Difference between revisions of "Talk:Theory of relativity"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Inconsistence in the article: Your comments are excellent. But Einstein's personal views about this are not controlling, as this theory has taken on a life of its own and is used to promote relativism and pull people away from the Bible. Please see Counterexamples_to_Relativity#cite_note-1. Thank you.)
 
(159 intermediate revisions by 40 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary.  Many topics have been discussed many, many, times.  If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''
 
−
 
−
'''Raising arguments which have been discussed before wastes the time of valuable editors and repeatedly doing so violates 90/10.'''
 
−
 
−
 
−
 
−
 
−
For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Theory of relativity/Archive 1|Archive 1]], [[Talk:Theory of relativity/Archive 2|Archive 2]]
 
  
  
 +
For older discussions, see the archive [[Talk:Theory of relativity/index|index]].<br />
 +
|valign="top" style="text-align:right"|[[Image:Conservlogo.png|65px]]
 +
|}
  
  
 
<!---------------------------------- Comments go below this line --------------------------->
 
<!---------------------------------- Comments go below this line --------------------------->
 +
== Special relativity and evidence ==
 +
Many objects have been accelerated to velocities near the speed of light (in particle colliders) and it is easily observed that the rate at which those objects speed up as a constant force is applied is (very precisely) consistent with special relativity and not Gallilean relativity.  That is, as their measured speed approaches the speed of light, that speed increases less and less in response to each "push" even though the "pushes" remain the same strength, thus apparently violating Newton's F = ma.  On the other hand, Einstein's famous E = gamma * mc^2 appears to describe their rate of acceleration very accurately.  I don't understand how this article proposes to surmount that objection. [[User:ZeroThree|ZeroThree]] 15:47, 28 October 2012 (EDT)
  
−
==Barack Obama==
+
:What about all the evidence for Maxwell's equations, including electromagnets and radio waves, and all the everyday inventions that demonstrate that these things are real?  Maxwell's equations contradict classical physics, and relativity was developed specifically to make Maxwell's equations valid in all reference frames.  This includes not only the issue of a constant speed of light, but also magnetic fields arising from "moving" charges, where motion is defined in terms of each observer.  Indeed, special relativity can be derived directly from Maxwell's equations.  Any confirmation of Maxwell's equations is consistent with relativity and not with Galilean relativity.  [[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Fri Jan 31 13:29:34 EST 2020
  
−
You misrepresent Barack Obama as an author of "The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics" by claiming in footnote 44 that "Tribe and Obama argued that...." Tribe is the sole author of the paper, and only thanks Obama (among others) for "analytic and research assistance". It's also misleading to claim that Obama "helped publish" the article, which implies that he somehow exerted political influence to get it published, knew the publishers, or was active in the publishing process. Obama was active in the research process, not the publication process.
+
== Mass depending on direction ==
−
--[[User:MikeThicke|MikeThicke]] 16:13, 8 December 2009 (EST)
 
  
 +
The article states:
 +
:''There is a logical difficulty, however, to an increase in relativistic mass. Such increase would only exist in the direction of motion, and the rest mass would remain intact with respect to a force applied in a direction orthogonal to velocity. Neither mass nor energy is a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is illogical.''
  
−
== Jfraatz's comments ==
+
As [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] on 8 July 2007 (EDT): ''This paragraph is nonsense [..] The relativistic mass applies no matter what the direction of the force is.''
  
 +
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:45, 10 January 2012 (EST)
  
−
:: Andrew;
+
== Neutrinos now obey speed limit ==
  
−
::Relativity predicts absurd physical discontinuities
+
The observation sited in the first sentence of this article has been discredited. [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp] It appears that a loose fiber-optics cable is to blame for the misreadings. I suggest editing this first sentence, and any other mention of this in the article.--[[User:CarloP|CarloP]] 18:51, 2 March 2012 (EST)
  
−
::I've studied relativity in depth, and those paradoxes all have very neat resolutions once you account for the change in reference frame.
+
:Issues concerning the neutrino experiment are not yet fully resolved.  No problam: I replaced it with another counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:12, 2 March 2012 (EST)
  
−
::"and it contradicts logic,"
+
== Why does Conservapedia seek to discredit Relativity ==
  
−
::That doesn't follow. Relativity is based on two premises and follows very logically from them.
+
Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?
  
−
::"the evidence,"
+
Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition?  [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
  
−
::On the contrary:
+
:''Conservapedia'' seeks the truth, not merely what the [[lamestream media]] claim is the truth.  Moreover, once one accepts a logical fallacy, then anything false can be proven from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
 +
:: Ahh.... But the fact that the conclusion is false does not necessarily render the basis false. I could say "Andy Schlafly founded Conservapedia and therefore I am a pig monkey." I am not a pig monkey, and even if I were, that has nothing to do with you founding this website. But you still did. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:58, 9 April 2012 (EDT)
  
−
::Special relativity:
+
:When looking around the internet, it is obvious that Conservapedia's classification of relativity as [[pseudoscience]] is a source of some amusement and contempt. Aschlafly, could you please answer the two questions I raised above? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:27, 9 April 2012 (EDT)
  
−
::1. E=mc^2: nuclear power and the atomic bomb
+
::Roland, liberal peer pressure from "around the internet" does not illuminate the truth. If what liberals on the internet said made a dime's bit of difference, then the [[Bible]] would not be the best selling book (by far) and the percentage of people who are [[conservative]] would not be growing (as it does).
−
2. Time dilation: The airplane experiments, and the time dilation of subatomic particle decay rates in a particle accelerator.
 
−
3.Mass increase: The exponential increase in energy required to get things fractionally closer to the speed of light.
 
  
−
::General relativity:
+
::"Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?"  Because it's false, it confuses people, it misleads people into stop reading the Bible, and its orthodoxy interferes with the advancement of science for the benefit of all.  Other than that, it's not a bad theory!
  
−
::1. Prediction of a non-static universe.
+
::"Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition?"  The only bias is by liberals who shout down any criticism of the theory. If the theory were so clearly true, then there would be no need for some liberals to rely on [[censorship]] in propping it up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:10, 9 April 2012 (EDT)
−
2. Gravity waves -detected by their combined perturbative effect to a the rotation of a neutron star
 
−
3. Gravitational microlensing.
 
−
4. Time dilation experiments conducted with skyscrapers
 
−
5. Red-shifting near gravitational sources.
 
  
−
::"and the Bible."
+
== GPS and Relativity ==
  
−
::That is a very bizarre claim. There is nothing in the Bible that contradicts relativity and it is about like saying that the theory that the sky is blue contradicts the Bible. I'm curious. Where did you get this idea?
+
I note that anyone using a GPS is relying on the Theory of Relativity being true, since calculations derived from Relativity are used within a GPS. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
  
−
::"The biggest promoters of relativity today are more liberal than the Democratic Party, and that's saying a lot."
+
:GPS does '''''not''''' rely on the [[Theory of Relativity]], and this has been thoroughly explained on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
  
−
::""First of all that's an ad hominem. Secondly it's not true. The physics department at my SECULAR university has a higher predominance of conservative and Christian people than any of the other sciences and much more so than the Marxist laden humanities departments.
+
::Hi Aschlafly, I've located at least some of the discussion re GPS in the archives of this talk page, and there a lot of references for me to examine before I can make any further serious comments; certainly there are some references which appear to state that GPS relies on relativity.  Can you perhaps draw my attention to what you consider the most important (half-dozen or so) references which indicate that the GPS system does NOT rely on relativity so that I have somewhere to start from? In the meantime I'll continue editing and improving less controversial articles as I have been doing for the last two months (my talk page lists nearly 40 articles I can usefully contribute to). [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:17, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
  
−
::The professor who taught my relativity class -who happens to be the department expert on general relativity and quantum gravity- even invited us all to a talk after class once regarding the possibility of intelligent design of the physical constants. As it turns out this talk about intelligent design of the physical constants was given by a world famous physicist who happened to specialize in general relativity.
+
:::This note 7 is on [[Counterexamples to Relativity]]:
  
−
::"Promoting relativity causes a great deal of harm in how people view the world,"
+
::::Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”
  
−
::No, you're confusing relativity with relativism. The two are radically different. My other interest is in philosophy and the people in the philosophy dept. -many of whom are left-wing- laugh at the postmodernists who try to prove relativism with relativity.
+
:::The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing: the small effects claimed by the special and general theories nearly cancel each other out for orbiting satellites. From an engineering perspective, it makes far more sense simply to adjust the clocks using synchronization rather than relying on (dubious) theoretical claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
  
−
::One is a physical theory based on constancy of the speed of light in all reference frames and the equivalence of physics in all reference frames. The other is a moral and epistemological theory that says that there are no absolutes. Special and general relativity are founded on absolutes. RelativiTY does not cause any harm. RelativiSM causes a lot of trouble. The two have nothing in common though save for a similar sounding name.
+
Another false claim because of sloppy reading: In the same source by The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, you can find how the authors Fliegel and DiEsposti describe what is happening to the clocks in the satellites:
 +
''Since GPS receivers work in the time and not in the frequency domain, they handle the velocity, gravity, and acceleration shifts differently than described above. First, each GPS space vehicle (SV) clock is offset from its nominal rate by about -4.45 &times; 10<sup>-10</sup> (= -38 microseconds per day) to allow for the relativistic offsets between the differences between the SV and the ground. Of this -38 microseconds per day, about -45 are due to the gravitational potential difference between the SV at its mean distance and the earth's surface, and +7 to the mean SV speed, which is about 3.87 km/sec. (p. 193).
  
−
::"and has cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars on fruitless projects like LIGO."
+
The text is about the necessity of ''further'' corrections by the ''operational control system'' - there are  corrections ''already'' installed in the clocks!
  
−
::LIGO, (which my university participates in -we do the supercomputer analysis of the data) has no results yet because they still need to make the instruments another order of magnitude stronger before they can get results.
+
''The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing:'' This sentence is wrong. It has shown to be wrong a couple of times, so it starts to become a lie. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:12, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
  
−
::And LIGO is not a waste of money. Once they can detect gravity waves they will have a whole new way to study astronomy. The idea is to turn it into the gravity wave equivalent of a telescope. Instead of seeing the universe in light only we can see it in gravity waves as well. The advances in science accomplished by this are well worth the money put into them. A few million dollars is nothing compared to the billions the government wastes on social programs, and is a legitimate usage of money rather than money wasted on welfare programs. It's like funding NASA, you'd agree that manned moon landings are worth while right?
+
:The [[Theory of Relativity]] was not used to develop GPS, nor would it be sensible to waste time and money doing so. Synchronization is cheaper, simpler, and more reliable. The above quote does not contradict this obvious truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:32, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
  
−
::":You've heard none of this before because liberals control universities and don't allow open discussion and debate about their pet theories."
+
::The fact that these offsets are implemented in the clocks '''in accord with the theory of relativity''' as you can read in the very source you quoted shows that the [[Theory of Relativity]] is used in the GPS - and this from the very beginning of the project! Please, start to read your sources - completely! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:37, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
  
−
::No I've heard them before, but the arguments made are easily debunked and are rather pseudoscientific in nature. Usually the people making them don't even understand the theory properly. And I have no idea where you get the idea that they would have a political agenda that needs relativity to support it. Once again relativity and relativism are two very different things. Einstein even once said that he though that the theory of relativity was a poor choice of names.
+
Please, before we get into any more debate, could someone supply some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:41, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
  
−
::"Perhaps you think man-made global warming is not a liberal theory either?"
+
:Aschlafly took his quote from [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] by Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond S. DiEsposti (though he probably isn't aware of this). The paper is about relativistic effects due to moving GPS-'''''receivers''''' (or GPS-receivers in high altitudes) and comes to the conclusion, that at the moment, they don't have to include additional relativistic corrections.
  
−
::Where do you come off comparing the two? One is a derived science open to much biased interpretation and data manipulation, the other is experimentally validated every time we turn on a particle accelerator. In fact some of the experiments they do at these labs require relativity to work. If relativity is false then they could not be doing the experiments that they are doing.
+
:Aschlafly interprets this as if ''no'' relativistic corrections are implemented in the GPS.
 +
:However, in the paper itself, you will find the section I quoted above, where the authors describe such very corrections within the clocks of the satellites.
 +
:I'm afraid that Aschlafly won't come up with ''some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS'' as there aren't any.  
 +
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:53, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
  
−
::And no Newtonian Mechanics and Atomic theory are not liberal theories either.
+
Folks, the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the [[Theory of Relativity]] was used to design GPS.  That burden includes describing who, when, where, how, and why.  It didn't happen.  And if it did, the person who wasted time and money on such a frivolous approach should explain the mistake, because engineers can simply synchronize the clocks far more accurately than the theory ever could.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
  
−
::I'm awfully curious as to what motivated this anti-relativity view. Your implication that relativity is "liberal" in any sense is highly bizarre. Also why single out relavity rather than QM classical mechanics or electrodynamics?
+
:It looks to me as if you are trying to put impossible conditions prior to any debate. To avoid a lengthy debate all you have to do is produce some actual references which support your point of view. Is this too much to ask?
  
−
--[[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]
+
:If it didn't happen then you should be able to produce some evidence of this, so '''some actual references please'''. The only 'evidence' you have produced so far is an out-of-context quote from a paper which is concerned primarily with GPS receivers (that same paper mentions the use of relativity-related adjustments to the clocks on the GPS satellite transmitters). Surely you must have more than this. Will you accept evidence from engineers and companies involved in designing and building the GPS system? If not, why not? Who would you accept evidence from? The US Department of Defense? Do you seriously expect a member of the public to be able to access internal design documents as your "who, when, where, how, and why" statement implies?
  
−
::::I would like to note that I have used a political analog of general relativity as a means to create a model for how to warp the political fabric with corporatism so as to correct the democratic failure causing abortion. By modifying the analog of an "economic status-debt" tensor one can leverage misbehaving abortive parents into proper behavior by using corporate leverage on the democratic process. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]
+
:If you care to check my contribution history you will see that I am actively contributing non-controversial information to articles. This discussion re GPS etc. is only a small part of my activities on Conservapedia.  Since I've barely started on considering and consolidating what evidence there is re GPS I would rather have a week or so to look at the evidence before getting into a debate.  This should give you ample time to come up with some references to support the separation of GPS and relativity.   Simple searches via Google turn up numerous instances where relativity is claimed to be relevant to GPS, but I can't find anything to the contrary and '''I need your help to do so'''. I would really like to see evidence from '''both sides''' of the discussion before entering the debate, so '''some actual references please'''. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 19:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
  
−
Johanan, relativity is disproved by the Pioneer anomaly, for starters.  The absurd discontinuities include what happens in the limit as velocity approaches the speed of light.  The logical flaws include the defect of relativistic mass.  Relativity has produced nothing of value, and certainly not the achievements you claim above.  It's wasted hundreds of millions in taxpayer money and confused the minds of many.
+
::Roland, you're requesting proof that something didn't happen.  Moreover, someone with an engineering background (such as myself) would not expect it to have happened.  It is like asking for a reference that no green cheese was found on the Moon.  No such scientific reference is likely to exist, nor would anyone expect such a reference to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:28, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
  
−
Pick your very best argument and be concise if you have an open mind and want to discuss this. If your mind is closed and made up, then I recommend Wikipedia for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 25 November 2009 (EST)
+
::  Every single article on GPS says that relativistic adjustments are made to the satellite clocks. Some give the formulas and some give quantitative data on the adjustments. Textbooks explain why the adjustments are necessary. I don't see any reason to doubt that GPS uses relativistic adjustments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:52, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
  
−
::First of all there are no absurd results when you reach relativistic velocities. Relativistic mass is not a defect nor is it logically flawed -unless you want to say that empirically observed measurements of such can not be so because they are illogical.
+
:::GPS does make synchronizing adjustments.  Call them whatever you like, but those adjustments are not made based on predictions by the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Indeed, it would be a silly waste of time and money to synchronize in such a manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
 +
:::: Unless you drive the flying Delorean from ''Back to the Future'', relativity would say that its effect on your car when you're driving at normal speeds is so small it need not be accounting for. The normal error for GPS (about 40 feet) is many magnitudes higher than the error relativity would cause. Now, the GPS in the Flying DeLorean would be another issue. But until that's invented, let's not worry about it, ok? Of course, if you were orienteering, your speed would be even slower than if you were driving. Indeed, if you were moving at any normal speed (even a supersonic jet), relativity would be incredibly small (assuming that it exists as scientists explain it). [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:14, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
  
−
::MY BEST ARGUMENT: As a physics major I have done the Michelson-Morley experiment in my modern physics lab and seen the results with my own eyes. You can not tell me that relativity is based on assumptions rather than observations, as I have seen the very same observations that are the basis for relativity. Unless of course you are arguing that it can't be so and therefore my eyes must be deceiving me.
+
:::::''GPS does make synchronizing adjustments'' Not only simple synchronizing: read the specifications for the GPS, read the sources ''in full'' which you are quoting, and you will see that all these engineers and scientists don't give a damn that you think that they are wasting ''time and money''.
 +
:::::Aschlafly, your position is only tenable as you are willing to ignore most of the data which is presented to you. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:12, 9 April 2012 (EDT)
  
−
::QUESTIONS: 1.)How do you explain the phenomenon of time dilation without relativity?
+
::Aschlafly, please correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you believe very firmly that relativity has nothing to do with GPS, even though you are unwilling to present any evidence to support this belief, and wish to put severe restrictions on what 'proof' of the relationship other folks may present. I raised some five questions above as to what sort of evidence you might consider. Could you please answer these questions.
−
::2.) You said that relativity contradicts the Bible. I have heard many criticisms of relativity before but never this. Saying this is almost like saying that the theory that the sky is blue contradicts the Bible. In what way does it contradict the Bible?
 
−
::3.)You compared relativity to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). One is prone to much more interpretation than relativity and has been found to be based on fraudulent data. The effects of relativity by contrast empirically confirmed every time the particle accelerator at Fermilab turns on, and it is far more simple to observe and confirm than AGW. So my question is where do you come off comparing the two?
 
  
−
::COMMENTS: 1.)As someone who believes in objective truth and the scientific method I am not open-minded beyond reason. Despite your implication that relativity is a "liberal" theory I am no liberal and am therefore not so open-minded that my brains fall out. If something doesn't fit into objective a priori principles and empirical observation I have a hard time taking it seriously -I don't buy post-modernism or the idea that you can determine truth outside of objective means.
+
::I'd like to ask Mr. Schafly if he could explain what the clock adjustments on GPS satellites are for, the article is not clear, and neither is anything on this talk page.--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:44, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
−
::2.)Relativists in physics are not particularly liberal. My special relativity professor who happens to be the dept. specialist on relativity and quantum gravity even invited us to a talk after class one day. The topic was on the possibility of the intelligent design of the physical constants -at a secular university no less. The talk itself was to be given by a prominent physicist who also happened to specialize in relativity. You can't tell me that an extremely liberal professor would be inviting his students to talks on the possibility of intelligent design.
 
−
::3.)RelativITY is NOT the same as relativISM. I also happen to have a minor in philosophy, and relativism is not based on the same premises as relativity, nor does it have anything in common with relativity. The post-modernist sorts that try to prove the latter from the former are laughed at by philosophers of both left and right-wing stripes. You needn't worry about relativity causing relativism.
 
−
::4.)Gravity waves have already been confirmed by there effects on neutron star rotation. LIGO is not designed to confirm gravity waves but rather as a telescope to see the universe in a "gravitational spectrum" in the same way you would normally see it with light. This is why they are spending so much money on it and it is well worth the cost -even $1-2billion. It will revolutionize astronomy once they increase the sensitivity by another order of magnitude or so -they are very close now. If you want to slash spending, the social programs spend hundreds of times that. LIGO isn't the money sucker, welfare etc. is. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]
 
  
−
: No, the Pioneer anomaly does not disprove relativity. It barely has anything to do with relativity. How do you think that NASA is ever able to have any successful space missions, if all its theories of gravity have been disproved? There are no discontinuities or logical flaws. Relativistic mass was already being confirmed in 1901, just a couple of years after it was predicted. Do you have any reliable sources for any of what you say? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:13, 25 November 2009 (EST)
+
:::Cahnkj, herewith a summary of the clock-adjustment situation as I (RolandPlankton) see it. Newton's equations of motions say nothing about how clocks keep time. Einstein's equations of relativity imply that identical clocks will vary in their timekeeping (tick at different rates) if they are travelling at different speeds, or if they are at different heights in a gravitational field, or if they are subject to different accelerations; see [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview]. Now the satellites used in the GPS system require very accurate clocks which are in step with ground-based clocks. The paper just quoted provides the various relativistic equations which apply - the satellites are travelling faster than a ground-based receiver, and are at a different height in a gravitational field. Prior to launch the clocks in the GPS satellites are deliberately set to a different tick rate from ground-based clocks, so that when they are in orbit the clocks will appear to tick at the same rate; the difference in tick rates is about 38 nanoseconds per day, and this adjustment can be calculated from the relevant relativistic equations.
  
−
::You say, "the Pioneer anomaly does not disprove relativity."  What do you think the "anomaly" is from, if not relativity?
+
:::But the problem is that Aschlafly rejects the Theory of Relativity, and hence rejects any calculation based on that. The only serious argument he has put forth on this current talk page (see preceding section) is an appeal to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Truth the truth]; the quote he provides above is also demolished above. You may wish to consult [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], which is rebutted point by point in [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]].
  
−
::Perhaps you agree with Wikipedians, who admit that the data from the spacecraft is contrary to what is "predicted", but the Wikipedians refuse to admit that the contradicted theory is the theory of relativity![http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly]  Maybe that omission fools some people, but it doesn't fool conservatives aware of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:28, 25 November 2009 (EST)
+
:::Hope this doesn't add too much to the confusion. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 12:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
  
−
:::Since when is relativity is a liberal theory? I have yet to see a good argument to this effect. [[User:jfraatz:Johanan Raatz]]
+
::::Mr. Schlafly states above that "the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the Theory of Relativity was used to design GPS." (This is a fair requirement, and it seems as this has been done when AugustO referred to the Fliegel and DiEsposti paper above.)
  
−
::: I was the one who told you about the Pioneer anomaly. Possible explanations are listed on the WP page. One possibility is a gravitational effect different from known theories (Newton and relativity). But what is your point? The WP page already says that. You are not addressing the errors in this article. The stuff about discontinuities, hypotheses, resistance, and quantum mechanics are all false. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:25, 25 November 2009 (EST)
+
::::But really, isn't the burden of proof on anyone who claims ''anything'' on this site, since Conservapedia Commandment #1 states that "everything you post must be true and verifiable" and Commandment #2 states that users should "always cite and give credit to <nowiki>[their]</nowiki> sources?" --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 19:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)  
  
−
::::The "point" is that Wikipedians (liberal wannabee scientists) won't state which theory is contradicted by the data.  You're just guessing when you say "Newton and relativity."
+
:::::Good point.  Anyone who asserts ''on this site'' that GPS was designed based on the [[Theory of Relativity]] needs to prove the claim.  Note that the claim is implausible because it is cheaper, easier, and more precise to synchronize GPS based on observations rather than theoretical speculation. Also note that no [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for verification of the [[Theory of Relativity]] with GPS.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:55, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
  
−
::::This is like the feminists who won't use certain words, like "girl" or "gentlemanly". If confronted with a situation where no substitute works, a feminist will still find a way not to say the "forbidden" word. They'll congratulate a new mother on her baby girl by calling her a "baby woman"!
+
::::::Whether GPS was designed based on Relativity or not may be irrelevant. Whether or not Relativity is necessary for the clocks to run efficiently and accurately, also irrelevant. Observations of the satellites are still consistent with the predictions of General and Special Relativity as evidenced here: http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp. Please not that this is an article by the same Tom Van Flandern quoted on this site as saying that relativity is unnecessary for GPS calculations, so I trust this is a source you will accept. Here he is saying here that while relativity may be UNNECESSARY for those calculations, it is still CONFIRMED by our observations.[[User:Williagz|Gus Williams]] 14:03, 13 May 2012 (EDT)
  
−
::::Try saying expressly on Wikipedia that the theory of relativity is contradicted by the Pioneer data and watch that be erased by its liberal editors.  Do you think that is science, or logic?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:32, 25 November 2009 (EST)
 
  
−
::::: I am not guessing. Just read the WP page. It says, "The Pioneer anomaly or Pioneer effect is the observed deviation ... slowing down slightly more than expected ... The anomaly has no universally accepted explanation." Possible  explanations include "modification of the law of gravity." Newtonian and relativistic gravity are essentially the same in this range. They are either both accurate or inaccurate. What more do you want? The article has links to modified gravity theories. What does this have to do with this CP relativity page? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:31, 25 November 2009 (EST)
+
===A Separate Question for Mr. Schlafly About References===
  
−
:::::: You are guessing that "Newtonian and relativistic gravity are essentially the same in this range."  I doubt they predict identical results for this Pioneer data.  Does the Pioneer anomaly contradict only the theory of relativity, or Newtonian gravity also?  Are the data closer to one theory than the other?  If this were science, then the Wikipedia article would say.  Of course, this isn't really science, and Wikipedians won't expressly admit the data conflicts with relativity.  If you inserted mention of the theory of relativity into the Wikipedia page, then I bet it would be erased.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:44, 26 November 2009 (EST)
+
::Aschlafly, as a separate issue, in view of of your apparent attitude to references, could I ask you to have a look at the articles I have been working on over the last two months: [[Pi]], [[Programming language]], [[Compiler]], and the work-in-progress [[Chomsky hierarchy]]. Obviously I'm only asking you to consider the changes I have made. In particular, can you check if the references are acceptable to you, and can you also check that the general style and level of writing is in accordance with Conservapedia's aims? The next article I intend to turn my intention to is [[Context-Free Grammar]], since it seems to me that this fails to satisfy [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Style]] "Articles on complex topics need an introduction which assumes little or no previous knowledge". [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:03, 9 April 2012 (EDT)
  
 +
:::Roland, your good edits are appreciated and I've seen no complaints about them.  I agree that the [[Context-Free Grammar]] would benefit from a better introduction and look forward to reading what you add there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 9 April 2012 (EDT)
  
−
:::::::I would expect that the results at that range would be in the margin of error for both theories. General relativity only starts to become significant in extreme gravitational fields and the earth does not have an extreme gravitational field.
+
===READ THE MANUAL===
 +
This debate seems pretty ridiculous, given that GPS is a public system with open specifications.  If you're building a GPS receiver you do, in fact, need to compensate for relativistic effects.  The correction equations that must be used on the receiving side equipment are given in the official GPS interface specification, IS-GPS-200G [http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200G.pdf], p.92.  section 20.3.3.3.3.1: User Algorithm for SV Clock Correction.  
  
−
:::::::As for Wikipedia covering up evidence regarding relativity to suit a liberal bias, let me make a comment about that. I happen to also be active on Wikipedia, and from my experience the kind of people that edit the science pages are not the same kind of people who generally edit the political/philosophy pages. I have noticed a great deal of political bias in the people who dominate the latter pages, but not at all the former. I really don't think they did is -if they did it at all- for political reasons. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]
+
<blockquote>
−
 
+
The polynomial defined in the
−
::::::::The results are not within the standard of error.  You're in denial: the results contradict the theory of relativity.  And Wikipedians will never allow that truth on their pages.  The Wikipedians who edit the science paiges there are just as liberal as those who edit the other pages, and it's implausible to suggest otherwise.  Check out the global warming pages on Wikipedia, for example, if you doubt this.  (My response to your earlier comments are below).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 27 November 2009 (EST)
+
following allows the user to determine the effective SV PRN code phase offset referenced to the
−
 
+
phase center of the antennas with respect to GPS system time (t) at the time of data
−
:::::::: The Pioneer anomaly is not known to contradict either relativity or Newtonian gravity. Contradicting gravity is just one of several possible explanations, and no one is accepted. If it contradicts one then it contradicts the other, as the two theories say the same for Pioneer data. The gravity on Pioneer is extremely weak, and far outside the range where relativity would make any difference. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:20, 27 November 2009 (EST)
+
transmission. The coefficients transmitted in subframe 1 describe the offset apparent to the two frequency
−
 
+
user for the interval of time in which the parameters are transmitted. This estimated
−
== Reply to Johanan Raatz ==
+
correction accounts for the deterministic SV clock error characteristics of bias, drift and aging, as
−
 
+
well as for the SV implementation characteristics of group delay bias and mean differential
−
Mr. Raatz said, "Relativistic mass is not a defect nor is it logically flawed ...."
+
group delay. '''Since these coefficients do not include corrections for relativistic effects, the user's equipment must determine the requisite relativistic correction. Accordingly, the offset given below includes a term to perform this function'''...
−
 
+
</blockquote>
−
:Then tell us whether a greater force is required to accelerate a large relativistic mass in a ''direction orthogonal to its fast motion''.  Predictably you will say you never thought or heard about this logical problem before, so please then comment on ''why'' you've never thought or heard about this logical flaw.  By the way, relativistic mass has been taught for decades.
+
I did not include the equations here, but they're given in the manual. --[[User:Smac56|Smac56]] 16:54, 7 December 2014 (EST)
−
 
 
−
:: Sorry to interrupt, but the answer is yes, according to relativity.  If a particle is zipping by at high speed, any addition to its velocity---whether along or orthogonal to its direction of motion---is described by a Lorentz transformation multiplied into the Tv for its current velocity.
 
−
 
 
−
:: This is not some obscure question that I expect physicists to have never thought about. The addition rules for velocity in parallel and orthogonal directions are a very basic component of special relativity, and directly follow from the Lorentz transformation.  All of this is elementary linear algebra. Indeed, relativistic momentum (and what people loosely call "relativistic mass") can be derived from those velocity addition laws by differentiating them with respect to time.
 
−
 
 
−
:: You seem to be implying that this is some sort of internal contradiction. But why?  There is nothing contradictory about the fact that speeding up a particle is progressively harder, even if you try to do it orthogonally to its present velocity relative to you.  The basic fact is that for momentum to be conserved under the Lorentz transformation, you need a factor of gamma in the momentum (which, again, is loosely interpreted as a "relativistic mass", since p=mv*gamma combined with a classial p=mv leads people to see m*gamma as the "mass" part.  I find that interpretation more confusing than useful, but it has many adherents.) --[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]
 
−
 
 
−
:::If the new force is orthogonal (perpendicular) to the velocity, then it should be unaffected by the relativistic mass. Indeed, some relativists have shifted to "relativistic momentum," which is a vector, to try to avoid this logical dilemma.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:45, 29 November 2009 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
:::: Why?  I see no reason why forces "should" behave that way.
 
−
 
 
−
:::: Forces do behave that way in Newtonian mechanics, but they don't behave that way in special relativity.  That is because in relativity, velocity vectors do not add.
 
−
 
 
−
:::: There is no reason why relativity "should" predict effects that are in line with our Newtonian intuition.  The only thing a theory should predict is the correct outcome of an experiment.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]
 
  
−
Mr. Raatz says his "best argument" is the "Michelson-Morley experiment." 
+
== Why are adjustments needed to GPS? ==
  
−
:If that's your best argument, then this case is closed.  That experiment certainly does not prove relativity.
+
A good question was raised above: if synchronization to GPS is not due to the [[Theory of Relativity]], then what is it due to?
  
−
Mr. Raatz asks, "How do you explain the phenomenon of time dilation without relativity?"
+
And the answer is simply this:  [[quantum mechanics]].  There are fundamental uncertainties, and those uncertainties will lead to clock differences.  Otherwise a [[perpetual motion machine]] would be possible. It isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
  
−
:What is attributed to "time dilation" can be explained a variety of ways, with or without relativity.
+
Where to start with this. This is so bad it isn't even wrong. Could I respectfully suggest that you confine your efforts to areas you understand at least a little bit.
  
−
Mr. Raatz says, "You said that relativity contradicts the Bible. I have heard many criticisms of relativity before but never this."
+
The impossibility of perpetual motion has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. It comes from the 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics and predates quantum mechanics by at least 100 years.  
  
−
:You've never heard this because promoters of relativity virtually never read the Bible.  Why is that?  The Bible sells 100 times more copies ''annually'' than books on the New York Times bestseller list, and is undeniably the most influential book in history (Newton attributed his insights to it), yet relativists don't read it. Do you?  The nearly 100% correlation between relativity and avoiding the Bible is striking and cannot be attributed to coincidence.
+