the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit, and its value is not yet known to great precision), the leftover gravity of the shrinking core stalls the outward rush of the initial blast, and crushes the core into a point of infinite density: a black hole.

Extremely small black holes, with masses of around 1015 grams, have been theorized to have formed in the early universe. Any sufficiently small primordial black hole would be expected to evaporate within the lifetime of the universe, but the rate of evaporation is not currently known with any certainty.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, objects with the characteristics of supermassive black holes, millions or billions of times more massive than the sun, have been detected at the centers of many [[galaxies]], including our own [[Milky Way]]. In our galaxy, the hypothesized supermassive black hole is in the constellation Sagittarius, and is known as Sagittarius A* (pronounced "A star"). Based on the extraordinary angular velocity of stars near the galactic center, Sagittarius A* is believed to be on the order of two to three million solar masses. It is unknown how supermassive black holes form, though several models have been proposed. One hypothesis simply begins with a black hole of stellar mass which grows over the lifetime of the galaxy that surrounds it. Another proposal describes supermassive black holes as a natural, in fact nearly unavoidable, consequence of galactic formation. To date, no one theory of supermassive black hole formation is favored over all others.

==Observation and Controversy==

Since black holes are literally invisible by traditional means of observation and so cannot be directly observed, it can never be conclusively demonstrated whether or not they exist. However, scientists have attempted to find black holes through indirect means, such as the effect of their gravitational pull on nearby stars. Stars that are near black holes, e.g. by being part of a binary star system that contains one, show wobbles in their orbits similar to the tidal effects of the moon on Earth’s oceans. <ref>http://library.thinkquest.org/C007571/english/advance/english.htm</ref><ref>''Black Holes'' by Heather Cooper and Nigel Henbest (book)</ref> Scientists have also observed stellar objects which have density consistent with black holes <ref>http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/blackholes/lesson/whatisit/history.html</ref>.

While matter and energy, even light, may not escape a black hole, Stephen Hawking has shown that they should emit [[Hawking radiation]], which absent of an influx of mass-energy would lead to the evaporation of the black hole in a burst of gamma rays. Scientists are currently working to pick up one of these bursts, or the radiation itself, with any of several land- and space-based telescopes. However, the matter falling into black holes as well as the [[cosmic microwave background]] obscures the radiation and makes detection extremely difficult.

==Speculative Future Exploration==

Scientists have speculated that if a rotating black hole is large enough, a person could pass through the center of the ring-shaped singularity and possibly enter a wormhole. However, it would have to be a very large hole, for if it were not, the hypothetical astronaut would never survive to reach the event horizon due to tidal forces.

Matter coming close to the event horizon of a small black hole undergoes a process called spaghettification, a term coined by Stephen Hawking in his book ''A Brief History of Time'' to describe extraordinarily strong tidal forces. Because the mass at the center of the black hole is so dense, the gravitational pull on the near end of an object is much greater than the pull on the object’s far end. This causes the object to be stretched out in a way resembling a piece of spaghetti, and generally torn in two.

==White Holes==
Because the [[Quantitative Introduction to General Relativity|general relativity equations]] are symmetric with respect to time, one can take a negative square root instead of positive to yield an equation describing a hypothetical object which expels, rather than attracts, matter and energy.<ref>http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q10</ref> As this is the exact opposite of a black hole, it is called a '''white hole'''.

However, there is no evidence white holes actually exist. If they generate new matter and energy, this would violate the [[Law of the conservation of mass]]. Therefore, some scientists have proposed that matter falling into black holes goes through a [[wormhole]] to emerge at a white hole. While such wormholes are allowed by general relativity, they would be extremely unstable<ref>http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schww.html</ref>, and there is no evidence that they exist.

Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] used a white hole in his model of the universe during [[Creation week]] to allow millions of years to pass in outer space while only three days passed on Earth.

==In Popular Culture==

Black holes have been a device in science fiction ever since their discovery. Many sci-fi books, movies, and television shows use black holes as a method of travel (see the Potential Future Exploration section above) or as a threat to a space-going vessel. In at least one season of the show ''Star Trek: the Next Generation'' by Gene Roddenberry, artificially created miniature black holes are used as power sources for spaceships and natural ones as incubators for the young of an alien race. Neither of these uses has much of a basis in reality, of course.

Contrary to popular myth, a black hole is not a cosmic vacuum cleaner. In other words, a one-solar-mass black hole is no better than any other one-solar-mass object (such as, for example, the Sun) at "sucking in" distant objects. However, a one-solar-mass black hole has the same amount of matter as any other one-solar-mass object but compressed into a much smaller space, making it impossible to move fast enough to leave a black hole once there. If a spaceship could land on a black hole, it would never be able to take off again.

The term "black hole" is also used as a metaphor for a place that it is hard to get out of, generally containing a high concentration of something unpleasant. Ex: "The inner city is a black hole of crime and drug use." Note that the Black Hole of Calcutta is ''not'' a reference to the celestial object; the name of the place predates the discovery of black holes in space and the Black Hole of Calcutta was a horrible underground prison in [[Calcutta]], India.

{{Relativity}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

*[http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/black_holes.html Black Holes]
*[http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html Black Holes (Frequently Asked Questions)]

[[category: physics]]
[[Category:Relativity]]

Black hole

2010-04-05T20:44:20Z

Yill: /* General Relativity */

[[Image:Iu8969hu.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Artist's conception of a binary system consisting of a black hole and a main sequence star. The black hole is drawing matter from the main sequence star via an [[accretion disk]] around it, and some of this matter forms a gas jet.]]
A '''black hole''' is a collapsed object, usually a [[star]], which has become so [[dense]] that within a certain radius its [[escape velocity]] exceeds the [[speed of light]]. Thus, it absorbs all matter and energy within that radius. Light and matter can enter, but nothing can ever escape.

Black holes were first predicted by the [[theory of relativity]]. They have become an increasingly popular topic for magazines, the science page of the [[New York Times]], and science fiction, but whether they really exist remains uncertain. As with the related theoretical concept of a "[[wormhole]]",<ref>The prediction of the existence of wormholes, and its naming in 1957, predates the prediction and naming (1967) of a black hole.[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/science/14wheeler.html?pagewanted=print]</ref> it is impossible to prove that no black hole exists anywhere, and thus they fail the [[falsifiability]] requirement of science.

==History of the idea==
The theoretical model of what we now call a black hole has evolved considerably over the centuries. The [[corpuscular theory of light]] held that light was made up of invisibly small particles, and that these particles moved along ballistic trajectories, like tiny bullets. In this framework, it was believed possible that a distant star could be so massive that light emitted from its surface would be dragged back down again. This theory was first advanced by John Michell, who wrote in 1783, "If the semi-diameter of a sphere of the same density as the Sun in the proportion of five hundred to one, and by supposing light to be attracted by the same force in proportion to its [mass] with other bodies, all light emitted from such a body would be made to return towards it, by its own proper gravity."<ref name="r1">http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200911/physicshistory.cfm</ref>

Suggesting the same possibility independently, Pierre-Simon Laplace wrote in 1796, "It is therefore possible that the greatest luminous bodies in the universe are on this account invisible."<ref name="r1" />

As the corpuscular theory gave way to the [[wave theory of light]] in the early 1800s, the idea of "dark" or "invisible" stars fell from favor. At that time, it was believed that light was a wave which had no mass and therefore was unaffected by gravity.

Research into the [[photoelectric effect]], however, reignited interest in the light-as-particles view, ultimately resulting in the modern notion of [[wave-particle duality]]. Under this theory, light could be affected by gravity, so the question of whether light could be emitted from extraordinarily massive bodies was once again open.

===General Relativity===
As it happened, the question became unavoidable shortly after the publication in 1915 of Einstein's [[general theory of relativity]]. [[Schwarzschild]] solved the Einstein field equations in a way that describes the geometry of spacetime outside a spherically symmetric, uncharged, non-rotating distribution of mass. Well away from the center of this distribution of mass, the Schwarzschild solution closely matches the Newtonian model of a gravitational field; only close to the mass, where the curvature of spacetime is large, do significant differences between the two models appear. But if the diameter of the mass distribution is taken to be arbitrarily small, then the region of spacetime immediately surrounding the mass appears to take on extremely curious properties, properties so curious that many questioned whether they had any physical interpretation at all. Therefore, Schwarzschild showed that black holes were possible under the theory of [[general relativity]].

[[File:Cygnusx1.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Jet-powered nebula formed from the accretion disk of the binary star Cygnus-X1]]
However, neither Schwarzschild himself nor [[Albert Einstein]], who developed the theory of relativity, believed that black holes actually existed<ref>http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/blackholes/lesson/whatisit/history.html</ref>. Einstein even tried to re-work general relativity to render these singularities impossible. However, Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking proved the first of many Singularity Theorems, which states that singularities must form if certain conditions are present. This demonstrated that, rather than mathematical oddities, singularities are a fairly generic consequence of realistic solutions to relativity: any mass with radius less than its Schwarzschild radius is a black hole. Since then, support for black holes among the scientific community has grown.

==Nature of a Black Hole==
===Math===

The mathematics backing up the theory of black holes is referred to as the schwartzchild radius. The equation considers a black hole an object so dense its escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. the equation is
:<math>r_s=\frac{2*G*m}{C^2}</math>
where
* rs is the Schwarzschild radius;
* G is the gravitational constant;
* M is the mass of the gravitating object;
* C is the speed of light in vacuum.

===Time and Distance===
Within a certain distance from an arbitrarily small distribution of mass — a distance now known as the [[Schwarzschild radius]] — the curvature of spacetime becomes so great that no paths leading away from the mass exist. That is to say, a test particle released inside the Schwarzschild radius will inevitably move in toward the mass, not because the force of gravity is great as in the Newtonian approximation, but because spacetime is curved to such an extent that ''no other directions exist.'' A particle within the Schwarzschild radius can no more move further from the central mass than it can go backwards in time. In fact, from the frame of reference of an infalling observer beyond the Schwarzschild radius, all directions that once pointed away from the central mass now point backwards in time. Once inside the Schwarzschild radius, further motion toward the central mass is as inevitable as further motion through time is for any other observer.

For some time after the publication of the Schwarzschild solution, the validity of these results was hotly debated. In the solution's original coordinate frame, some terms in the equations ''diverged,'' or became infinite, at the Schwarzschild radius, leading physicists to wonder whether the results of the equations in that region had any valid physical interpretation. One proposed interpretation was that at the Schwarzschild radius, all time for the infalling observer would stop. This led to the use of the term "frozen stars;" it wasn't believed frozen stars were cold, but rather that they were literally frozen in time.

Later refinement of the Schwarzschild solution demonstrated that the apparent infinities were merely an artifact of the coordinate frame chosen, and that an infalling observer in fact can pass beyond the Schwarzchild radius. In fact, the equations predicted he would notice no effects when doing so. But any attempt on the part of that infalling observer to communicate with the outside universe, say by sending a radio message, would be doomed to failure, as the radio waves would traverse geodesics through the severely curved spacetime and end up bent toward the central mass. From this, we can say that nothing that occurs within the Schwarzschild radius can ever affect events outside the Schwarzschild radius. This gives the Schwarzschild radius of a non-rotating black hole its other name: the [[event horizon]].

===Inside the Event Horizon===
What actually exists inside the event horizon of a black hole is a question physics is unable to answer. Some postulate that within the event horizon exists a point of zero (or nearly zero) volume but infinite energy density, a point sometimes referred to as a ''gravitational singularity,'' after the notion of a mathematical singularity (a term equaling infinity) in a field equation. Others suspect that infinite energy density is a physical impossibility, and that a black hole contains actual finitely-dense matter compressed into a [[degenerate matter|degenerate]] form, such as quark-degenerate matter. Since all black holes are surrounded by an event horizon which prevents any information or messages from leaving, all these theories are non-[[falsifiable]]; we can never be sure what the interior structure of a black hole is like.

===Properties of Black Holes===

Black holes only have three properties by which one differs from another: mass, electric charge, and angular momentum. Mass describes the amount of matter inside the event horizon. It increases when matter falls into the black hole, and decreases as the hole emits Hawking radiation and shrinks. Angular momentum refers to whether the black hole is stationary or rotating around an axis. While the singularity of a non-rotating black hole may be an infinitely small point, the singularity of a rotating black hole would be in the shape of an infinitely thin ring. Matter entering a spinning black hole is first swirled around by the black hole’s gravity, causing it to heat up and emit x-rays, which can be used to detect the black hole. In the supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies, some of the matter does not fall into the black hole. Instead it is blasted into space in twin jets of hot gas perpendicular to the accretion disc, in a phenomenon known as an Active Galactic Nucleus.

==Origins of Black Holes==
[[Image:Hs-2005-02-e-web.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The [[red supergiant]] star V838 Monocerotis, an example of one type of star which may become a black hole.]]
Stellar-mass black holes are said to form when stars more than ten times the mass of the Sun run out of fuel and die. The process of death occurs when stars that have fused the products of their own fusion into larger and larger elements, up to iron. The star then tries to fuse the iron core that forms as a result, but this does not produce enough energy to hold the outer layers of the star apart against the pull of gravity. When this happens, the iron core at the center of the star implodes in a supernova, and the outer layers of the star are blasted into space in one of the most energetic events in the universe—one star going out in a supernova can give off as much light as an entire galaxy. Not all supernovae result in black holes, but if the mass of the core is large enough, about 1.5-3.0 times the mass of the Sun (this value is termed the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit, and its value is not yet known to great precision), the leftover gravity of the shrinking core stalls the outward rush of the initial blast, and crushes the core into a point of infinite density: a black hole.

Extremely small black holes, with masses of around 1015 grams, have been theorized to have formed in the early universe. Any sufficiently small primordial black hole would be expected to evaporate within the lifetime of the universe, but the rate of evaporation is not currently known with any certainty.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, objects with the characteristics of supermassive black holes, millions or billions of times more massive than the sun, have been detected at the centers of many [[galaxies]], including our own [[Milky Way]]. In our galaxy, the hypothesized supermassive black hole is in the constellation Sagittarius, and is known as Sagittarius A* (pronounced "A star"). Based on the extraordinary angular velocity of stars near the galactic center, Sagittarius A* is believed to be on the order of two to three million solar masses. It is unknown how supermassive black holes form, though several models have been proposed. One hypothesis simply begins with a black hole of stellar mass which grows over the lifetime of the galaxy that surrounds it. Another proposal describes supermassive black holes as a natural, in fact nearly unavoidable, consequence of galactic formation. To date, no one theory of supermassive black hole formation is favored over all others.

==Observation and Controversy==

Since black holes are literally invisible by traditional means of observation and so cannot be directly observed, it can never be conclusively demonstrated whether or not they exist. However, scientists have attempted to find black holes through indirect means, such as the effect of their gravitational pull on nearby stars. Stars that are near black holes, e.g. by being part of a binary star system that contains one, show wobbles in their orbits similar to the tidal effects of the moon on Earth’s oceans. <ref>http://library.thinkquest.org/C007571/english/advance/english.htm</ref><ref>''Black Holes'' by Heather Cooper and Nigel Henbest (book)</ref> Scientists have also observed stellar objects which have density consistent with black holes <ref>http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/blackholes/lesson/whatisit/history.html</ref>.

While matter and energy, even light, may not escape a black hole, Stephen Hawking has shown that they should emit [[Hawking radiation]], which absent of an influx of mass-energy would lead to the evaporation of the black hole in a burst of gamma rays. Scientists are currently working to pick up one of these bursts, or the radiation itself, with any of several land- and space-based telescopes. However, the matter falling into black holes as well as the [[cosmic microwave background]] obscures the radiation and makes detection extremely difficult.

==Speculative Future Exploration==

Scientists have speculated that if a rotating black hole is large enough, a person could pass through the center of the ring-shaped singularity and possibly enter a wormhole. However, it would have to be a very large hole, for if it were not, the hypothetical astronaut would never survive to reach the event horizon due to tidal forces.

Matter coming close to the event horizon of a small black hole undergoes a process called spaghettification, a term coined by Stephen Hawking in his book ''A Brief History of Time'' to describe extraordinarily strong tidal forces. Because the mass at the center of the black hole is so dense, the gravitational pull on the near end of an object is much greater than the pull on the object’s far end. This causes the object to be stretched out in a way resembling a piece of spaghetti, and generally torn in two.

==White Holes==
Because the [[Quantitative Introduction to General Relativity|general relativity equations]] are symmetric with respect to time, one can take a negative square root instead of positive to yield an equation describing a hypothetical object which expels, rather than attracts, matter and energy.<ref>http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q10</ref> As this is the exact opposite of a black hole, it is called a '''white hole'''.

However, there is no evidence white holes actually exist. If they generate new matter and energy, this would violate the [[Law of the conservation of mass]]. Therefore, some scientists have proposed that matter falling into black holes goes through a [[wormhole]] to emerge at a white hole. While such wormholes are allowed by general relativity, they would be extremely unstable<ref>http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schww.html</ref>, and there is no evidence that they exist.

Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] used a white hole in his model of the universe during [[Creation week]] to allow millions of years to pass in outer space while only three days passed on Earth.

==In Popular Culture==

Black holes have been a device in science fiction ever since their discovery. Many sci-fi books, movies, and television shows use black holes as a method of travel (see the Potential Future Exploration section above) or as a threat to a space-going vessel. In at least one season of the show ''Star Trek: the Next Generation'' by Gene Roddenberry, artificially created miniature black holes are used as power sources for spaceships and natural ones as incubators for the young of an alien race. Neither of these uses has much of a basis in reality, of course.

Contrary to popular myth, a black hole is not a cosmic vacuum cleaner. In other words, a one-solar-mass black hole is no better than any other one-solar-mass object (such as, for example, the Sun) at "sucking in" distant objects. However, a one-solar-mass black hole has the same amount of matter as any other one-solar-mass object but compressed into a much smaller space, making it impossible to move fast enough to leave a black hole once there. If a spaceship could land on a black hole, it would never be able to take off again.

The term "black hole" is also used as a metaphor for a place that it is hard to get out of, generally containing a high concentration of something unpleasant. Ex: "The inner city is a black hole of crime and drug use." Note that the Black Hole of Calcutta is ''not'' a reference to the celestial object; the name of the place predates the discovery of black holes in space and the Black Hole of Calcutta was a horrible underground prison in [[Calcutta]], India.

{{Relativity}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

*[http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/black_holes.html Black Holes]
*[http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html Black Holes (Frequently Asked Questions)]

[[category: physics]]
[[Category:Relativity]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2010-04-05T20:37:09Z

Yill: /* Several Clarification/Corrections */

'''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.'''

Andy, can you clarify #4 for me? I'm not sure I understand it. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:50, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:Sure, I welcome discussion of these important points. As I've said, I have an open mind about this and if something is true, then I accept it. But if something is false, I'll criticize it.

:The theory of relativity has taught for decades that as the velocity of a mass increases, then its (scalar) relativistic mass increases per the Lorentzian transformation. Now apply a force ORTHOGONAL to the velocity. Does that force encounter the increased mass, as relativity says, or encounter the rest mass, as logic would dictate?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:02, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Ah, I see what you mean. May I suggest a re-wording? "The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass." I think that might be a little clearer than it is currently stated. Your thoughts? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:06, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::Please do. Your edits are always welcome, and you've suggested an improvement here. Thank you for making this change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:20, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Why would logic dictate that? Mass is a scalar, and a force from any direction should encounter the same increased mass, not different masses from different directions.

::I suppose that under Newtonian mechanics, a moving object has a velocity of 0 within the plane perpendicular to its line of motion, and any forces operating in that plane will act on the object as if it is at rest. But that's not what ''logic'' dictates, that's what the ''previous theory'' dictates.

::Essentially your counterexample to relativity is that it makes a prediction that contradicts Newton's laws. This is neithe r a contradiction nor a logical problem, and it is should be edited out.[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

:::No, it's a logical problem. If you're suggesting that one force can affect the inertial in an entirely independent, orthogonal direction, that's illogical. One thing cannot affect something else that is entirely independent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:40, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::: Why is that illogical? What logical principle does it violate?

:::: See, in relativity, orthogonal doesn't ''mean'' independent. In relativity, velocity vectors ''do not add.'' In relativity, the effect of a new force is not independent of the object's existing momentum. And there is nothing illogical about that; it's just a new theory that contradicts the intuition from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

::::: Ng, something cannot be independent (orthogonal) and yet dependent at the same time. Unfortunately, you're arguing with your own theory at this point. Even most relativity promoters have abandoned the position you take here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:37, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::::::It seems that his point is that something can be orthogonal and dependent. I agree: The cross-product of two vectors is orthogonal to both and yet obviously dependent on both. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 21:41, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::::::: OK, good point, an orthogonal vector can be a function of other orthogonal vectors. But that's a bit different from what we're discussing. Here it's an orthogonal force that is not dependent on anything else, and yet Ng says it encounters relativistic mass due to a different orthogonal force.

::::::: I think relativists have abandoned Ng's position, so he's really arguing with his own side at this point. As a result, I urge him to reconsider his views with an open mind once he confirms that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: First of all, relativity has not "abandoned" the prediction we're talking about. The velocity addition formulas for both parallel and perpendicular velocities have not changed, and they still predict that an orthogonal force will have a harder time accelerating a fast-moving object. Physicists may have changed their informal interpretation of this formula, but not the formula itself, nor its predictions.

:::::: Note also that relativity's prediction can't be all that illogical, because this is what we ''actually observe happening to particles at high speeds.'' If you think that fast-moving particles commit some terrible offense against basic logic, take it up with God.

:::::: There is a very simple way to settle this matter: write an encyclopedia article where the material is properly sourced. If this is indeed some counterexample or logical flaw in relativity, then one can easily find a book or paper exposing that flaw, and cite it.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Sun Dec 13 17:55:04 EST 2009

:::::OK, I think I see part of the problem you people are having. The word "independent" has two different meanings. Being ''linearly'' independent is a concept from pure mathematics. Being ''causally'' independent is an unrelated metaphysical concept. Whether a force pushing on something causes it to move, and by how much, is completely, umm, independent of whether the vectors involved are linearly independent (orthogonal). Please try to be very careful about the meanings of the terms. [[User:SaraT|SaraT]] 17:00, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: I don't think that's the source of our confusion. I think the main problem is that, according to Newtonian mechanics and thus according to our mechanical intuition, orthogonal things tend to operate independently. Not only that, but a force exerted on an object is usually independent of the object's momentum.

:::::: In relativity, none of these things are true, due to the fact that velocities no longer add like vectors (and thus acceleration no longer incurs a cumulative change in velocity in the usual way.) This is seen as some sort of logical flaw or paradox simply because it contradicts the deeply ingrained intuition that came from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Sun Dec 13 18:10:46 EST 2009

::::::: Theories that don't produce anything useful are often a waste of time, or simply false. I realize that [[liberals]] tend to downplay accountability -- a [[Best New Conservative Words|conservative insight]], but theories should be accountable by what value they yield, particularly when taxpayer dollars are spent (wasted) on the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:55, 7 January 2010 (EST)

== Counterexample 4 (limiting behavior) ==

For the fourth "counterexample," the author points out that the momentum <math>p=mv\gamma</math> does not approach the momentum of light as <math>m\rightarrow 0</math> and <math>v\rightarrow c</math>

Aside from the mathematical sloppiness of taking two independent variables to a limit at the same time, at unspecified rates, these sorts of "discontinuities" can be found in just about any scientific theory. In Newtonian mechanics, for example, take the orbit of a planet as the planet's mass goes to 0. For any nonzero mass the orbit is an ellipse; at m=0 it is suddenly a straight line. Is this a "counterexample" to Newton's laws?

Or in electronics, I=V/R. The limiting case is no voltage, no resistance, no current; but if someone foolishly took V/R as both V and R go to zero, he would get a nonsensical answer. Let them both go at the same rate and you get I=1. Is this a "counterexample" to basic electronics?

Or more to the point, momentum in Newtonian mechanics is <math>p=mv</math>, and this also fails to give the momentum of a photon at m=0, v=c. Again, is that a "counterexample" to <math>p=mv</math>? Will we see this entry in a corresponding page of "Counterexamples to Newton's laws?"

But none of these are counterexamples or "discontinuities": they are just a misinterpretation of the formulas. You don't get the momentum of a photon by taking the momentum formula for a mass and setting m=0 and v=c. That's just not what the formula means, or what they are for. This item should also be removed.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Tue Dec 15 10:16:21 EST 2009

== Counterexample 9 (Jesus action-at-a-distance) ==

The quoted verse doesn't strongly suggest "action-at-a-distance" in the relativistic sense. Light could travel the distances mentioned in the passage in a fraction of a second, which is well within the precision given in the verse (an hour). The verse and relativity are not in contradiction here. This should be removed.

:I have an open mind about it. In the the healing of the centurion's servant, if the Greek is translated as same "moment" then relativity is impossible, but if translated as the same "hour" then there is no conflict with relativity.

:But the healing of the centurion's servant is probably not the only place where there is [[action at a distance]] in the [[Bible]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:52, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::Any distance on the earth is less than 20,000km. A force acting with the speed of light takes less than 1/15,000 ≈ 0.0000667 seconds for this distance.

::I don't think how eyewitnesses could spot such a short time...

::So, there may probably be no other places where [[action at a distance]] is described in the [[Bible]].

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:17, 5 January 2010 (EST)

:::You make an interesting point, Frank. But according to this site, it takes 1/7.4 seconds for light to circle the globe, which is much longer than your figure.[http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_times_does_light_go_around_the_Earth_in_one_second] More generally and more importantly, there is the issue of how this action in the Bible ''isn't'' light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::::Indeed, an error in my calculation: 20,000,000m / 300,000,000 m/sec = 1/15 seconds.
::::Fast enough, still.
::::Whether the action in the Bible ''isn't'' light doesn't matter: it is indistinguishable from an action happening at the speed of light for the witnesses of the time, so it doesn't say anything about the validity of the theory of relativity...
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 19:46, 5 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Frank you make an interesting point, and I have an open mind about it. But I'm not entirely convinced. When the woman cured herself of bleeding and Jesus felt power leaving him, that sounds more like heat than light. And for heat to travel virtually instantaneously (or at the speed of light) WOULD violate the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::::::Yes, it would. And it would also violate classical physics, the laws of thermodynamics etc.

::::::But of course a miracle is going to violate the laws of physics. I don't see how this can be cited to discredit one physical theory over another.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

I have to respectfully disagree with you on that point, Andy - I'm not sure this action could comment on relativity any more than the sun stopping for Joshua could comment on the Copernican model of the solar system. If God wanted heat/light to travel at some finite speed except in certain instances, how is that different from the sun and moon moving in the sky, except in certain instances? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:32, 5 January 2010 (EST)

: I have an open mind about this. You make good points, Jacob. But your analogy is not perfect because:

*the Joshua account might be understood as the ''perception'' of the army that they sun did not set until they completed their job, but the healing in the [[New Testament]] cannot be explained as mere perception
*if the Joshua account is taken absolutely literally, Newtonian mechanics does not say it is impossible, while relativity does say [[action-at-a-distance]] is impossible

I look forward to our translation work on the Joshua passage (and New Testament passages) to see if that brings forth insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)
:Your second point is a good one, and I suppose my example wasn't very good. But on a different note, what makes you say that the Joshua account might be understood as only a perception of the army? I think I'm going to go translate that chapeter, I'll be interested to see what Hebrew words are used for that bit. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:49, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::Shall we look at it next? Joshua 10:11-14, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:18, 5 January 2010 (EST)

IMO, the discussion is a little bit bizarre: Following [[David Hume]]'s definition of a [[miracle]] as a "a violation of the laws of nature", for evaluating the ''laws of natures'', miracles can't be taken into account.

As I said earlier: we shouldn't try to restrict God with the laws of our logic - or even physics.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Frank, perhaps what you mean is that you don't want the logic of the Bible to be used to evaluate claims by scientists. If so, I completely disagree. And so would [[Isaac Newton]] and most great scientists.

:As our [[Conservative Bible Translation]] project is revealing, Jesus said his works were not miracles, but signs. So any definition of miracle by Hume (who, by the way, leaned toward atheistic rather than Christianity) is not terribly helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:00, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::So, what's the definition of a ''sign'', then? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:06, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::The same as its name suggests: a disclosure of reality, rather than a violation of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:35, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::*I took Hume's definition as I found it on conservapedia's page on [[miracle]]s.
::::*The page on [[sign]]s doesn't describe Jesu works - perhaps you can fix this
::::*If you don't like Hume, what's about [[Thomas Aquinas]]:

:::::''Now, there are various degrees and orders of these miracles. Indeed, the highest rank among miracles is held by those events in which something is done by God which nature never could do. For example, that two bodies should be coincident; that the sun reverse its course, or stand still; that the sea open up and offer a way through which people may pass. And even among these an order may be observed. For the greater the things that God does are, and the more they are removed from the capacity of nature, the greater the miracle is. Thus, it is more miraculous for the sun to reverse its course than for the sea to be divided.

:::::''Then, the second degree among miracles is held by those events in which God does something which nature can do, but not in this order. It is a work of nature for an animal to live, to see, and to walk; but for it to live after death, to see after becoming blind, to walk after paralysis of the limbs, this nature cannot do—but God at times does such works miraculously. Even among this degree of miracles a gradation is evident, according as what is done is more removed from the capacity of nature.

:::::''Now, the third degree of miracles occurs when God does what is usually done by the working of nature, but without the operation of the principles of nature. For example, a person may be cured by divine power from a fever which could be cured naturally, and it may rain independently of the working of the principles of nature.

::::*Acts 2:43 ''Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles'' (KJB) So, we have ''miraculous signs'' and ''wonders''

::::*John 2:11 ''This was the first of the miracles Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and by doing showed his glory, and so his disciples believed in him. '' (CBP) ''Changing water into wine'' is something nature never could do: it's an outright miracle, miraculous sign, whatever...

::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:00, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::That's great recitation, Frank, but how about simply applying logic yourself? You're a bright guy, why simply hunt and repeat quotes from others? On this site we encourage ''thinking'' in a logical way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:21, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::I'm trying to use the fact that I'm standing on the shoulder of giants... [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:23, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::How about using "the fact" of simple logic and the power of your ''own'' mind?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::::To make it as clear as possible in my own words:
::::::::*I won't restrict God by laws which men made or observed. Can I understand God's ways? Can I expect God to act the way I think to be logical? That would be [[hubris]].
::::::::*Testing scientific hypotheses using God's miracles or signs seems to be odd!
::::::::But which part of Thomas Aquinas's definition of miraculous events didn't you like? Granted, he had a slightly other view of the ''capacity of nature'' than we have today, but his line of reasoning was as valid in the 15th century as it is today! I hoped that his definition would be more ''helpful'' than that of David Hume.

::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:41, 6 January 2010 (EST)

A miraculous healing seems to violate the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] - whether it happens on a distance or not. Does this mean that [[John 4:46-54]] is a counterexample to the laws of thermodynamics, too?
[[User:PhilG|PhilG]] 09:58, 2 February 2010 (EST)

: How so? Do you think eating an apple to feel better, or taking an aspirin to alleviate a headache, also violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:02, 2 February 2010 (EST)

== lack of a single useful device ==

At conservapedia's article on the [[Global Positioning System]], one can read:

''These receivers rely on precisely timing signals sent from GPS satellites, with corrections for atmospheric attenuation and relativistic effects.''

GPS seems to be a useful device!

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:53, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Great catch of a misleading statement, Frank! I've corrected it.

:Our [[theory of relativity]] entry explains how it did not aid the development of [[GPS]]. The repeated attempt by relativists to falsely claim credit for [[GPS]] ''reinforces'' the lack of any legitimate contributions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::Well, you are consistent! Just another question: What's about [[particle accelerator]]s? Generally, the theory of relativity is used to explain why it takes more energy to accelerate an electron from 200,000,000 m/sec to 200,002,000 m/sec than from 2,000 m/sec to 4,000 m/sec.

::Have you thought about an explanation for this phenomenon?

::Accelerators have applications beyond basic research!

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:02, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::Frank, I have an open mind about this, but I'm not aware of a single benefit from what you describe, nor do you identify one. Do you have an open mind about this?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::*Synchrotron radiation is [http://www.physik.uni-kiel.de/kfs/Anwendung/medicine.php used in medicine]
::::*So, may I ask again: what your explanation for the phenomenon? I suppose you are aware of the phenomenon I described above?
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 15:47, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Frank, inventors and doctors and engineers don't typically even bother learning relativity. Should I repeat that? Complain to engineering departments and medical schools if you think that should change. Nothing useful has even been designed or built using relativity. If you want to look and look and look for a counterexample then you'll be wasting your time. I'm not going to waste mine. This is my final reply on this topic for now. Do something logical, such as editing the Bible, and after benefiting from that experience we can revisit this issue in a month or so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:52, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::Why does it matter whether the users of the invention learn relativity? Most users of microwaves never learn Maxwell's equations either. That doesn't mean that the laws are irrelevant to the gadget's operation.

::::::Likewise, the engineers who correct the clocks of GPS satellites may not know or care that relativistic effects are behind the clock skew. But that dodges the point that relativistic effects are real, observable, and must be corrected for in several useful inventions.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

== GPS revisited ==

The same Tom von Flandern who is quoted in the article on the [[theory of relativity]] saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein", wrote in an article in 1998:

''So we can state that the clock rate effect predicted by GR is confirmed to within no worse than ±200 / 45,900 or about 0.7%, and that predicted by SR is confirmed to within ±200 / 7,200 or about 3%. This is a very conservative estimate. In an actual study, most of that maximum 200 ns/day variance would almost certainly be accounted for by differences between planned and achieved orbits, and the predictions of relativity would be confirmed with much better precision.''

As for how the satellites take into account the relativistic effects, here is his explanation of the so-called ''factory offset'' of the atomic clocks for the satellites:

''GPS atomic clocks in orbit would run at rates quite different from ground clocks if allowed to do so, and this would complicate usage of the system. So the counter of hyperfine cesium transitions (or the corresponding phenomenon in the case of rubidium atomic clocks) is reset on the ground before launch so that, once in orbit, the clocks will tick off whole seconds at the same average rate as ground clocks. GPS clocks are therefore seen to run slow compared to ground clocks before launch, but run at the same rate as ground clocks after launch when at the correct orbital altitude.''

Seems to me that relativistic effects have to be taken into account.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:13, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Frank, your intuition ("seems to me") is wrong here, and the entry explains it clearly. GPS is a work of engineering and any timing discrepancies between the satellite and ground are obviously better handled directly by synchronization rather than asking a physicist what he thinks of relativity. Engineers don't even bother taking general relativity courses, let alone try to build a satellite system using them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 6 January 2010 (EST)

== Several Clarification/Corrections ==

I am new to Conservapedia, so I don't fully understand exactly how this site is structured; in particular who has the ability to edit protected pages. This page is apparently protected, but in need of dire work even on the formatting/punctuation/style side of things. I hope someone with the required access to protected pages can incorporate some of these changes. In any event, here are some things that need to be clarified or corrected:

1. It is unclear what #6 is referring to by "overall space". Is this a reference to the flatness problem in cosmology? If so, that should be made explicit, and the most commonly accepted solution (inflation) should be mentioned for completeness. If not, the curvature of space locally is clearly demonstrated by the observed phenomenon of gravitational lensing.

2. #7 is just a feature of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum field theory. In this sense, general relativity is of course wrong (just as Newtonian mechanics is, for example), because it doesn't apply accurately below distance scales where quantum effects emerge.

3. #8 is not a problem because quantum nonlocality doesn't allow for information transfer. Hence special relativity is not violated.

4. #10 is not a counterexample because gravitons are not predicted by general relativity. They are expected to exist and be predicted by a successful ''quantum'' theory of gravity, but general relativity is not such a theory.

5. #11 is not a counterexample to the theory at all. It may be an argument for why the theory should not be studied, but that doesn't mean it is ''false'', and thus is not a counterexample.

6. #13 is presumably a reference to the horizon problem of cosmology. This should be stated, and, as for the flatness problem, the theory of cosmological inflation should be mentioned. (I realize inflation has not been empirically verified, but since the majority of cosmologists believe it is the correct explanation, it deserves a mention in an encyclopedia article.)

7. #14 is again the problem of the incompatibility of general relativity and quantum field theory (namely that QFT is not background-invariant). This is not a problem with general relativity, other than in the sense that it is only an approximation (like, say, Maxwellian electrodynamics are just an approximation to quantum electrodynamics).

8. #15, aside from the obvious grammatical error (''violated'' instead of the correct ''violate''), is again not a counterexample to general relativity. General relativity predicts wormholes ''only'' on the assumption that so-called "exotic matter" exists. This is matter that has net negative mass/energy, and so is predicted not to exist for precisely the reasons listed here (time travel and the like). But this is not a counterexample to general relativity itself, merely the observation that a mathematically possible solution does not have a physical manifestation.

9. #16 is again a quantum gravity issue. It is wrong to call black holes "highly ordered (and thus low entropy)", though. The fact is that science does not yet know how to count black hole microstates, so we don't know whether they are highly ordered or extremely disordered. But the best explanation seems to be that general relativity and the Second Law together suggest that black holes should have extremely ''high'' entropy, not low entropy. But again, this is not a counterexample to general relativity per se, since it makes no predictions about what black hole entropy should be.

10. #18 appears to be a restatement of #11, and is thus both redundant, and not a counterexample for the reasons listed discussion #11.

I apologize for the length of this list of edits, but something really must be done to improve the quality of this article. I hope that someone with the appropriate access sees fit to make the necessary changes soon.
[[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:12, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:REPLY BELOW:

::1. It is unclear what #6 is referring to by "overall space". Is this a reference to the flatness problem in cosmology? If so, that should be made explicit, and the most commonly accepted solution (inflation) should be mentioned for completeness. If not, the curvature of space locally is clearly demonstrated by the observed phenomenon of gravitational lensing.

::: I'll clarify the obvious. It's still a counterexample. Science is not done by consensus, and inflation does not explain the overall flatness of space if relativity were true.

::::You needn't be so condescending. I wasn't saying that it isn't a problem with general relativity, I was just saying that since this is an encyclopedia, relevant information should be included. Since a proposed solution exists, it should be mentioned, and perhaps debunked if it is flawed. So you could mention inflation, and then say why it fails to solve the flatness problem. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::The theory of inflation does nothing "to solve the flatness problem" with respect its role as a counterexample to relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::Could you clarify this point? Perhaps you could state exactly what you believe the flatness problem is and how it is a counterexample to GR, just to be sure we aren't talking past each other, as I fear we may have been so far. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:55, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::2. 7: is just a feature of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum field theory. In this sense, general relativity is of course wrong (just as Newtonian mechanics is, for example), because it doesn't apply accurately below distance scales where quantum effects emerge.

:::So at what distances do you declare general relativity to be false? Is there a discontinuity at that distance? Such an approach is absurd.

::::I mean, technically it is false at ''all'' length scales, just like any classical (non-quantum) theory (Newtonian mechanics, Maxwellian electromagnetism, classical statistical mechanics, etc.). But there exists a range of length scales at which it is extremely accurate, and those are the only ones to which it makes claims having any epistemological value. There is no discontinuity, it just gets progressively worse as quantum effects become more and more apparent, which occurs at smaller and smaller length scales. Quantum effects definitely need to be taken into account around the level of a nanometer or so in most systems of interest, so I would say this is about the regime where GR needs to stop being used. But of course, it depends on the system in question. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Not "technically it is false," but "it is false." So teach it that way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::See KrisJ's discussion below. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::3. 8 is not a problem because quantum nonlocality doesn't allow for information transfer. Hence special relativity is not violated.

:::Your statement is a non sequitur, and may not be true. Special relativity does deny non-locality.

::::It's not a non sequitur; the problem as I thought it was stated on the page is that special relativity does not allow information transfer faster than the speed of light. Since quantum entanglement cannot actually transfer information, this does not violate that provision of special relativity. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Special relativity does not define "information" nor was it developed in that context.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::It is true that SR does not define information, but it does define causality (only events within each other's lightcones can be causally connected). Physical transfer of information (as defined by Shannon, and encoded in physical systems in Minkowski spacetime) between points in spacetime can only occur if those points are causally connected. (This SR fact is what the horizon problem, which is cited as another GR counterexample, relies on.) [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

:::Will respond to your other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

::::I appreciate your attention to my concerns, and I hope I have adequately outlined them. Also, I hope I would not be asking too much to request formatting consistency (like adding periods at the ends of nos. 7, 8, and 9). It would make it look more professional, like other articles I've seen on Conservapedia. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Yill, your grand total of contributions to this site has been 3 edits to this page, all easily refutable. Frankly, I don't think greater efforts at "formatting consistency" are justified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:01, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::Your not going to be able to attract many users if you disparage newcomers with respect to how few edits they've made. I would like to be a positive contributor to this site, but I have to start somewhere. I would appreciate encouragement and constructive criticism, not condescension and personal attacks. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Yill, good grammar requires "you're", not "your", in your statement above. All your edits have been 100% talk, in violation of our [[90/10 rule]], and honestly I see no insights in your talk. I suggest you try contributing substantively to [[Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)]]; it is on a much higher educational level and you'll benefit enormously from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: You're right, I had a typo there; I apologize for the error. And I am well aware of the 90/10 rule, but seeing as the page I'm working on is protected, I'm not actually able to make any edits. If it were unblocked or I were given the ability to edit it, I would be more than happy to stop posting on this talk page and instead edit the article itself. And frankly I don't particularly see how it's relevant whether you personally happen to see any insights in my talk; my understanding is that Conservapedia is shaped and edited by its users, with appropriate oversight from administrators to ensure accuracy and prevent the chaos of Wikipedia. If need be, I'll appeal to those administrators to get the article fixed, since none seem to have come forward to help. I would love it if you would be willing to work with me to improve this article, but as it stands you seem to have little interest in doing so, having made no further contributions to the substance of the discussion. If you change your mind, I would be happy to work with you on this endeavor.

::::::::As for your suggested article for me to work on, I don't really understand what you mean by it being on a "much higher educational level." However, as I have no expertise in Biblical Greek, I don't think I'd be able to make any meaningful contributions to the translation. I'll let the experts in that subject deal with that article. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:37, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

Yill, you raise excellent points, most of which have not been raised before. We should sharpen those points, here on this page, and then address them on the actual article page. This will take a fair amount of discussion. I could start by bringing up the discussion of point 7, inaccuracy of relativity at the quantum mechanical scale. One question that was raised was "Is there a discontinuity at that [microscopic boundary] distance? Such an approach is absurd.". No. The way quantum mechanics and classical theories interact at the (microscopic) scales where this happens is well known. It is, of course, generally known as the Bohr correspondence principle, described in any textbook on quantum mechanics, and known in more detail as Ehrenfest's theorem, described in more advanced textbooks. (Very briefly, the quantum mechanical realm eases into the classical realm according to the Ehrenfest theorem.) We should make some citations to those, and put in a careful explanation that, under QM, '''all''' classical theories are incorrect, and QM is the correct theory for everything, from atoms to planets. Classical theories are just extremely good approximations outside of the quantum-mechanical realm. And, of course, we do not know how that quantum-mechanical realm operated immediately after the big bang (that's what inflation theory is about), but that doesn't affect what we ''do'' know about general relativity in the macroscopic realm.

The item about point 10 is excellent. Gravitons arose ''after GR'', from attempts to unify the theories. They have nothing to do with the macroscopic aspects of GR, which is what GR is actually all about.

[[User:KrisJ|KrisJ]] 10:04, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

: Teach that relativity is incorrect, if you concede the point. There are relativists who claim their theory is the most precisely verified theory of all.

::Those relativists claim that with respect to the macroscopic realm, as KrisJ referred to above. We are discussing how it breaks down at the microscopic level, when QM starts to play a role. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

: Gravitons are based on GR, and they are non-existent. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:37, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::No, for gravitons to be a counterexample to GR, they must be predicted by it. But they are not, just as photons are not predicted by Maxwellian electrodynamics. They are the "quantum" of the gravitational field, as photons are for the electromagnetic field, and are quantum ''by definition''. GR is ''not'' a quantum theory; it manifestly does not predict them. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

:KrisJ, I appreciate your assistance with this project. I absolutely agree with your suggestions about 7 and 10, and hopefully we can find an editor with the ability to edit protected pages to help us implement them. If you know of any that could help us, you should ask if they would be willing. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

== Curvature of Space ==

Re [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&curid=97238&diff=766130&oldid=742826 this] edit: I don't disagree, but the example is a bad one. Based on local observations, one would assume that the Earth itself is flat, but it clearly isn't. My own point of view is that since the Universe can never be proved to be one thing or another, it is part of God's own ineffable being - it is almost folly to inquire further. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:24, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

: No, one would not assume the Earth is flat based on local observations, as a ship can be observed to "rise" over the horizon. I don't agree with the "nature is God" view either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:34, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
::Funny coincidence(?) that a defender of relativity invokes pantheism, since it was Einstein's (and Spinoza's) "god." [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:50, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

:I actually think the edit has merit, as long as the word "initial" is inserted before curvature, since the problem is that any initial curvature should be vastly amplified over time as the universe undergoes its usual expansion. And it is in fact the global curvature that is the issue here; ''any'' manifold we use to model the universe is by definition locally flat (since this is a fundamental property of manifolds). The ship and horizon observation is not a local observation, since it is fundamentally predicated on the global curvature of the Earth. "Local" means that it can be done at arbitrarily small distance scales, which that observation cannot. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:06, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2010-04-04T21:06:26Z

Yill: /* Curvature of Space */

'''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.'''

Andy, can you clarify #4 for me? I'm not sure I understand it. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:50, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:Sure, I welcome discussion of these important points. As I've said, I have an open mind about this and if something is true, then I accept it. But if something is false, I'll criticize it.

:The theory of relativity has taught for decades that as the velocity of a mass increases, then its (scalar) relativistic mass increases per the Lorentzian transformation. Now apply a force ORTHOGONAL to the velocity. Does that force encounter the increased mass, as relativity says, or encounter the rest mass, as logic would dictate?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:02, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Ah, I see what you mean. May I suggest a re-wording? "The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass." I think that might be a little clearer than it is currently stated. Your thoughts? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:06, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::Please do. Your edits are always welcome, and you've suggested an improvement here. Thank you for making this change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:20, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Why would logic dictate that? Mass is a scalar, and a force from any direction should encounter the same increased mass, not different masses from different directions.

::I suppose that under Newtonian mechanics, a moving object has a velocity of 0 within the plane perpendicular to its line of motion, and any forces operating in that plane will act on the object as if it is at rest. But that's not what ''logic'' dictates, that's what the ''previous theory'' dictates.

::Essentially your counterexample to relativity is that it makes a prediction that contradicts Newton's laws. This is neithe r a contradiction nor a logical problem, and it is should be edited out.[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

:::No, it's a logical problem. If you're suggesting that one force can affect the inertial in an entirely independent, orthogonal direction, that's illogical. One thing cannot affect something else that is entirely independent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:40, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::: Why is that illogical? What logical principle does it violate?

:::: See, in relativity, orthogonal doesn't ''mean'' independent. In relativity, velocity vectors ''do not add.'' In relativity, the effect of a new force is not independent of the object's existing momentum. And there is nothing illogical about that; it's just a new theory that contradicts the intuition from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

::::: Ng, something cannot be independent (orthogonal) and yet dependent at the same time. Unfortunately, you're arguing with your own theory at this point. Even most relativity promoters have abandoned the position you take here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:37, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::::::It seems that his point is that something can be orthogonal and dependent. I agree: The cross-product of two vectors is orthogonal to both and yet obviously dependent on both. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 21:41, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::::::: OK, good point, an orthogonal vector can be a function of other orthogonal vectors. But that's a bit different from what we're discussing. Here it's an orthogonal force that is not dependent on anything else, and yet Ng says it encounters relativistic mass due to a different orthogonal force.

::::::: I think relativists have abandoned Ng's position, so he's really arguing with his own side at this point. As a result, I urge him to reconsider his views with an open mind once he confirms that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: First of all, relativity has not "abandoned" the prediction we're talking about. The velocity addition formulas for both parallel and perpendicular velocities have not changed, and they still predict that an orthogonal force will have a harder time accelerating a fast-moving object. Physicists may have changed their informal interpretation of this formula, but not the formula itself, nor its predictions.

:::::: Note also that relativity's prediction can't be all that illogical, because this is what we ''actually observe happening to particles at high speeds.'' If you think that fast-moving particles commit some terrible offense against basic logic, take it up with God.

:::::: There is a very simple way to settle this matter: write an encyclopedia article where the material is properly sourced. If this is indeed some counterexample or logical flaw in relativity, then one can easily find a book or paper exposing that flaw, and cite it.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Sun Dec 13 17:55:04 EST 2009

:::::OK, I think I see part of the problem you people are having. The word "independent" has two different meanings. Being ''linearly'' independent is a concept from pure mathematics. Being ''causally'' independent is an unrelated metaphysical concept. Whether a force pushing on something causes it to move, and by how much, is completely, umm, independent of whether the vectors involved are linearly independent (orthogonal). Please try to be very careful about the meanings of the terms. [[User:SaraT|SaraT]] 17:00, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: I don't think that's the source of our confusion. I think the main problem is that, according to Newtonian mechanics and thus according to our mechanical intuition, orthogonal things tend to operate independently. Not only that, but a force exerted on an object is usually independent of the object's momentum.

:::::: In relativity, none of these things are true, due to the fact that velocities no longer add like vectors (and thus acceleration no longer incurs a cumulative change in velocity in the usual way.) This is seen as some sort of logical flaw or paradox simply because it contradicts the deeply ingrained intuition that came from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Sun Dec 13 18:10:46 EST 2009

::::::: Theories that don't produce anything useful are often a waste of time, or simply false. I realize that [[liberals]] tend to downplay accountability -- a [[Best New Conservative Words|conservative insight]], but theories should be accountable by what value they yield, particularly when taxpayer dollars are spent (wasted) on the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:55, 7 January 2010 (EST)

== Counterexample 4 (limiting behavior) ==

For the fourth "counterexample," the author points out that the momentum <math>p=mv\gamma</math> does not approach the momentum of light as <math>m\rightarrow 0</math> and <math>v\rightarrow c</math>

Aside from the mathematical sloppiness of taking two independent variables to a limit at the same time, at unspecified rates, these sorts of "discontinuities" can be found in just about any scientific theory. In Newtonian mechanics, for example, take the orbit of a planet as the planet's mass goes to 0. For any nonzero mass the orbit is an ellipse; at m=0 it is suddenly a straight line. Is this a "counterexample" to Newton's laws?

Or in electronics, I=V/R. The limiting case is no voltage, no resistance, no current; but if someone foolishly took V/R as both V and R go to zero, he would get a nonsensical answer. Let them both go at the same rate and you get I=1. Is this a "counterexample" to basic electronics?

Or more to the point, momentum in Newtonian mechanics is <math>p=mv</math>, and this also fails to give the momentum of a photon at m=0, v=c. Again, is that a "counterexample" to <math>p=mv</math>? Will we see this entry in a corresponding page of "Counterexamples to Newton's laws?"

But none of these are counterexamples or "discontinuities": they are just a misinterpretation of the formulas. You don't get the momentum of a photon by taking the momentum formula for a mass and setting m=0 and v=c. That's just not what the formula means, or what they are for. This item should also be removed.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Tue Dec 15 10:16:21 EST 2009

== Counterexample 9 (Jesus action-at-a-distance) ==

The quoted verse doesn't strongly suggest "action-at-a-distance" in the relativistic sense. Light could travel the distances mentioned in the passage in a fraction of a second, which is well within the precision given in the verse (an hour). The verse and relativity are not in contradiction here. This should be removed.

:I have an open mind about it. In the the healing of the centurion's servant, if the Greek is translated as same "moment" then relativity is impossible, but if translated as the same "hour" then there is no conflict with relativity.

:But the healing of the centurion's servant is probably not the only place where there is [[action at a distance]] in the [[Bible]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:52, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::Any distance on the earth is less than 20,000km. A force acting with the speed of light takes less than 1/15,000 ≈ 0.0000667 seconds for this distance.

::I don't think how eyewitnesses could spot such a short time...

::So, there may probably be no other places where [[action at a distance]] is described in the [[Bible]].

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:17, 5 January 2010 (EST)

:::You make an interesting point, Frank. But according to this site, it takes 1/7.4 seconds for light to circle the globe, which is much longer than your figure.[http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_times_does_light_go_around_the_Earth_in_one_second] More generally and more importantly, there is the issue of how this action in the Bible ''isn't'' light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::::Indeed, an error in my calculation: 20,000,000m / 300,000,000 m/sec = 1/15 seconds.
::::Fast enough, still.
::::Whether the action in the Bible ''isn't'' light doesn't matter: it is indistinguishable from an action happening at the speed of light for the witnesses of the time, so it doesn't say anything about the validity of the theory of relativity...
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 19:46, 5 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Frank you make an interesting point, and I have an open mind about it. But I'm not entirely convinced. When the woman cured herself of bleeding and Jesus felt power leaving him, that sounds more like heat than light. And for heat to travel virtually instantaneously (or at the speed of light) WOULD violate the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::::::Yes, it would. And it would also violate classical physics, the laws of thermodynamics etc.

::::::But of course a miracle is going to violate the laws of physics. I don't see how this can be cited to discredit one physical theory over another.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

I have to respectfully disagree with you on that point, Andy - I'm not sure this action could comment on relativity any more than the sun stopping for Joshua could comment on the Copernican model of the solar system. If God wanted heat/light to travel at some finite speed except in certain instances, how is that different from the sun and moon moving in the sky, except in certain instances? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:32, 5 January 2010 (EST)

: I have an open mind about this. You make good points, Jacob. But your analogy is not perfect because:

*the Joshua account might be understood as the ''perception'' of the army that they sun did not set until they completed their job, but the healing in the [[New Testament]] cannot be explained as mere perception
*if the Joshua account is taken absolutely literally, Newtonian mechanics does not say it is impossible, while relativity does say [[action-at-a-distance]] is impossible

I look forward to our translation work on the Joshua passage (and New Testament passages) to see if that brings forth insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)
:Your second point is a good one, and I suppose my example wasn't very good. But on a different note, what makes you say that the Joshua account might be understood as only a perception of the army? I think I'm going to go translate that chapeter, I'll be interested to see what Hebrew words are used for that bit. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:49, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::Shall we look at it next? Joshua 10:11-14, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:18, 5 January 2010 (EST)

IMO, the discussion is a little bit bizarre: Following [[David Hume]]'s definition of a [[miracle]] as a "a violation of the laws of nature", for evaluating the ''laws of natures'', miracles can't be taken into account.

As I said earlier: we shouldn't try to restrict God with the laws of our logic - or even physics.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Frank, perhaps what you mean is that you don't want the logic of the Bible to be used to evaluate claims by scientists. If so, I completely disagree. And so would [[Isaac Newton]] and most great scientists.

:As our [[Conservative Bible Translation]] project is revealing, Jesus said his works were not miracles, but signs. So any definition of miracle by Hume (who, by the way, leaned toward atheistic rather than Christianity) is not terribly helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:00, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::So, what's the definition of a ''sign'', then? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:06, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::The same as its name suggests: a disclosure of reality, rather than a violation of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:35, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::*I took Hume's definition as I found it on conservapedia's page on [[miracle]]s.
::::*The page on [[sign]]s doesn't describe Jesu works - perhaps you can fix this
::::*If you don't like Hume, what's about [[Thomas Aquinas]]:

:::::''Now, there are various degrees and orders of these miracles. Indeed, the highest rank among miracles is held by those events in which something is done by God which nature never could do. For example, that two bodies should be coincident; that the sun reverse its course, or stand still; that the sea open up and offer a way through which people may pass. And even among these an order may be observed. For the greater the things that God does are, and the more they are removed from the capacity of nature, the greater the miracle is. Thus, it is more miraculous for the sun to reverse its course than for the sea to be divided.

:::::''Then, the second degree among miracles is held by those events in which God does something which nature can do, but not in this order. It is a work of nature for an animal to live, to see, and to walk; but for it to live after death, to see after becoming blind, to walk after paralysis of the limbs, this nature cannot do—but God at times does such works miraculously. Even among this degree of miracles a gradation is evident, according as what is done is more removed from the capacity of nature.

:::::''Now, the third degree of miracles occurs when God does what is usually done by the working of nature, but without the operation of the principles of nature. For example, a person may be cured by divine power from a fever which could be cured naturally, and it may rain independently of the working of the principles of nature.

::::*Acts 2:43 ''Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles'' (KJB) So, we have ''miraculous signs'' and ''wonders''

::::*John 2:11 ''This was the first of the miracles Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and by doing showed his glory, and so his disciples believed in him. '' (CBP) ''Changing water into wine'' is something nature never could do: it's an outright miracle, miraculous sign, whatever...

::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:00, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::That's great recitation, Frank, but how about simply applying logic yourself? You're a bright guy, why simply hunt and repeat quotes from others? On this site we encourage ''thinking'' in a logical way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:21, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::I'm trying to use the fact that I'm standing on the shoulder of giants... [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:23, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::How about using "the fact" of simple logic and the power of your ''own'' mind?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::::To make it as clear as possible in my own words:
::::::::*I won't restrict God by laws which men made or observed. Can I understand God's ways? Can I expect God to act the way I think to be logical? That would be [[hubris]].
::::::::*Testing scientific hypotheses using God's miracles or signs seems to be odd!
::::::::But which part of Thomas Aquinas's definition of miraculous events didn't you like? Granted, he had a slightly other view of the ''capacity of nature'' than we have today, but his line of reasoning was as valid in the 15th century as it is today! I hoped that his definition would be more ''helpful'' than that of David Hume.

::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:41, 6 January 2010 (EST)

A miraculous healing seems to violate the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] - whether it happens on a distance or not. Does this mean that [[John 4:46-54]] is a counterexample to the laws of thermodynamics, too?
[[User:PhilG|PhilG]] 09:58, 2 February 2010 (EST)

: How so? Do you think eating an apple to feel better, or taking an aspirin to alleviate a headache, also violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:02, 2 February 2010 (EST)

== lack of a single useful device ==

At conservapedia's article on the [[Global Positioning System]], one can read:

''These receivers rely on precisely timing signals sent from GPS satellites, with corrections for atmospheric attenuation and relativistic effects.''

GPS seems to be a useful device!

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:53, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Great catch of a misleading statement, Frank! I've corrected it.

:Our [[theory of relativity]] entry explains how it did not aid the development of [[GPS]]. The repeated attempt by relativists to falsely claim credit for [[GPS]] ''reinforces'' the lack of any legitimate contributions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::Well, you are consistent! Just another question: What's about [[particle accelerator]]s? Generally, the theory of relativity is used to explain why it takes more energy to accelerate an electron from 200,000,000 m/sec to 200,002,000 m/sec than from 2,000 m/sec to 4,000 m/sec.

::Have you thought about an explanation for this phenomenon?

::Accelerators have applications beyond basic research!

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:02, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::Frank, I have an open mind about this, but I'm not aware of a single benefit from what you describe, nor do you identify one. Do you have an open mind about this?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::*Synchrotron radiation is [http://www.physik.uni-kiel.de/kfs/Anwendung/medicine.php used in medicine]
::::*So, may I ask again: what your explanation for the phenomenon? I suppose you are aware of the phenomenon I described above?
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 15:47, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Frank, inventors and doctors and engineers don't typically even bother learning relativity. Should I repeat that? Complain to engineering departments and medical schools if you think that should change. Nothing useful has even been designed or built using relativity. If you want to look and look and look for a counterexample then you'll be wasting your time. I'm not going to waste mine. This is my final reply on this topic for now. Do something logical, such as editing the Bible, and after benefiting from that experience we can revisit this issue in a month or so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:52, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::Why does it matter whether the users of the invention learn relativity? Most users of microwaves never learn Maxwell's equations either. That doesn't mean that the laws are irrelevant to the gadget's operation.

::::::Likewise, the engineers who correct the clocks of GPS satellites may not know or care that relativistic effects are behind the clock skew. But that dodges the point that relativistic effects are real, observable, and must be corrected for in several useful inventions.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

== GPS revisited ==

The same Tom von Flandern who is quoted in the article on the [[theory of relativity]] saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein", wrote in an article in 1998:

''So we can state that the clock rate effect predicted by GR is confirmed to within no worse than ±200 / 45,900 or about 0.7%, and that predicted by SR is confirmed to within ±200 / 7,200 or about 3%. This is a very conservative estimate. In an actual study, most of that maximum 200 ns/day variance would almost certainly be accounted for by differences between planned and achieved orbits, and the predictions of relativity would be confirmed with much better precision.''

As for how the satellites take into account the relativistic effects, here is his explanation of the so-called ''factory offset'' of the atomic clocks for the satellites:

''GPS atomic clocks in orbit would run at rates quite different from ground clocks if allowed to do so, and this would complicate usage of the system. So the counter of hyperfine cesium transitions (or the corresponding phenomenon in the case of rubidium atomic clocks) is reset on the ground before launch so that, once in orbit, the clocks will tick off whole seconds at the same average rate as ground clocks. GPS clocks are therefore seen to run slow compared to ground clocks before launch, but run at the same rate as ground clocks after launch when at the correct orbital altitude.''

Seems to me that relativistic effects have to be taken into account.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:13, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Frank, your intuition ("seems to me") is wrong here, and the entry explains it clearly. GPS is a work of engineering and any timing discrepancies between the satellite and ground are obviously better handled directly by synchronization rather than asking a physicist what he thinks of relativity. Engineers don't even bother taking general relativity courses, let alone try to build a satellite system using them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 6 January 2010 (EST)

== Several Clarification/Corrections ==

I am new to Conservapedia, so I don't fully understand exactly how this site is structured; in particular who has the ability to edit protected pages. This page is apparently protected, but in need of dire work even on the formatting/punctuation/style side of things. I hope someone with the required access to protected pages can incorporate some of these changes. In any event, here are some things that need to be clarified or corrected:

1. It is unclear what #6 is referring to by "overall space". Is this a reference to the flatness problem in cosmology? If so, that should be made explicit, and the most commonly accepted solution (inflation) should be mentioned for completeness. If not, the curvature of space locally is clearly demonstrated by the observed phenomenon of gravitational lensing.

2. #7 is just a feature of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum field theory. In this sense, general relativity is of course wrong (just as Newtonian mechanics is, for example), because it doesn't apply accurately below distance scales where quantum effects emerge.

3. #8 is not a problem because quantum nonlocality doesn't allow for information transfer. Hence special relativity is not violated.

4. #10 is not a counterexample because gravitons are not predicted by general relativity. They are expected to exist and be predicted by a successful ''quantum'' theory of gravity, but general relativity is not such a theory.

5. #11 is not a counterexample to the theory at all. It may be an argument for why the theory should not be studied, but that doesn't mean it is ''false'', and thus is not a counterexample.

6. #13 is presumably a reference to the horizon problem of cosmology. This should be stated, and, as for the flatness problem, the theory of cosmological inflation should be mentioned. (I realize inflation has not been empirically verified, but since the majority of cosmologists believe it is the correct explanation, it deserves a mention in an encyclopedia article.)

7. #14 is again the problem of the incompatibility of general relativity and quantum field theory (namely that QFT is not background-invariant). This is not a problem with general relativity, other than in the sense that it is only an approximation (like, say, Maxwellian electrodynamics are just an approximation to quantum electrodynamics).

8. #15, aside from the obvious grammatical error (''violated'' instead of the correct ''violate''), is again not a counterexample to general relativity. General relativity predicts wormholes ''only'' on the assumption that so-called "exotic matter" exists. This is matter that has net negative mass/energy, and so is predicted not to exist for precisely the reasons listed here (time travel and the like). But this is not a counterexample to general relativity itself, merely the observation that a mathematically possible solution does not have a physical manifestation.

9. #16 is again a quantum gravity issue. It is wrong to call black holes "highly ordered (and thus low entropy)", though. The fact is that science does not yet know how to count black hole microstates, so we don't know whether they are highly ordered or extremely disordered. But the best explanation seems to be that general relativity and the Second Law together suggest that black holes should have extremely ''high'' entropy, not low entropy. But again, this is not a counterexample to general relativity per se, since it makes no predictions about what black hole entropy should be.

10. #18 appears to be a restatement of #11, and is thus both redundant, and not a counterexample for the reasons listed discussion #11.

I apologize for the length of this list of edits, but something really must be done to improve the quality of this article. I hope that someone with the appropriate access sees fit to make the necessary changes soon.
[[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:12, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:REPLY BELOW:

::1. It is unclear what #6 is referring to by "overall space". Is this a reference to the flatness problem in cosmology? If so, that should be made explicit, and the most commonly accepted solution (inflation) should be mentioned for completeness. If not, the curvature of space locally is clearly demonstrated by the observed phenomenon of gravitational lensing.

::: I'll clarify the obvious. It's still a counterexample. Science is not done by consensus, and inflation does not explain the overall flatness of space if relativity were true.

::::You needn't be so condescending. I wasn't saying that it isn't a problem with general relativity, I was just saying that since this is an encyclopedia, relevant information should be included. Since a proposed solution exists, it should be mentioned, and perhaps debunked if it is flawed. So you could mention inflation, and then say why it fails to solve the flatness problem. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::The theory of inflation does nothing "to solve the flatness problem" with respect its role as a counterexample to relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::Could you clarify this point? Perhaps you could state exactly what you believe the flatness problem is and how it is a counterexample to GR, just to be sure we aren't talking past each other, as I fear we may have been so far. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:55, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::2. 7: is just a feature of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum field theory. In this sense, general relativity is of course wrong (just as Newtonian mechanics is, for example), because it doesn't apply accurately below distance scales where quantum effects emerge.

:::So at what distances do you declare general relativity to be false? Is there a discontinuity at that distance? Such an approach is absurd.

::::I mean, technically it is false at ''all'' length scales, just like any classical (non-quantum) theory (Newtonian mechanics, Maxwellian electromagnetism, classical statistical mechanics, etc.). But there exists a range of length scales at which it is extremely accurate, and those are the only ones to which it makes claims having any epistemological value. There is no discontinuity, it just gets progressively worse as quantum effects become more and more apparent, which occurs at smaller and smaller length scales. Quantum effects definitely need to be taken into account around the level of a nanometer or so in most systems of interest, so I would say this is about the regime where GR needs to stop being used. But of course, it depends on the system in question. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Not "technically it is false," but "it is false." So teach it that way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::See KrisJ's discussion below. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::3. 8 is not a problem because quantum nonlocality doesn't allow for information transfer. Hence special relativity is not violated.

:::Your statement is a non sequitur, and may not be true. Special relativity does deny non-locality.

::::It's not a non sequitur; the problem as I thought it was stated on the page is that special relativity does not allow information transfer faster than the speed of light. Since quantum entanglement cannot actually transfer information, this does not violate that provision of special relativity. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Special relativity does not define "information" nor was it developed in that context.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::It is true that SR does not define information, but it does define causality (only events within each other's lightcones can be causally connected). Physical transfer of information (as defined by Shannon, and encoded in physical systems in Minkowski spacetime) between points in spacetime can only occur if those points are causally connected. (This SR fact is what the horizon problem, which is cited as another GR counterexample, relies on.) [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

:::Will respond to your other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

::::I appreciate your attention to my concerns, and I hope I have adequately outlined them. Also, I hope I would not be asking too much to request formatting consistency (like adding periods at the ends of nos. 7, 8, and 9). It would make it look more professional, like other articles I've seen on Conservapedia. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Yill, your grand total of contributions to this site has been 3 edits to this page, all easily refutable. Frankly, I don't think greater efforts at "formatting consistency" are justified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:01, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::Your not going to be able to attract many users if you disparage newcomers with respect to how few edits they've made. I would like to be a positive contributor to this site, but I have to start somewhere. I would appreciate encouragement and constructive criticism, not condescension and personal attacks. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

Yill, you raise excellent points, most of which have not been raised before. We should sharpen those points, here on this page, and then address them on the actual article page. This will take a fair amount of discussion. I could start by bringing up the discussion of point 7, inaccuracy of relativity at the quantum mechanical scale. One question that was raised was "Is there a discontinuity at that [microscopic boundary] distance? Such an approach is absurd.". No. The way quantum mechanics and classical theories interact at the (microscopic) scales where this happens is well known. It is, of course, generally known as the Bohr correspondence principle, described in any textbook on quantum mechanics, and known in more detail as Ehrenfest's theorem, described in more advanced textbooks. (Very briefly, the quantum mechanical realm eases into the classical realm according to the Ehrenfest theorem.) We should make some citations to those, and put in a careful explanation that, under QM, '''all''' classical theories are incorrect, and QM is the correct theory for everything, from atoms to planets. Classical theories are just extremely good approximations outside of the quantum-mechanical realm. And, of course, we do not know how that quantum-mechanical realm operated immediately after the big bang (that's what inflation theory is about), but that doesn't affect what we ''do'' know about general relativity in the macroscopic realm.

The item about point 10 is excellent. Gravitons arose ''after GR'', from attempts to unify the theories. They have nothing to do with the macroscopic aspects of GR, which is what GR is actually all about.

[[User:KrisJ|KrisJ]] 10:04, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

: Teach that relativity is incorrect, if you concede the point. There are relativists who claim their theory is the most precisely verified theory of all.

::Those relativists claim that with respect to the macroscopic realm, as KrisJ referred to above. We are discussing how it breaks down at the microscopic level, when QM starts to play a role. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

: Gravitons are based on GR, and they are non-existent. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:37, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::No, for gravitons to be a counterexample to GR, they must be predicted by it. But they are not, just as photons are not predicted by Maxwellian electrodynamics. They are the "quantum" of the gravitational field, as photons are for the electromagnetic field, and are quantum ''by definition''. GR is ''not'' a quantum theory; it manifestly does not predict them. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

:KrisJ, I appreciate your assistance with this project. I absolutely agree with your suggestions about 7 and 10, and hopefully we can find an editor with the ability to edit protected pages to help us implement them. If you know of any that could help us, you should ask if they would be willing. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

== Curvature of Space ==

Re [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&curid=97238&diff=766130&oldid=742826 this] edit: I don't disagree, but the example is a bad one. Based on local observations, one would assume that the Earth itself is flat, but it clearly isn't. My own point of view is that since the Universe can never be proved to be one thing or another, it is part of God's own ineffable being - it is almost folly to inquire further. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:24, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

: No, one would not assume the Earth is flat based on local observations, as a ship can be observed to "rise" over the horizon. I don't agree with the "nature is God" view either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:34, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
::Funny coincidence(?) that a defender of relativity invokes pantheism, since it was Einstein's (and Spinoza's) "god." [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:50, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

:I actually think the edit has merit, as long as the word "initial" is inserted before curvature, since the problem is that any initial curvature should be vastly amplified over time as the universe undergoes its usual expansion. And it is in fact the global curvature that is the issue here; ''any'' manifold we use to model the universe is by definition locally flat (since this is a fundamental property of manifolds). The ship and horizon observation is not a local observation, since it is fundamentally predicated on the global curvature of the Earth. "Local" means that it can be done at arbitrarily small distance scales, which that observation cannot. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:06, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2010-04-04T20:55:38Z

Yill: /* Several Clarification/Corrections */

'''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.'''

Andy, can you clarify #4 for me? I'm not sure I understand it. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:50, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:Sure, I welcome discussion of these important points. As I've said, I have an open mind about this and if something is true, then I accept it. But if something is false, I'll criticize it.

:The theory of relativity has taught for decades that as the velocity of a mass increases, then its (scalar) relativistic mass increases per the Lorentzian transformation. Now apply a force ORTHOGONAL to the velocity. Does that force encounter the increased mass, as relativity says, or encounter the rest mass, as logic would dictate?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:02, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Ah, I see what you mean. May I suggest a re-wording? "The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass." I think that might be a little clearer than it is currently stated. Your thoughts? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:06, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::Please do. Your edits are always welcome, and you've suggested an improvement here. Thank you for making this change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:20, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Why would logic dictate that? Mass is a scalar, and a force from any direction should encounter the same increased mass, not different masses from different directions.

::I suppose that under Newtonian mechanics, a moving object has a velocity of 0 within the plane perpendicular to its line of motion, and any forces operating in that plane will act on the object as if it is at rest. But that's not what ''logic'' dictates, that's what the ''previous theory'' dictates.

::Essentially your counterexample to relativity is that it makes a prediction that contradicts Newton's laws. This is neithe r a contradiction nor a logical problem, and it is should be edited out.[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

:::No, it's a logical problem. If you're suggesting that one force can affect the inertial in an entirely independent, orthogonal direction, that's illogical. One thing cannot affect something else that is entirely independent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:40, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::: Why is that illogical? What logical principle does it violate?

:::: See, in relativity, orthogonal doesn't ''mean'' independent. In relativity, velocity vectors ''do not add.'' In relativity, the effect of a new force is not independent of the object's existing momentum. And there is nothing illogical about that; it's just a new theory that contradicts the intuition from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

::::: Ng, something cannot be independent (orthogonal) and yet dependent at the same time. Unfortunately, you're arguing with your own theory at this point. Even most relativity promoters have abandoned the position you take here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:37, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::::::It seems that his point is that something can be orthogonal and dependent. I agree: The cross-product of two vectors is orthogonal to both and yet obviously dependent on both. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 21:41, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::::::: OK, good point, an orthogonal vector can be a function of other orthogonal vectors. But that's a bit different from what we're discussing. Here it's an orthogonal force that is not dependent on anything else, and yet Ng says it encounters relativistic mass due to a different orthogonal force.

::::::: I think relativists have abandoned Ng's position, so he's really arguing with his own side at this point. As a result, I urge him to reconsider his views with an open mind once he confirms that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: First of all, relativity has not "abandoned" the prediction we're talking about. The velocity addition formulas for both parallel and perpendicular velocities have not changed, and they still predict that an orthogonal force will have a harder time accelerating a fast-moving object. Physicists may have changed their informal interpretation of this formula, but not the formula itself, nor its predictions.

:::::: Note also that relativity's prediction can't be all that illogical, because this is what we ''actually observe happening to particles at high speeds.'' If you think that fast-moving particles commit some terrible offense against basic logic, take it up with God.

:::::: There is a very simple way to settle this matter: write an encyclopedia article where the material is properly sourced. If this is indeed some counterexample or logical flaw in relativity, then one can easily find a book or paper exposing that flaw, and cite it.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Sun Dec 13 17:55:04 EST 2009

:::::OK, I think I see part of the problem you people are having. The word "independent" has two different meanings. Being ''linearly'' independent is a concept from pure mathematics. Being ''causally'' independent is an unrelated metaphysical concept. Whether a force pushing on something causes it to move, and by how much, is completely, umm, independent of whether the vectors involved are linearly independent (orthogonal). Please try to be very careful about the meanings of the terms. [[User:SaraT|SaraT]] 17:00, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: I don't think that's the source of our confusion. I think the main problem is that, according to Newtonian mechanics and thus according to our mechanical intuition, orthogonal things tend to operate independently. Not only that, but a force exerted on an object is usually independent of the object's momentum.

:::::: In relativity, none of these things are true, due to the fact that velocities no longer add like vectors (and thus acceleration no longer incurs a cumulative change in velocity in the usual way.) This is seen as some sort of logical flaw or paradox simply because it contradicts the deeply ingrained intuition that came from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Sun Dec 13 18:10:46 EST 2009

::::::: Theories that don't produce anything useful are often a waste of time, or simply false. I realize that [[liberals]] tend to downplay accountability -- a [[Best New Conservative Words|conservative insight]], but theories should be accountable by what value they yield, particularly when taxpayer dollars are spent (wasted) on the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:55, 7 January 2010 (EST)

== Counterexample 4 (limiting behavior) ==

For the fourth "counterexample," the author points out that the momentum <math>p=mv\gamma</math> does not approach the momentum of light as <math>m\rightarrow 0</math> and <math>v\rightarrow c</math>

Aside from the mathematical sloppiness of taking two independent variables to a limit at the same time, at unspecified rates, these sorts of "discontinuities" can be found in just about any scientific theory. In Newtonian mechanics, for example, take the orbit of a planet as the planet's mass goes to 0. For any nonzero mass the orbit is an ellipse; at m=0 it is suddenly a straight line. Is this a "counterexample" to Newton's laws?

Or in electronics, I=V/R. The limiting case is no voltage, no resistance, no current; but if someone foolishly took V/R as both V and R go to zero, he would get a nonsensical answer. Let them both go at the same rate and you get I=1. Is this a "counterexample" to basic electronics?

Or more to the point, momentum in Newtonian mechanics is <math>p=mv</math>, and this also fails to give the momentum of a photon at m=0, v=c. Again, is that a "counterexample" to <math>p=mv</math>? Will we see this entry in a corresponding page of "Counterexamples to Newton's laws?"

But none of these are counterexamples or "discontinuities": they are just a misinterpretation of the formulas. You don't get the momentum of a photon by taking the momentum formula for a mass and setting m=0 and v=c. That's just not what the formula means, or what they are for. This item should also be removed.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Tue Dec 15 10:16:21 EST 2009

== Counterexample 9 (Jesus action-at-a-distance) ==

The quoted verse doesn't strongly suggest "action-at-a-distance" in the relativistic sense. Light could travel the distances mentioned in the passage in a fraction of a second, which is well within the precision given in the verse (an hour). The verse and relativity are not in contradiction here. This should be removed.

:I have an open mind about it. In the the healing of the centurion's servant, if the Greek is translated as same "moment" then relativity is impossible, but if translated as the same "hour" then there is no conflict with relativity.

:But the healing of the centurion's servant is probably not the only place where there is [[action at a distance]] in the [[Bible]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:52, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::Any distance on the earth is less than 20,000km. A force acting with the speed of light takes less than 1/15,000 ≈ 0.0000667 seconds for this distance.

::I don't think how eyewitnesses could spot such a short time...

::So, there may probably be no other places where [[action at a distance]] is described in the [[Bible]].

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:17, 5 January 2010 (EST)

:::You make an interesting point, Frank. But according to this site, it takes 1/7.4 seconds for light to circle the globe, which is much longer than your figure.[http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_times_does_light_go_around_the_Earth_in_one_second] More generally and more importantly, there is the issue of how this action in the Bible ''isn't'' light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::::Indeed, an error in my calculation: 20,000,000m / 300,000,000 m/sec = 1/15 seconds.
::::Fast enough, still.
::::Whether the action in the Bible ''isn't'' light doesn't matter: it is indistinguishable from an action happening at the speed of light for the witnesses of the time, so it doesn't say anything about the validity of the theory of relativity...
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 19:46, 5 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Frank you make an interesting point, and I have an open mind about it. But I'm not entirely convinced. When the woman cured herself of bleeding and Jesus felt power leaving him, that sounds more like heat than light. And for heat to travel virtually instantaneously (or at the speed of light) WOULD violate the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::::::Yes, it would. And it would also violate classical physics, the laws of thermodynamics etc.

::::::But of course a miracle is going to violate the laws of physics. I don't see how this can be cited to discredit one physical theory over another.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

I have to respectfully disagree with you on that point, Andy - I'm not sure this action could comment on relativity any more than the sun stopping for Joshua could comment on the Copernican model of the solar system. If God wanted heat/light to travel at some finite speed except in certain instances, how is that different from the sun and moon moving in the sky, except in certain instances? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:32, 5 January 2010 (EST)

: I have an open mind about this. You make good points, Jacob. But your analogy is not perfect because:

*the Joshua account might be understood as the ''perception'' of the army that they sun did not set until they completed their job, but the healing in the [[New Testament]] cannot be explained as mere perception
*if the Joshua account is taken absolutely literally, Newtonian mechanics does not say it is impossible, while relativity does say [[action-at-a-distance]] is impossible

I look forward to our translation work on the Joshua passage (and New Testament passages) to see if that brings forth insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)
:Your second point is a good one, and I suppose my example wasn't very good. But on a different note, what makes you say that the Joshua account might be understood as only a perception of the army? I think I'm going to go translate that chapeter, I'll be interested to see what Hebrew words are used for that bit. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:49, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::Shall we look at it next? Joshua 10:11-14, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:18, 5 January 2010 (EST)

IMO, the discussion is a little bit bizarre: Following [[David Hume]]'s definition of a [[miracle]] as a "a violation of the laws of nature", for evaluating the ''laws of natures'', miracles can't be taken into account.

As I said earlier: we shouldn't try to restrict God with the laws of our logic - or even physics.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Frank, perhaps what you mean is that you don't want the logic of the Bible to be used to evaluate claims by scientists. If so, I completely disagree. And so would [[Isaac Newton]] and most great scientists.

:As our [[Conservative Bible Translation]] project is revealing, Jesus said his works were not miracles, but signs. So any definition of miracle by Hume (who, by the way, leaned toward atheistic rather than Christianity) is not terribly helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:00, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::So, what's the definition of a ''sign'', then? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:06, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::The same as its name suggests: a disclosure of reality, rather than a violation of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:35, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::*I took Hume's definition as I found it on conservapedia's page on [[miracle]]s.
::::*The page on [[sign]]s doesn't describe Jesu works - perhaps you can fix this
::::*If you don't like Hume, what's about [[Thomas Aquinas]]:

:::::''Now, there are various degrees and orders of these miracles. Indeed, the highest rank among miracles is held by those events in which something is done by God which nature never could do. For example, that two bodies should be coincident; that the sun reverse its course, or stand still; that the sea open up and offer a way through which people may pass. And even among these an order may be observed. For the greater the things that God does are, and the more they are removed from the capacity of nature, the greater the miracle is. Thus, it is more miraculous for the sun to reverse its course than for the sea to be divided.

:::::''Then, the second degree among miracles is held by those events in which God does something which nature can do, but not in this order. It is a work of nature for an animal to live, to see, and to walk; but for it to live after death, to see after becoming blind, to walk after paralysis of the limbs, this nature cannot do—but God at times does such works miraculously. Even among this degree of miracles a gradation is evident, according as what is done is more removed from the capacity of nature.

:::::''Now, the third degree of miracles occurs when God does what is usually done by the working of nature, but without the operation of the principles of nature. For example, a person may be cured by divine power from a fever which could be cured naturally, and it may rain independently of the working of the principles of nature.

::::*Acts 2:43 ''Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles'' (KJB) So, we have ''miraculous signs'' and ''wonders''

::::*John 2:11 ''This was the first of the miracles Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and by doing showed his glory, and so his disciples believed in him. '' (CBP) ''Changing water into wine'' is something nature never could do: it's an outright miracle, miraculous sign, whatever...

::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:00, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::That's great recitation, Frank, but how about simply applying logic yourself? You're a bright guy, why simply hunt and repeat quotes from others? On this site we encourage ''thinking'' in a logical way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:21, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::I'm trying to use the fact that I'm standing on the shoulder of giants... [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:23, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::How about using "the fact" of simple logic and the power of your ''own'' mind?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::::To make it as clear as possible in my own words:
::::::::*I won't restrict God by laws which men made or observed. Can I understand God's ways? Can I expect God to act the way I think to be logical? That would be [[hubris]].
::::::::*Testing scientific hypotheses using God's miracles or signs seems to be odd!
::::::::But which part of Thomas Aquinas's definition of miraculous events didn't you like? Granted, he had a slightly other view of the ''capacity of nature'' than we have today, but his line of reasoning was as valid in the 15th century as it is today! I hoped that his definition would be more ''helpful'' than that of David Hume.

::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:41, 6 January 2010 (EST)

A miraculous healing seems to violate the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] - whether it happens on a distance or not. Does this mean that [[John 4:46-54]] is a counterexample to the laws of thermodynamics, too?
[[User:PhilG|PhilG]] 09:58, 2 February 2010 (EST)

: How so? Do you think eating an apple to feel better, or taking an aspirin to alleviate a headache, also violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:02, 2 February 2010 (EST)

== lack of a single useful device ==

At conservapedia's article on the [[Global Positioning System]], one can read:

''These receivers rely on precisely timing signals sent from GPS satellites, with corrections for atmospheric attenuation and relativistic effects.''

GPS seems to be a useful device!

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:53, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Great catch of a misleading statement, Frank! I've corrected it.

:Our [[theory of relativity]] entry explains how it did not aid the development of [[GPS]]. The repeated attempt by relativists to falsely claim credit for [[GPS]] ''reinforces'' the lack of any legitimate contributions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::Well, you are consistent! Just another question: What's about [[particle accelerator]]s? Generally, the theory of relativity is used to explain why it takes more energy to accelerate an electron from 200,000,000 m/sec to 200,002,000 m/sec than from 2,000 m/sec to 4,000 m/sec.

::Have you thought about an explanation for this phenomenon?

::Accelerators have applications beyond basic research!

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:02, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::Frank, I have an open mind about this, but I'm not aware of a single benefit from what you describe, nor do you identify one. Do you have an open mind about this?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::*Synchrotron radiation is [http://www.physik.uni-kiel.de/kfs/Anwendung/medicine.php used in medicine]
::::*So, may I ask again: what your explanation for the phenomenon? I suppose you are aware of the phenomenon I described above?
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 15:47, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Frank, inventors and doctors and engineers don't typically even bother learning relativity. Should I repeat that? Complain to engineering departments and medical schools if you think that should change. Nothing useful has even been designed or built using relativity. If you want to look and look and look for a counterexample then you'll be wasting your time. I'm not going to waste mine. This is my final reply on this topic for now. Do something logical, such as editing the Bible, and after benefiting from that experience we can revisit this issue in a month or so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:52, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::Why does it matter whether the users of the invention learn relativity? Most users of microwaves never learn Maxwell's equations either. That doesn't mean that the laws are irrelevant to the gadget's operation.

::::::Likewise, the engineers who correct the clocks of GPS satellites may not know or care that relativistic effects are behind the clock skew. But that dodges the point that relativistic effects are real, observable, and must be corrected for in several useful inventions.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

== GPS revisited ==

The same Tom von Flandern who is quoted in the article on the [[theory of relativity]] saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein", wrote in an article in 1998:

''So we can state that the clock rate effect predicted by GR is confirmed to within no worse than ±200 / 45,900 or about 0.7%, and that predicted by SR is confirmed to within ±200 / 7,200 or about 3%. This is a very conservative estimate. In an actual study, most of that maximum 200 ns/day variance would almost certainly be accounted for by differences between planned and achieved orbits, and the predictions of relativity would be confirmed with much better precision.''

As for how the satellites take into account the relativistic effects, here is his explanation of the so-called ''factory offset'' of the atomic clocks for the satellites:

''GPS atomic clocks in orbit would run at rates quite different from ground clocks if allowed to do so, and this would complicate usage of the system. So the counter of hyperfine cesium transitions (or the corresponding phenomenon in the case of rubidium atomic clocks) is reset on the ground before launch so that, once in orbit, the clocks will tick off whole seconds at the same average rate as ground clocks. GPS clocks are therefore seen to run slow compared to ground clocks before launch, but run at the same rate as ground clocks after launch when at the correct orbital altitude.''

Seems to me that relativistic effects have to be taken into account.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:13, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Frank, your intuition ("seems to me") is wrong here, and the entry explains it clearly. GPS is a work of engineering and any timing discrepancies between the satellite and ground are obviously better handled directly by synchronization rather than asking a physicist what he thinks of relativity. Engineers don't even bother taking general relativity courses, let alone try to build a satellite system using them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 6 January 2010 (EST)

== Several Clarification/Corrections ==

I am new to Conservapedia, so I don't fully understand exactly how this site is structured; in particular who has the ability to edit protected pages. This page is apparently protected, but in need of dire work even on the formatting/punctuation/style side of things. I hope someone with the required access to protected pages can incorporate some of these changes. In any event, here are some things that need to be clarified or corrected:

1. It is unclear what #6 is referring to by "overall space". Is this a reference to the flatness problem in cosmology? If so, that should be made explicit, and the most commonly accepted solution (inflation) should be mentioned for completeness. If not, the curvature of space locally is clearly demonstrated by the observed phenomenon of gravitational lensing.

2. #7 is just a feature of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum field theory. In this sense, general relativity is of course wrong (just as Newtonian mechanics is, for example), because it doesn't apply accurately below distance scales where quantum effects emerge.

3. #8 is not a problem because quantum nonlocality doesn't allow for information transfer. Hence special relativity is not violated.

4. #10 is not a counterexample because gravitons are not predicted by general relativity. They are expected to exist and be predicted by a successful ''quantum'' theory of gravity, but general relativity is not such a theory.

5. #11 is not a counterexample to the theory at all. It may be an argument for why the theory should not be studied, but that doesn't mean it is ''false'', and thus is not a counterexample.

6. #13 is presumably a reference to the horizon problem of cosmology. This should be stated, and, as for the flatness problem, the theory of cosmological inflation should be mentioned. (I realize inflation has not been empirically verified, but since the majority of cosmologists believe it is the correct explanation, it deserves a mention in an encyclopedia article.)

7. #14 is again the problem of the incompatibility of general relativity and quantum field theory (namely that QFT is not background-invariant). This is not a problem with general relativity, other than in the sense that it is only an approximation (like, say, Maxwellian electrodynamics are just an approximation to quantum electrodynamics).

8. #15, aside from the obvious grammatical error (''violated'' instead of the correct ''violate''), is again not a counterexample to general relativity. General relativity predicts wormholes ''only'' on the assumption that so-called "exotic matter" exists. This is matter that has net negative mass/energy, and so is predicted not to exist for precisely the reasons listed here (time travel and the like). But this is not a counterexample to general relativity itself, merely the observation that a mathematically possible solution does not have a physical manifestation.

9. #16 is again a quantum gravity issue. It is wrong to call black holes "highly ordered (and thus low entropy)", though. The fact is that science does not yet know how to count black hole microstates, so we don't know whether they are highly ordered or extremely disordered. But the best explanation seems to be that general relativity and the Second Law together suggest that black holes should have extremely ''high'' entropy, not low entropy. But again, this is not a counterexample to general relativity per se, since it makes no predictions about what black hole entropy should be.

10. #18 appears to be a restatement of #11, and is thus both redundant, and not a counterexample for the reasons listed discussion #11.

I apologize for the length of this list of edits, but something really must be done to improve the quality of this article. I hope that someone with the appropriate access sees fit to make the necessary changes soon.
[[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:12, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:REPLY BELOW:

::1. It is unclear what #6 is referring to by "overall space". Is this a reference to the flatness problem in cosmology? If so, that should be made explicit, and the most commonly accepted solution (inflation) should be mentioned for completeness. If not, the curvature of space locally is clearly demonstrated by the observed phenomenon of gravitational lensing.

::: I'll clarify the obvious. It's still a counterexample. Science is not done by consensus, and inflation does not explain the overall flatness of space if relativity were true.

::::You needn't be so condescending. I wasn't saying that it isn't a problem with general relativity, I was just saying that since this is an encyclopedia, relevant information should be included. Since a proposed solution exists, it should be mentioned, and perhaps debunked if it is flawed. So you could mention inflation, and then say why it fails to solve the flatness problem. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::The theory of inflation does nothing "to solve the flatness problem" with respect its role as a counterexample to relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::Could you clarify this point? Perhaps you could state exactly what you believe the flatness problem is and how it is a counterexample to GR, just to be sure we aren't talking past each other, as I fear we may have been so far. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:55, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::2. 7: is just a feature of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum field theory. In this sense, general relativity is of course wrong (just as Newtonian mechanics is, for example), because it doesn't apply accurately below distance scales where quantum effects emerge.

:::So at what distances do you declare general relativity to be false? Is there a discontinuity at that distance? Such an approach is absurd.

::::I mean, technically it is false at ''all'' length scales, just like any classical (non-quantum) theory (Newtonian mechanics, Maxwellian electromagnetism, classical statistical mechanics, etc.). But there exists a range of length scales at which it is extremely accurate, and those are the only ones to which it makes claims having any epistemological value. There is no discontinuity, it just gets progressively worse as quantum effects become more and more apparent, which occurs at smaller and smaller length scales. Quantum effects definitely need to be taken into account around the level of a nanometer or so in most systems of interest, so I would say this is about the regime where GR needs to stop being used. But of course, it depends on the system in question. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Not "technically it is false," but "it is false." So teach it that way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::See KrisJ's discussion below. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::3. 8 is not a problem because quantum nonlocality doesn't allow for information transfer. Hence special relativity is not violated.

:::Your statement is a non sequitur, and may not be true. Special relativity does deny non-locality.

::::It's not a non sequitur; the problem as I thought it was stated on the page is that special relativity does not allow information transfer faster than the speed of light. Since quantum entanglement cannot actually transfer information, this does not violate that provision of special relativity. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Special relativity does not define "information" nor was it developed in that context.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::It is true that SR does not define information, but it does define causality (only events within each other's lightcones can be causally connected). Physical transfer of information (as defined by Shannon, and encoded in physical systems in Minkowski spacetime) between points in spacetime can only occur if those points are causally connected. (This SR fact is what the horizon problem, which is cited as another GR counterexample, relies on.) [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

:::Will respond to your other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

::::I appreciate your attention to my concerns, and I hope I have adequately outlined them. Also, I hope I would not be asking too much to request formatting consistency (like adding periods at the ends of nos. 7, 8, and 9). It would make it look more professional, like other articles I've seen on Conservapedia. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Yill, your grand total of contributions to this site has been 3 edits to this page, all easily refutable. Frankly, I don't think greater efforts at "formatting consistency" are justified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:01, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::Your not going to be able to attract many users if you disparage newcomers with respect to how few edits they've made. I would like to be a positive contributor to this site, but I have to start somewhere. I would appreciate encouragement and constructive criticism, not condescension and personal attacks. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

Yill, you raise excellent points, most of which have not been raised before. We should sharpen those points, here on this page, and then address them on the actual article page. This will take a fair amount of discussion. I could start by bringing up the discussion of point 7, inaccuracy of relativity at the quantum mechanical scale. One question that was raised was "Is there a discontinuity at that [microscopic boundary] distance? Such an approach is absurd.". No. The way quantum mechanics and classical theories interact at the (microscopic) scales where this happens is well known. It is, of course, generally known as the Bohr correspondence principle, described in any textbook on quantum mechanics, and known in more detail as Ehrenfest's theorem, described in more advanced textbooks. (Very briefly, the quantum mechanical realm eases into the classical realm according to the Ehrenfest theorem.) We should make some citations to those, and put in a careful explanation that, under QM, '''all''' classical theories are incorrect, and QM is the correct theory for everything, from atoms to planets. Classical theories are just extremely good approximations outside of the quantum-mechanical realm. And, of course, we do not know how that quantum-mechanical realm operated immediately after the big bang (that's what inflation theory is about), but that doesn't affect what we ''do'' know about general relativity in the macroscopic realm.

The item about point 10 is excellent. Gravitons arose ''after GR'', from attempts to unify the theories. They have nothing to do with the macroscopic aspects of GR, which is what GR is actually all about.

[[User:KrisJ|KrisJ]] 10:04, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

: Teach that relativity is incorrect, if you concede the point. There are relativists who claim their theory is the most precisely verified theory of all.

::Those relativists claim that with respect to the macroscopic realm, as KrisJ referred to above. We are discussing how it breaks down at the microscopic level, when QM starts to play a role. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

: Gravitons are based on GR, and they are non-existent. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:37, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::No, for gravitons to be a counterexample to GR, they must be predicted by it. But they are not, just as photons are not predicted by Maxwellian electrodynamics. They are the "quantum" of the gravitational field, as photons are for the electromagnetic field, and are quantum ''by definition''. GR is ''not'' a quantum theory; it manifestly does not predict them. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

:KrisJ, I appreciate your assistance with this project. I absolutely agree with your suggestions about 7 and 10, and hopefully we can find an editor with the ability to edit protected pages to help us implement them. If you know of any that could help us, you should ask if they would be willing. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

== Curvature of Space ==

Re [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&curid=97238&diff=766130&oldid=742826 this] edit: I don't disagree, but the example is a bad one. Based on local observations, one would assume that the Earth itself is flat, but it clearly isn't. My own point of view is that since the Universe can never be proved to be one thing or another, it is part of God's own ineffable being - it is almost folly to inquire further. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:24, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

: No, one would not assume the Earth is flat based on local observations, as a ship can be observed to "rise" over the horizon. I don't agree with the "nature is God" view either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:34, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
::Funny coincidence(?) that a defender of relativity invokes pantheism, since it was Einstein's (and Spinoza's) "god." [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:50, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2010-04-04T20:49:25Z

Yill: /* Several Clarification/Corrections */

'''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.'''

Andy, can you clarify #4 for me? I'm not sure I understand it. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:50, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:Sure, I welcome discussion of these important points. As I've said, I have an open mind about this and if something is true, then I accept it. But if something is false, I'll criticize it.

:The theory of relativity has taught for decades that as the velocity of a mass increases, then its (scalar) relativistic mass increases per the Lorentzian transformation. Now apply a force ORTHOGONAL to the velocity. Does that force encounter the increased mass, as relativity says, or encounter the rest mass, as logic would dictate?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:02, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Ah, I see what you mean. May I suggest a re-wording? "The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass." I think that might be a little clearer than it is currently stated. Your thoughts? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:06, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::Please do. Your edits are always welcome, and you've suggested an improvement here. Thank you for making this change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:20, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Why would logic dictate that? Mass is a scalar, and a force from any direction should encounter the same increased mass, not different masses from different directions.

::I suppose that under Newtonian mechanics, a moving object has a velocity of 0 within the plane perpendicular to its line of motion, and any forces operating in that plane will act on the object as if it is at rest. But that's not what ''logic'' dictates, that's what the ''previous theory'' dictates.

::Essentially your counterexample to relativity is that it makes a prediction that contradicts Newton's laws. This is neithe r a contradiction nor a logical problem, and it is should be edited out.[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

:::No, it's a logical problem. If you're suggesting that one force can affect the inertial in an entirely independent, orthogonal direction, that's illogical. One thing cannot affect something else that is entirely independent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:40, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::: Why is that illogical? What logical principle does it violate?

:::: See, in relativity, orthogonal doesn't ''mean'' independent. In relativity, velocity vectors ''do not add.'' In relativity, the effect of a new force is not independent of the object's existing momentum. And there is nothing illogical about that; it's just a new theory that contradicts the intuition from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

::::: Ng, something cannot be independent (orthogonal) and yet dependent at the same time. Unfortunately, you're arguing with your own theory at this point. Even most relativity promoters have abandoned the position you take here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:37, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::::::It seems that his point is that something can be orthogonal and dependent. I agree: The cross-product of two vectors is orthogonal to both and yet obviously dependent on both. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 21:41, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::::::: OK, good point, an orthogonal vector can be a function of other orthogonal vectors. But that's a bit different from what we're discussing. Here it's an orthogonal force that is not dependent on anything else, and yet Ng says it encounters relativistic mass due to a different orthogonal force.

::::::: I think relativists have abandoned Ng's position, so he's really arguing with his own side at this point. As a result, I urge him to reconsider his views with an open mind once he confirms that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: First of all, relativity has not "abandoned" the prediction we're talking about. The velocity addition formulas for both parallel and perpendicular velocities have not changed, and they still predict that an orthogonal force will have a harder time accelerating a fast-moving object. Physicists may have changed their informal interpretation of this formula, but not the formula itself, nor its predictions.

:::::: Note also that relativity's prediction can't be all that illogical, because this is what we ''actually observe happening to particles at high speeds.'' If you think that fast-moving particles commit some terrible offense against basic logic, take it up with God.

:::::: There is a very simple way to settle this matter: write an encyclopedia article where the material is properly sourced. If this is indeed some counterexample or logical flaw in relativity, then one can easily find a book or paper exposing that flaw, and cite it.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Sun Dec 13 17:55:04 EST 2009

:::::OK, I think I see part of the problem you people are having. The word "independent" has two different meanings. Being ''linearly'' independent is a concept from pure mathematics. Being ''causally'' independent is an unrelated metaphysical concept. Whether a force pushing on something causes it to move, and by how much, is completely, umm, independent of whether the vectors involved are linearly independent (orthogonal). Please try to be very careful about the meanings of the terms. [[User:SaraT|SaraT]] 17:00, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: I don't think that's the source of our confusion. I think the main problem is that, according to Newtonian mechanics and thus according to our mechanical intuition, orthogonal things tend to operate independently. Not only that, but a force exerted on an object is usually independent of the object's momentum.

:::::: In relativity, none of these things are true, due to the fact that velocities no longer add like vectors (and thus acceleration no longer incurs a cumulative change in velocity in the usual way.) This is seen as some sort of logical flaw or paradox simply because it contradicts the deeply ingrained intuition that came from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Sun Dec 13 18:10:46 EST 2009

::::::: Theories that don't produce anything useful are often a waste of time, or simply false. I realize that [[liberals]] tend to downplay accountability -- a [[Best New Conservative Words|conservative insight]], but theories should be accountable by what value they yield, particularly when taxpayer dollars are spent (wasted) on the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:55, 7 January 2010 (EST)

== Counterexample 4 (limiting behavior) ==

For the fourth "counterexample," the author points out that the momentum <math>p=mv\gamma</math> does not approach the momentum of light as <math>m\rightarrow 0</math> and <math>v\rightarrow c</math>

Aside from the mathematical sloppiness of taking two independent variables to a limit at the same time, at unspecified rates, these sorts of "discontinuities" can be found in just about any scientific theory. In Newtonian mechanics, for example, take the orbit of a planet as the planet's mass goes to 0. For any nonzero mass the orbit is an ellipse; at m=0 it is suddenly a straight line. Is this a "counterexample" to Newton's laws?

Or in electronics, I=V/R. The limiting case is no voltage, no resistance, no current; but if someone foolishly took V/R as both V and R go to zero, he would get a nonsensical answer. Let them both go at the same rate and you get I=1. Is this a "counterexample" to basic electronics?

Or more to the point, momentum in Newtonian mechanics is <math>p=mv</math>, and this also fails to give the momentum of a photon at m=0, v=c. Again, is that a "counterexample" to <math>p=mv</math>? Will we see this entry in a corresponding page of "Counterexamples to Newton's laws?"

But none of these are counterexamples or "discontinuities": they are just a misinterpretation of the formulas. You don't get the momentum of a photon by taking the momentum formula for a mass and setting m=0 and v=c. That's just not what the formula means, or what they are for. This item should also be removed.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Tue Dec 15 10:16:21 EST 2009

== Counterexample 9 (Jesus action-at-a-distance) ==

The quoted verse doesn't strongly suggest "action-at-a-distance" in the relativistic sense. Light could travel the distances mentioned in the passage in a fraction of a second, which is well within the precision given in the verse (an hour). The verse and relativity are not in contradiction here. This should be removed.

:I have an open mind about it. In the the healing of the centurion's servant, if the Greek is translated as same "moment" then relativity is impossible, but if translated as the same "hour" then there is no conflict with relativity.

:But the healing of the centurion's servant is probably not the only place where there is [[action at a distance]] in the [[Bible]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:52, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::Any distance on the earth is less than 20,000km. A force acting with the speed of light takes less than 1/15,000 ≈ 0.0000667 seconds for this distance.

::I don't think how eyewitnesses could spot such a short time...

::So, there may probably be no other places where [[action at a distance]] is described in the [[Bible]].

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:17, 5 January 2010 (EST)

:::You make an interesting point, Frank. But according to this site, it takes 1/7.4 seconds for light to circle the globe, which is much longer than your figure.[http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_times_does_light_go_around_the_Earth_in_one_second] More generally and more importantly, there is the issue of how this action in the Bible ''isn't'' light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::::Indeed, an error in my calculation: 20,000,000m / 300,000,000 m/sec = 1/15 seconds.
::::Fast enough, still.
::::Whether the action in the Bible ''isn't'' light doesn't matter: it is indistinguishable from an action happening at the speed of light for the witnesses of the time, so it doesn't say anything about the validity of the theory of relativity...
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 19:46, 5 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Frank you make an interesting point, and I have an open mind about it. But I'm not entirely convinced. When the woman cured herself of bleeding and Jesus felt power leaving him, that sounds more like heat than light. And for heat to travel virtually instantaneously (or at the speed of light) WOULD violate the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::::::Yes, it would. And it would also violate classical physics, the laws of thermodynamics etc.

::::::But of course a miracle is going to violate the laws of physics. I don't see how this can be cited to discredit one physical theory over another.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

I have to respectfully disagree with you on that point, Andy - I'm not sure this action could comment on relativity any more than the sun stopping for Joshua could comment on the Copernican model of the solar system. If God wanted heat/light to travel at some finite speed except in certain instances, how is that different from the sun and moon moving in the sky, except in certain instances? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:32, 5 January 2010 (EST)

: I have an open mind about this. You make good points, Jacob. But your analogy is not perfect because:

*the Joshua account might be understood as the ''perception'' of the army that they sun did not set until they completed their job, but the healing in the [[New Testament]] cannot be explained as mere perception
*if the Joshua account is taken absolutely literally, Newtonian mechanics does not say it is impossible, while relativity does say [[action-at-a-distance]] is impossible

I look forward to our translation work on the Joshua passage (and New Testament passages) to see if that brings forth insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)
:Your second point is a good one, and I suppose my example wasn't very good. But on a different note, what makes you say that the Joshua account might be understood as only a perception of the army? I think I'm going to go translate that chapeter, I'll be interested to see what Hebrew words are used for that bit. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:49, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::Shall we look at it next? Joshua 10:11-14, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:18, 5 January 2010 (EST)

IMO, the discussion is a little bit bizarre: Following [[David Hume]]'s definition of a [[miracle]] as a "a violation of the laws of nature", for evaluating the ''laws of natures'', miracles can't be taken into account.

As I said earlier: we shouldn't try to restrict God with the laws of our logic - or even physics.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Frank, perhaps what you mean is that you don't want the logic of the Bible to be used to evaluate claims by scientists. If so, I completely disagree. And so would [[Isaac Newton]] and most great scientists.

:As our [[Conservative Bible Translation]] project is revealing, Jesus said his works were not miracles, but signs. So any definition of miracle by Hume (who, by the way, leaned toward atheistic rather than Christianity) is not terribly helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:00, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::So, what's the definition of a ''sign'', then? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:06, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::The same as its name suggests: a disclosure of reality, rather than a violation of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:35, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::*I took Hume's definition as I found it on conservapedia's page on [[miracle]]s.
::::*The page on [[sign]]s doesn't describe Jesu works - perhaps you can fix this
::::*If you don't like Hume, what's about [[Thomas Aquinas]]:

:::::''Now, there are various degrees and orders of these miracles. Indeed, the highest rank among miracles is held by those events in which something is done by God which nature never could do. For example, that two bodies should be coincident; that the sun reverse its course, or stand still; that the sea open up and offer a way through which people may pass. And even among these an order may be observed. For the greater the things that God does are, and the more they are removed from the capacity of nature, the greater the miracle is. Thus, it is more miraculous for the sun to reverse its course than for the sea to be divided.

:::::''Then, the second degree among miracles is held by those events in which God does something which nature can do, but not in this order. It is a work of nature for an animal to live, to see, and to walk; but for it to live after death, to see after becoming blind, to walk after paralysis of the limbs, this nature cannot do—but God at times does such works miraculously. Even among this degree of miracles a gradation is evident, according as what is done is more removed from the capacity of nature.

:::::''Now, the third degree of miracles occurs when God does what is usually done by the working of nature, but without the operation of the principles of nature. For example, a person may be cured by divine power from a fever which could be cured naturally, and it may rain independently of the working of the principles of nature.

::::*Acts 2:43 ''Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles'' (KJB) So, we have ''miraculous signs'' and ''wonders''

::::*John 2:11 ''This was the first of the miracles Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and by doing showed his glory, and so his disciples believed in him. '' (CBP) ''Changing water into wine'' is something nature never could do: it's an outright miracle, miraculous sign, whatever...

::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:00, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::That's great recitation, Frank, but how about simply applying logic yourself? You're a bright guy, why simply hunt and repeat quotes from others? On this site we encourage ''thinking'' in a logical way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:21, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::I'm trying to use the fact that I'm standing on the shoulder of giants... [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:23, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::How about using "the fact" of simple logic and the power of your ''own'' mind?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::::To make it as clear as possible in my own words:
::::::::*I won't restrict God by laws which men made or observed. Can I understand God's ways? Can I expect God to act the way I think to be logical? That would be [[hubris]].
::::::::*Testing scientific hypotheses using God's miracles or signs seems to be odd!
::::::::But which part of Thomas Aquinas's definition of miraculous events didn't you like? Granted, he had a slightly other view of the ''capacity of nature'' than we have today, but his line of reasoning was as valid in the 15th century as it is today! I hoped that his definition would be more ''helpful'' than that of David Hume.

::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:41, 6 January 2010 (EST)

A miraculous healing seems to violate the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] - whether it happens on a distance or not. Does this mean that [[John 4:46-54]] is a counterexample to the laws of thermodynamics, too?
[[User:PhilG|PhilG]] 09:58, 2 February 2010 (EST)

: How so? Do you think eating an apple to feel better, or taking an aspirin to alleviate a headache, also violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:02, 2 February 2010 (EST)

== lack of a single useful device ==

At conservapedia's article on the [[Global Positioning System]], one can read:

''These receivers rely on precisely timing signals sent from GPS satellites, with corrections for atmospheric attenuation and relativistic effects.''

GPS seems to be a useful device!

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:53, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Great catch of a misleading statement, Frank! I've corrected it.

:Our [[theory of relativity]] entry explains how it did not aid the development of [[GPS]]. The repeated attempt by relativists to falsely claim credit for [[GPS]] ''reinforces'' the lack of any legitimate contributions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::Well, you are consistent! Just another question: What's about [[particle accelerator]]s? Generally, the theory of relativity is used to explain why it takes more energy to accelerate an electron from 200,000,000 m/sec to 200,002,000 m/sec than from 2,000 m/sec to 4,000 m/sec.

::Have you thought about an explanation for this phenomenon?

::Accelerators have applications beyond basic research!

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:02, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::Frank, I have an open mind about this, but I'm not aware of a single benefit from what you describe, nor do you identify one. Do you have an open mind about this?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::*Synchrotron radiation is [http://www.physik.uni-kiel.de/kfs/Anwendung/medicine.php used in medicine]
::::*So, may I ask again: what your explanation for the phenomenon? I suppose you are aware of the phenomenon I described above?
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 15:47, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Frank, inventors and doctors and engineers don't typically even bother learning relativity. Should I repeat that? Complain to engineering departments and medical schools if you think that should change. Nothing useful has even been designed or built using relativity. If you want to look and look and look for a counterexample then you'll be wasting your time. I'm not going to waste mine. This is my final reply on this topic for now. Do something logical, such as editing the Bible, and after benefiting from that experience we can revisit this issue in a month or so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:52, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::Why does it matter whether the users of the invention learn relativity? Most users of microwaves never learn Maxwell's equations either. That doesn't mean that the laws are irrelevant to the gadget's operation.

::::::Likewise, the engineers who correct the clocks of GPS satellites may not know or care that relativistic effects are behind the clock skew. But that dodges the point that relativistic effects are real, observable, and must be corrected for in several useful inventions.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

== GPS revisited ==

The same Tom von Flandern who is quoted in the article on the [[theory of relativity]] saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein", wrote in an article in 1998:

''So we can state that the clock rate effect predicted by GR is confirmed to within no worse than ±200 / 45,900 or about 0.7%, and that predicted by SR is confirmed to within ±200 / 7,200 or about 3%. This is a very conservative estimate. In an actual study, most of that maximum 200 ns/day variance would almost certainly be accounted for by differences between planned and achieved orbits, and the predictions of relativity would be confirmed with much better precision.''

As for how the satellites take into account the relativistic effects, here is his explanation of the so-called ''factory offset'' of the atomic clocks for the satellites:

''GPS atomic clocks in orbit would run at rates quite different from ground clocks if allowed to do so, and this would complicate usage of the system. So the counter of hyperfine cesium transitions (or the corresponding phenomenon in the case of rubidium atomic clocks) is reset on the ground before launch so that, once in orbit, the clocks will tick off whole seconds at the same average rate as ground clocks. GPS clocks are therefore seen to run slow compared to ground clocks before launch, but run at the same rate as ground clocks after launch when at the correct orbital altitude.''

Seems to me that relativistic effects have to be taken into account.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:13, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Frank, your intuition ("seems to me") is wrong here, and the entry explains it clearly. GPS is a work of engineering and any timing discrepancies between the satellite and ground are obviously better handled directly by synchronization rather than asking a physicist what he thinks of relativity. Engineers don't even bother taking general relativity courses, let alone try to build a satellite system using them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 6 January 2010 (EST)

== Several Clarification/Corrections ==

I am new to Conservapedia, so I don't fully understand exactly how this site is structured; in particular who has the ability to edit protected pages. This page is apparently protected, but in need of dire work even on the formatting/punctuation/style side of things. I hope someone with the required access to protected pages can incorporate some of these changes. In any event, here are some things that need to be clarified or corrected:

1. It is unclear what #6 is referring to by "overall space". Is this a reference to the flatness problem in cosmology? If so, that should be made explicit, and the most commonly accepted solution (inflation) should be mentioned for completeness. If not, the curvature of space locally is clearly demonstrated by the observed phenomenon of gravitational lensing.

2. #7 is just a feature of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum field theory. In this sense, general relativity is of course wrong (just as Newtonian mechanics is, for example), because it doesn't apply accurately below distance scales where quantum effects emerge.

3. #8 is not a problem because quantum nonlocality doesn't allow for information transfer. Hence special relativity is not violated.

4. #10 is not a counterexample because gravitons are not predicted by general relativity. They are expected to exist and be predicted by a successful ''quantum'' theory of gravity, but general relativity is not such a theory.

5. #11 is not a counterexample to the theory at all. It may be an argument for why the theory should not be studied, but that doesn't mean it is ''false'', and thus is not a counterexample.

6. #13 is presumably a reference to the horizon problem of cosmology. This should be stated, and, as for the flatness problem, the theory of cosmological inflation should be mentioned. (I realize inflation has not been empirically verified, but since the majority of cosmologists believe it is the correct explanation, it deserves a mention in an encyclopedia article.)

7. #14 is again the problem of the incompatibility of general relativity and quantum field theory (namely that QFT is not background-invariant). This is not a problem with general relativity, other than in the sense that it is only an approximation (like, say, Maxwellian electrodynamics are just an approximation to quantum electrodynamics).

8. #15, aside from the obvious grammatical error (''violated'' instead of the correct ''violate''), is again not a counterexample to general relativity. General relativity predicts wormholes ''only'' on the assumption that so-called "exotic matter" exists. This is matter that has net negative mass/energy, and so is predicted not to exist for precisely the reasons listed here (time travel and the like). But this is not a counterexample to general relativity itself, merely the observation that a mathematically possible solution does not have a physical manifestation.

9. #16 is again a quantum gravity issue. It is wrong to call black holes "highly ordered (and thus low entropy)", though. The fact is that science does not yet know how to count black hole microstates, so we don't know whether they are highly ordered or extremely disordered. But the best explanation seems to be that general relativity and the Second Law together suggest that black holes should have extremely ''high'' entropy, not low entropy. But again, this is not a counterexample to general relativity per se, since it makes no predictions about what black hole entropy should be.

10. #18 appears to be a restatement of #11, and is thus both redundant, and not a counterexample for the reasons listed discussion #11.

I apologize for the length of this list of edits, but something really must be done to improve the quality of this article. I hope that someone with the appropriate access sees fit to make the necessary changes soon.
[[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:12, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:REPLY BELOW:

::1. It is unclear what #6 is referring to by "overall space". Is this a reference to the flatness problem in cosmology? If so, that should be made explicit, and the most commonly accepted solution (inflation) should be mentioned for completeness. If not, the curvature of space locally is clearly demonstrated by the observed phenomenon of gravitational lensing.

::: I'll clarify the obvious. It's still a counterexample. Science is not done by consensus, and inflation does not explain the overall flatness of space if relativity were true.

::::You needn't be so condescending. I wasn't saying that it isn't a problem with general relativity, I was just saying that since this is an encyclopedia, relevant information should be included. Since a proposed solution exists, it should be mentioned, and perhaps debunked if it is flawed. So you could mention inflation, and then say why it fails to solve the flatness problem. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::The theory of inflation does nothing "to solve the flatness problem" with respect its role as a counterexample to relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::2. 7: is just a feature of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum field theory. In this sense, general relativity is of course wrong (just as Newtonian mechanics is, for example), because it doesn't apply accurately below distance scales where quantum effects emerge.

:::So at what distances do you declare general relativity to be false? Is there a discontinuity at that distance? Such an approach is absurd.

::::I mean, technically it is false at ''all'' length scales, just like any classical (non-quantum) theory (Newtonian mechanics, Maxwellian electromagnetism, classical statistical mechanics, etc.). But there exists a range of length scales at which it is extremely accurate, and those are the only ones to which it makes claims having any epistemological value. There is no discontinuity, it just gets progressively worse as quantum effects become more and more apparent, which occurs at smaller and smaller length scales. Quantum effects definitely need to be taken into account around the level of a nanometer or so in most systems of interest, so I would say this is about the regime where GR needs to stop being used. But of course, it depends on the system in question. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Not "technically it is false," but "it is false." So teach it that way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::See KrisJ's discussion below. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::3. 8 is not a problem because quantum nonlocality doesn't allow for information transfer. Hence special relativity is not violated.

:::Your statement is a non sequitur, and may not be true. Special relativity does deny non-locality.

::::It's not a non sequitur; the problem as I thought it was stated on the page is that special relativity does not allow information transfer faster than the speed of light. Since quantum entanglement cannot actually transfer information, this does not violate that provision of special relativity. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Special relativity does not define "information" nor was it developed in that context.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::It is true that SR does not define information, but it does define causality (only events within each other's lightcones can be causally connected). Physical transfer of information (as defined by Shannon, and encoded in physical systems in Minkowski spacetime) between points in spacetime can only occur if those points are causally connected. (This SR fact is what the horizon problem, which is cited as another GR counterexample, relies on.) [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

:::Will respond to your other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

::::I appreciate your attention to my concerns, and I hope I have adequately outlined them. Also, I hope I would not be asking too much to request formatting consistency (like adding periods at the ends of nos. 7, 8, and 9). It would make it look more professional, like other articles I've seen on Conservapedia. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Yill, your grand total of contributions to this site has been 3 edits to this page, all easily refutable. Frankly, I don't think greater efforts at "formatting consistency" are justified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:01, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::Your not going to be able to attract many users if you disparage newcomers with respect to how few edits they've made. I would like to be a positive contributor to this site, but I have to start somewhere. I would appreciate encouragement and constructive criticism, not condescension and personal attacks. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

Yill, you raise excellent points, most of which have not been raised before. We should sharpen those points, here on this page, and then address them on the actual article page. This will take a fair amount of discussion. I could start by bringing up the discussion of point 7, inaccuracy of relativity at the quantum mechanical scale. One question that was raised was "Is there a discontinuity at that [microscopic boundary] distance? Such an approach is absurd.". No. The way quantum mechanics and classical theories interact at the (microscopic) scales where this happens is well known. It is, of course, generally known as the Bohr correspondence principle, described in any textbook on quantum mechanics, and known in more detail as Ehrenfest's theorem, described in more advanced textbooks. (Very briefly, the quantum mechanical realm eases into the classical realm according to the Ehrenfest theorem.) We should make some citations to those, and put in a careful explanation that, under QM, '''all''' classical theories are incorrect, and QM is the correct theory for everything, from atoms to planets. Classical theories are just extremely good approximations outside of the quantum-mechanical realm. And, of course, we do not know how that quantum-mechanical realm operated immediately after the big bang (that's what inflation theory is about), but that doesn't affect what we ''do'' know about general relativity in the macroscopic realm.

The item about point 10 is excellent. Gravitons arose ''after GR'', from attempts to unify the theories. They have nothing to do with the macroscopic aspects of GR, which is what GR is actually all about.

[[User:KrisJ|KrisJ]] 10:04, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

: Teach that relativity is incorrect, if you concede the point. There are relativists who claim their theory is the most precisely verified theory of all.

::Those relativists claim that with respect to the macroscopic realm, as KrisJ referred to above. We are discussing how it breaks down at the microscopic level, when QM starts to play a role. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

: Gravitons are based on GR, and they are non-existent. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:37, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::No, for gravitons to be a counterexample to GR, they must be predicted by it. But they are not, just as photons are not predicted by Maxwellian electrodynamics. They are the "quantum" of the gravitational field, as photons are for the electromagnetic field, and are quantum ''by definition''. GR is ''not'' a quantum theory; it manifestly does not predict them. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

:KrisJ, I appreciate your assistance with this project. I absolutely agree with your suggestions about 7 and 10, and hopefully we can find an editor with the ability to edit protected pages to help us implement them. If you know of any that could help us, you should ask if they would be willing. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

== Curvature of Space ==

Re [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&curid=97238&diff=766130&oldid=742826 this] edit: I don't disagree, but the example is a bad one. Based on local observations, one would assume that the Earth itself is flat, but it clearly isn't. My own point of view is that since the Universe can never be proved to be one thing or another, it is part of God's own ineffable being - it is almost folly to inquire further. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:24, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

: No, one would not assume the Earth is flat based on local observations, as a ship can be observed to "rise" over the horizon. I don't agree with the "nature is God" view either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:34, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
::Funny coincidence(?) that a defender of relativity invokes pantheism, since it was Einstein's (and Spinoza's) "god." [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:50, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2010-03-31T01:19:43Z

Yill: /* Several Clarification/Corrections */

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2010-03-30T21:12:19Z

Yill: /* Several Clarification/Corrections */

Andy, can you clarify #4 for me? I'm not sure I understand it. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:50, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:Sure, I welcome discussion of these important points. As I've said, I have an open mind about this and if something is true, then I accept it. But if something is false, I'll criticize it.

:The theory of relativity has taught for decades that as the velocity of a mass increases, then its (scalar) relativistic mass increases per the Lorentzian transformation. Now apply a force ORTHOGONAL to the velocity. Does that force encounter the increased mass, as relativity says, or encounter the rest mass, as logic would dictate?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:02, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Ah, I see what you mean. May I suggest a re-wording? "The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass." I think that might be a little clearer than it is currently stated. Your thoughts? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:06, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::Please do. Your edits are always welcome, and you've suggested an improvement here. Thank you for making this change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:20, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Why would logic dictate that? Mass is a scalar, and a force from any direction should encounter the same increased mass, not different masses from different directions.

::I suppose that under Newtonian mechanics, a moving object has a velocity of 0 within the plane perpendicular to its line of motion, and any forces operating in that plane will act on the object as if it is at rest. But that's not what ''logic'' dictates, that's what the ''previous theory'' dictates.

::Essentially your counterexample to relativity is that it makes a prediction that contradicts Newton's laws. This is neithe r a contradiction nor a logical problem, and it is should be edited out.[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

:::No, it's a logical problem. If you're suggesting that one force can affect the inertial in an entirely independent, orthogonal direction, that's illogical. One thing cannot affect something else that is entirely independent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:40, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::: Why is that illogical? What logical principle does it violate?

:::: See, in relativity, orthogonal doesn't ''mean'' independent. In relativity, velocity vectors ''do not add.'' In relativity, the effect of a new force is not independent of the object's existing momentum. And there is nothing illogical about that; it's just a new theory that contradicts the intuition from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

::::: Ng, something cannot be independent (orthogonal) and yet dependent at the same time. Unfortunately, you're arguing with your own theory at this point. Even most relativity promoters have abandoned the position you take here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:37, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::::::It seems that his point is that something can be orthogonal and dependent. I agree: The cross-product of two vectors is orthogonal to both and yet obviously dependent on both. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 21:41, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::::::: OK, good point, an orthogonal vector can be a function of other orthogonal vectors. But that's a bit different from what we're discussing. Here it's an orthogonal force that is not dependent on anything else, and yet Ng says it encounters relativistic mass due to a different orthogonal force.

::::::: I think relativists have abandoned Ng's position, so he's really arguing with his own side at this point. As a result, I urge him to reconsider his views with an open mind once he confirms that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: First of all, relativity has not "abandoned" the prediction we're talking about. The velocity addition formulas for both parallel and perpendicular velocities have not changed, and they still predict that an orthogonal force will have a harder time accelerating a fast-moving object. Physicists may have changed their informal interpretation of this formula, but not the formula itself, nor its predictions.

:::::: Note also that relativity's prediction can't be all that illogical, because this is what we ''actually observe happening to particles at high speeds.'' If you think that fast-moving particles commit some terrible offense against basic logic, take it up with God.

:::::: There is a very simple way to settle this matter: write an encyclopedia article where the material is properly sourced. If this is indeed some counterexample or logical flaw in relativity, then one can easily find a book or paper exposing that flaw, and cite it.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Sun Dec 13 17:55:04 EST 2009

:::::OK, I think I see part of the problem you people are having. The word "independent" has two different meanings. Being ''linearly'' independent is a concept from pure mathematics. Being ''causally'' independent is an unrelated metaphysical concept. Whether a force pushing on something causes it to move, and by how much, is completely, umm, independent of whether the vectors involved are linearly independent (orthogonal). Please try to be very careful about the meanings of the terms. [[User:SaraT|SaraT]] 17:00, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: I don't think that's the source of our confusion. I think the main problem is that, according to Newtonian mechanics and thus according to our mechanical intuition, orthogonal things tend to operate independently. Not only that, but a force exerted on an object is usually independent of the object's momentum.

:::::: In relativity, none of these things are true, due to the fact that velocities no longer add like vectors (and thus acceleration no longer incurs a cumulative change in velocity in the usual way.) This is seen as some sort of logical flaw or paradox simply because it contradicts the deeply ingrained intuition that came from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Sun Dec 13 18:10:46 EST 2009

::::::: Theories that don't produce anything useful are often a waste of time, or simply false. I realize that [[liberals]] tend to downplay accountability -- a [[Best New Conservative Words|conservative insight]], but theories should be accountable by what value they yield, particularly when taxpayer dollars are spent (wasted) on the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:55, 7 January 2010 (EST)

== Counterexample 4 (limiting behavior) ==

For the fourth "counterexample," the author points out that the momentum <math>p=mv\gamma</math> does not approach the momentum of light as <math>m\rightarrow 0</math> and <math>v\rightarrow c</math>

Aside from the mathematical sloppiness of taking two independent variables to a limit at the same time, at unspecified rates, these sorts of "discontinuities" can be found in just about any scientific theory. In Newtonian mechanics, for example, take the orbit of a planet as the planet's mass goes to 0. For any nonzero mass the orbit is an ellipse; at m=0 it is suddenly a straight line. Is this a "counterexample" to Newton's laws?

Or in electronics, I=V/R. The limiting case is no voltage, no resistance, no current; but if someone foolishly took V/R as both V and R go to zero, he would get a nonsensical answer. Let them both go at the same rate and you get I=1. Is this a "counterexample" to basic electronics?

Or more to the point, momentum in Newtonian mechanics is <math>p=mv</math>, and this also fails to give the momentum of a photon at m=0, v=c. Again, is that a "counterexample" to <math>p=mv</math>? Will we see this entry in a corresponding page of "Counterexamples to Newton's laws?"

But none of these are counterexamples or "discontinuities": they are just a misinterpretation of the formulas. You don't get the momentum of a photon by taking the momentum formula for a mass and setting m=0 and v=c. That's just not what the formula means, or what they are for. This item should also be removed.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Tue Dec 15 10:16:21 EST 2009

== Counterexample 9 (Jesus action-at-a-distance) ==

The quoted verse doesn't strongly suggest "action-at-a-distance" in the relativistic sense. Light could travel the distances mentioned in the passage in a fraction of a second, which is well within the precision given in the verse (an hour). The verse and relativity are not in contradiction here. This should be removed.

:I have an open mind about it. In the the healing of the centurion's servant, if the Greek is translated as same "moment" then relativity is impossible, but if translated as the same "hour" then there is no conflict with relativity.

:But the healing of the centurion's servant is probably not the only place where there is [[action at a distance]] in the [[Bible]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:52, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::Any distance on the earth is less than 20,000km. A force acting with the speed of light takes less than 1/15,000 ≈ 0.0000667 seconds for this distance.

::I don't think how eyewitnesses could spot such a short time...

::So, there may probably be no other places where [[action at a distance]] is described in the [[Bible]].

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:17, 5 January 2010 (EST)

:::You make an interesting point, Frank. But according to this site, it takes 1/7.4 seconds for light to circle the globe, which is much longer than your figure.[http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_times_does_light_go_around_the_Earth_in_one_second] More generally and more importantly, there is the issue of how this action in the Bible ''isn't'' light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::::Indeed, an error in my calculation: 20,000,000m / 300,000,000 m/sec = 1/15 seconds.
::::Fast enough, still.
::::Whether the action in the Bible ''isn't'' light doesn't matter: it is indistinguishable from an action happening at the speed of light for the witnesses of the time, so it doesn't say anything about the validity of the theory of relativity...
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 19:46, 5 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Frank you make an interesting point, and I have an open mind about it. But I'm not entirely convinced. When the woman cured herself of bleeding and Jesus felt power leaving him, that sounds more like heat than light. And for heat to travel virtually instantaneously (or at the speed of light) WOULD violate the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::::::Yes, it would. And it would also violate classical physics, the laws of thermodynamics etc.

::::::But of course a miracle is going to violate the laws of physics. I don't see how this can be cited to discredit one physical theory over another.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

I have to respectfully disagree with you on that point, Andy - I'm not sure this action could comment on relativity any more than the sun stopping for Joshua could comment on the Copernican model of the solar system. If God wanted heat/light to travel at some finite speed except in certain instances, how is that different from the sun and moon moving in the sky, except in certain instances? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:32, 5 January 2010 (EST)

: I have an open mind about this. You make good points, Jacob. But your analogy is not perfect because:

*the Joshua account might be understood as the ''perception'' of the army that they sun did not set until they completed their job, but the healing in the [[New Testament]] cannot be explained as mere perception
*if the Joshua account is taken absolutely literally, Newtonian mechanics does not say it is impossible, while relativity does say [[action-at-a-distance]] is impossible

I look forward to our translation work on the Joshua passage (and New Testament passages) to see if that brings forth insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)
:Your second point is a good one, and I suppose my example wasn't very good. But on a different note, what makes you say that the Joshua account might be understood as only a perception of the army? I think I'm going to go translate that chapeter, I'll be interested to see what Hebrew words are used for that bit. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:49, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::Shall we look at it next? Joshua 10:11-14, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:18, 5 January 2010 (EST)

IMO, the discussion is a little bit bizarre: Following [[David Hume]]'s definition of a [[miracle]] as a "a violation of the laws of nature", for evaluating the ''laws of natures'', miracles can't be taken into account.

As I said earlier: we shouldn't try to restrict God with the laws of our logic - or even physics.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Frank, perhaps what you mean is that you don't want the logic of the Bible to be used to evaluate claims by scientists. If so, I completely disagree. And so would [[Isaac Newton]] and most great scientists.

:As our [[Conservative Bible Translation]] project is revealing, Jesus said his works were not miracles, but signs. So any definition of miracle by Hume (who, by the way, leaned toward atheistic rather than Christianity) is not terribly helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:00, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::So, what's the definition of a ''sign'', then? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:06, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::The same as its name suggests: a disclosure of reality, rather than a violation of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:35, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::*I took Hume's definition as I found it on conservapedia's page on [[miracle]]s.
::::*The page on [[sign]]s doesn't describe Jesu works - perhaps you can fix this
::::*If you don't like Hume, what's about [[Thomas Aquinas]]:

:::::''Now, there are various degrees and orders of these miracles. Indeed, the highest rank among miracles is held by those events in which something is done by God which nature never could do. For example, that two bodies should be coincident; that the sun reverse its course, or stand still; that the sea open up and offer a way through which people may pass. And even among these an order may be observed. For the greater the things that God does are, and the more they are removed from the capacity of nature, the greater the miracle is. Thus, it is more miraculous for the sun to reverse its course than for the sea to be divided.

:::::''Then, the second degree among miracles is held by those events in which God does something which nature can do, but not in this order. It is a work of nature for an animal to live, to see, and to walk; but for it to live after death, to see after becoming blind, to walk after paralysis of the limbs, this nature cannot do—but God at times does such works miraculously. Even among this degree of miracles a gradation is evident, according as what is done is more removed from the capacity of nature.

:::::''Now, the third degree of miracles occurs when God does what is usually done by the working of nature, but without the operation of the principles of nature. For example, a person may be cured by divine power from a fever which could be cured naturally, and it may rain independently of the working of the principles of nature.

::::*Acts 2:43 ''Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles'' (KJB) So, we have ''miraculous signs'' and ''wonders''

::::*John 2:11 ''This was the first of the miracles Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and by doing showed his glory, and so his disciples believed in him. '' (CBP) ''Changing water into wine'' is something nature never could do: it's an outright miracle, miraculous sign, whatever...

::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:00, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::That's great recitation, Frank, but how about simply applying logic yourself? You're a bright guy, why simply hunt and repeat quotes from others? On this site we encourage ''thinking'' in a logical way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:21, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::I'm trying to use the fact that I'm standing on the shoulder of giants... [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:23, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::How about using "the fact" of simple logic and the power of your ''own'' mind?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::::To make it as clear as possible in my own words:
::::::::*I won't restrict God by laws which men made or observed. Can I understand God's ways? Can I expect God to act the way I think to be logical? That would be [[hubris]].
::::::::*Testing scientific hypotheses using God's miracles or signs seems to be odd!
::::::::But which part of Thomas Aquinas's definition of miraculous events didn't you like? Granted, he had a slightly other view of the ''capacity of nature'' than we have today, but his line of reasoning was as valid in the 15th century as it is today! I hoped that his definition would be more ''helpful'' than that of David Hume.

::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:41, 6 January 2010 (EST)

A miraculous healing seems to violate the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] - whether it happens on a distance or not. Does this mean that [[John 4:46-54]] is a counterexample to the laws of thermodynamics, too?
[[User:PhilG|PhilG]] 09:58, 2 February 2010 (EST)

: How so? Do you think eating an apple to feel better, or taking an aspirin to alleviate a headache, also violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:02, 2 February 2010 (EST)

== lack of a single useful device ==

At conservapedia's article on the [[Global Positioning System]], one can read:

''These receivers rely on precisely timing signals sent from GPS satellites, with corrections for atmospheric attenuation and relativistic effects.''

GPS seems to be a useful device!

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:53, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Great catch of a misleading statement, Frank! I've corrected it.

:Our [[theory of relativity]] entry explains how it did not aid the development of [[GPS]]. The repeated attempt by relativists to falsely claim credit for [[GPS]] ''reinforces'' the lack of any legitimate contributions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::Well, you are consistent! Just another question: What's about [[particle accelerator]]s? Generally, the theory of relativity is used to explain why it takes more energy to accelerate an electron from 200,000,000 m/sec to 200,002,000 m/sec than from 2,000 m/sec to 4,000 m/sec.

::Have you thought about an explanation for this phenomenon?

::Accelerators have applications beyond basic research!

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:02, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::Frank, I have an open mind about this, but I'm not aware of a single benefit from what you describe, nor do you identify one. Do you have an open mind about this?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::*Synchrotron radiation is [http://www.physik.uni-kiel.de/kfs/Anwendung/medicine.php used in medicine]
::::*So, may I ask again: what your explanation for the phenomenon? I suppose you are aware of the phenomenon I described above?
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 15:47, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Frank, inventors and doctors and engineers don't typically even bother learning relativity. Should I repeat that? Complain to engineering departments and medical schools if you think that should change. Nothing useful has even been designed or built using relativity. If you want to look and look and look for a counterexample then you'll be wasting your time. I'm not going to waste mine. This is my final reply on this topic for now. Do something logical, such as editing the Bible, and after benefiting from that experience we can revisit this issue in a month or so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:52, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::Why does it matter whether the users of the invention learn relativity? Most users of microwaves never learn Maxwell's equations either. That doesn't mean that the laws are irrelevant to the gadget's operation.

::::::Likewise, the engineers who correct the clocks of GPS satellites may not know or care that relativistic effects are behind the clock skew. But that dodges the point that relativistic effects are real, observable, and must be corrected for in several useful inventions.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

== GPS revisited ==

The same Tom von Flandern who is quoted in the article on the [[theory of relativity]] saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein", wrote in an article in 1998:

''So we can state that the clock rate effect predicted by GR is confirmed to within no worse than ±200 / 45,900 or about 0.7%, and that predicted by SR is confirmed to within ±200 / 7,200 or about 3%. This is a very conservative estimate. In an actual study, most of that maximum 200 ns/day variance would almost certainly be accounted for by differences between planned and achieved orbits, and the predictions of relativity would be confirmed with much better precision.''

As for how the satellites take into account the relativistic effects, here is his explanation of the so-called ''factory offset'' of the atomic clocks for the satellites:

''GPS atomic clocks in orbit would run at rates quite different from ground clocks if allowed to do so, and this would complicate usage of the system. So the counter of hyperfine cesium transitions (or the corresponding phenomenon in the case of rubidium atomic clocks) is reset on the ground before launch so that, once in orbit, the clocks will tick off whole seconds at the same average rate as ground clocks. GPS clocks are therefore seen to run slow compared to ground clocks before launch, but run at the same rate as ground clocks after launch when at the correct orbital altitude.''

Seems to me that relativistic effects have to be taken into account.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:13, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Frank, your intuition ("seems to me") is wrong here, and the entry explains it clearly. GPS is a work of engineering and any timing discrepancies between the satellite and ground are obviously better handled directly by synchronization rather than asking a physicist what he thinks of relativity. Engineers don't even bother taking general relativity courses, let alone try to build a satellite system using them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 6 January 2010 (EST)

== Several Clarification/Corrections ==

I am new to Conservapedia, so I don't fully understand exactly how this site is structured; in particular who has the ability to edit protected pages. This page is apparently protected, but in need of dire work even on the formatting/punctuation/style side of things. I hope someone with the required access to protected pages can incorporate some of these changes. In any event, here are some things that need to be clarified or corrected:

1. It is unclear what #6 is referring to by "overall space". Is this a reference to the flatness problem in cosmology? If so, that should be made explicit, and the most commonly accepted solution (inflation) should be mentioned for completeness. If not, the curvature of space locally is clearly demonstrated by the observed phenomenon of gravitational lensing.

2. #7 is just a feature of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum field theory. In this sense, general relativity is of course wrong (just as Newtonian mechanics is, for example), because it doesn't apply accurately below distance scales where quantum effects emerge.

3. #8 is not a problem because quantum nonlocality doesn't allow for information transfer. Hence special relativity is not violated.

4. #10 is not a counterexample because gravitons are not predicted by general relativity. They are expected to exist and be predicted by a successful ''quantum'' theory of gravity, but general relativity is not such a theory.

5. #11 is not a counterexample to the theory at all. It may be an argument for why the theory should not be studied, but that doesn't mean it is ''false'', and thus is not a counterexample.

6. #13 is presumably a reference to the horizon problem of cosmology. This should be stated, and, as for the flatness problem, the theory of cosmological inflation should be mentioned. (I realize inflation has not been empirically verified, but since the majority of cosmologists believe it is the correct explanation, it deserves a mention in an encyclopedia article.)

7. #14 is again the problem of the incompatibility of general relativity and quantum field theory (namely that QFT is not background-invariant). This is not a problem with general relativity, other than in the sense that it is only an approximation (like, say, Maxwellian electrodynamics are just an approximation to quantum electrodynamics).

8. #15, aside from the obvious grammatical error (''violated'' instead of the correct ''violate''), is again not a counterexample to general relativity. General relativity predicts wormholes ''only'' on the assumption that so-called "exotic matter" exists. This is matter that has net negative mass/energy, and so is predicted not to exist for precisely the reasons listed here (time travel and the like). But this is not a counterexample to general relativity itself, merely the observation that a mathematically possible solution does not have a physical manifestation.

9. #16 is again a quantum gravity issue. It is wrong to call black holes "highly ordered (and thus low entropy)", though. The fact is that science does not yet know how to count black hole microstates, so we don't know whether they are highly ordered or extremely disordered. But the best explanation seems to be that general relativity and the Second Law together suggest that black holes should have extremely ''high'' entropy, not low entropy. But again, this is not a counterexample to general relativity per se, since it makes no predictions about what black hole entropy should be.

10. #18 appears to be a restatement of #11, and is thus both redundant, and not a counterexample for the reasons listed discussion #11.

I apologize for the length of this list of edits, but something really must be done to improve the quality of this article. I hope that someone with the appropriate access sees fit to make the necessary changes soon.
[[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:12, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2010-03-30T21:10:58Z

Yill: /* Several Clarification/Corrections */ new section