- #1
- 1,816
- 33
Has anyone seen it? It is really very very poor.
Conservapedia - Counterexamples in relativity
- Thread starter hunt_mat
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Relativity
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion centers around the criticisms of the theory of relativity as presented on Conservapedia, including a list of alleged counterexamples that challenge its validity. Participants explore the implications of these claims, the nature of the source, and the broader context of political influence on scientific discourse.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Conceptual clarification
- Meta-discussion
Main Points Raised
- Some participants express skepticism about the quality and credibility of Conservapedia's claims regarding relativity, describing them as poor or laughable.
- One participant lists various counterexamples cited by Conservapedia, including the Pioneer anomaly, the Twin Paradox, and issues related to Minkowski space, questioning their validity and coherence.
- Concerns are raised about the political motivations behind Conservapedia, with some suggesting that it reflects a radical departure from mainstream scientific consensus.
- Participants discuss the implications of creating a wiki that caters to specific political views, questioning the general acceptance of such perspectives within the broader community.
- There is a call for clarification on whether Conservapedia's content is intended as satire, with some participants asserting that it is not.
- One participant critiques the lack of depth and rigor in the arguments presented, particularly regarding the treatment of the Twin Paradox and other supposed contradictions of relativity.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants generally disagree on the validity of the counterexamples presented by Conservapedia, with some finding them laughable or poorly articulated, while others express concern about the political implications of such a source. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the overall credibility of the claims made.
Contextual Notes
Participants note that the arguments presented by Conservapedia may lack sufficient elaboration and clarity, leading to confusion about the supposed contradictions of relativity. There is also mention of the potential influence of political ideology on the interpretation of scientific theories.
- #2
dreiter
- 33
- 0
Just for everyone:
"
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.[1] Here is a list of 30 counterexamples: anyone of them shows that the theory is incorrect.
The Pioneer anomaly.
Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").[2]
Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.[3]
The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.
The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?
The observed lack of curvature in overall space.[4]
The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.
The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement.[5]
The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in 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 lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.[6]
The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.[7]
"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."[8]
The theory predicts wormholes just as it predicts black holes, but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.[9]
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.[10]
Data from the PSR B1913+16 increasingly diverge from predictions of the General Theory of Relativity such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.
The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.[11] This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.
Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.
Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.
Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.[12]
The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (2πR) is length-contracted. However, since R is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal R, or is it less than R?
The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.[13]
Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.[14]
Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right, theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.
Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.
It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of faith.
In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.
Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding."[15]
The barn and ladder paradox: Person A has a ladder too long to store in his barn. Person B takes the ladder and runs very fast into the barn. For A, who is at rest with respect to the ladder, the ladder will contract, and if the velocity is fast enough, it will fit in the barn. But to B, who is moving with the ladder, it is the barn that will contract, making the problem even worse. So, who is correct? Does the ladder fit in the barn? This problem was considered in the book Introduction to Electrodynamics by David Griffiths, and the author, who supports Relativity, claim that both are correct. The ladder both fit and doesn’t fit in the barn. This is obviously against elementary rules of logic.
"
Hey at least it's better then their 'Counterexamples to Evolution' page: http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Evolution"
"
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.[1] Here is a list of 30 counterexamples: anyone of them shows that the theory is incorrect.
The Pioneer anomaly.
Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").[2]
Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.[3]
The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.
The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?
The observed lack of curvature in overall space.[4]
The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.
The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement.[5]
The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in 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 lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.[6]
The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.[7]
"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."[8]
The theory predicts wormholes just as it predicts black holes, but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.[9]
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.[10]
Data from the PSR B1913+16 increasingly diverge from predictions of the General Theory of Relativity such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.
The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.[11] This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.
Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.
Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.
Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.[12]
The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (2πR) is length-contracted. However, since R is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal R, or is it less than R?
The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.[13]
Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.[14]
Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right, theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.
Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.
It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of faith.
In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.
Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding."[15]
The barn and ladder paradox: Person A has a ladder too long to store in his barn. Person B takes the ladder and runs very fast into the barn. For A, who is at rest with respect to the ladder, the ladder will contract, and if the velocity is fast enough, it will fit in the barn. But to B, who is moving with the ladder, it is the barn that will contract, making the problem even worse. So, who is correct? Does the ladder fit in the barn? This problem was considered in the book Introduction to Electrodynamics by David Griffiths, and the author, who supports Relativity, claim that both are correct. The ladder both fit and doesn’t fit in the barn. This is obviously against elementary rules of logic.
"
Hey at least it's better then their 'Counterexamples to Evolution' page: http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Evolution"
Last edited by a moderator:
- #3
cesiumfrog
- 2,010
- 5
Are there any conservatives (Russ? Hurkyl?) that can tell us whether conservapedia is satire?
- #4
Pythagorean
Science Advisor
- 4,430
- 327
To go out of your way to make your own wiki that caters to political views is already radical, whether you're left or right, so I'm not sure your average republican is on board.
- #5
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 35,014
- 21,716
It's hard to argue that Conservapedia reflects mainstream anything. The creator, Andy Schafly, is also creating a "conservative Bible translation" - a Bible which more accurately reflects his personal views.
One of the outcomes of freedom of speech is kookiness. That's just life.
One of the outcomes of freedom of speech is kookiness. That's just life.
- #6
- 1,816
- 33
This isn't satire. I had a look at their vector space page amd I have to say I was just laughing at the poor level of it all. I have to say that out of all of them, this one irked me the most for some reason:
Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.
Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.
- #7
arunma
- 924
- 4
Heh, this is just laughable. I can't believe he cites the Twin Paradox as a contradiction of relativity. A lot of these supposed contradictions I simply do not understand. The guy really needs to write better, or at least elaborate. And the "action at a distance by Jesus" sounds like the beginning of a joke.
To be fair, there are possible deviations from relativity theory, but none of them are listed here. High energy physicists and astrophysicists are currently looking into Lorentz Invariance Violation predicted by quantum gravity theories, and it may be possible to make astrophysical measurements that would constrain such theories (I'm actually trying to do my dissertation on this). I'm reading a paper right now called "Lorentz Invariance Violation induced time delays in GRBs in different cosmological models." Interesting stuff, but let's hope the Conservapedia guy doesn't get ahold of it and think he's come up with some ingenius refutation of relativity.
Regarding Vanadium's reference to the Conservative Bible, I love how Conservapedia has managed to piss off even the conservative Christians with this. I too have to doubt that Conservapedia is representative of conservatives.
To be fair, there are possible deviations from relativity theory, but none of them are listed here. High energy physicists and astrophysicists are currently looking into Lorentz Invariance Violation predicted by quantum gravity theories, and it may be possible to make astrophysical measurements that would constrain such theories (I'm actually trying to do my dissertation on this). I'm reading a paper right now called "Lorentz Invariance Violation induced time delays in GRBs in different cosmological models." Interesting stuff, but let's hope the Conservapedia guy doesn't get ahold of it and think he's come up with some ingenius refutation of relativity.
Regarding Vanadium's reference to the Conservative Bible, I love how Conservapedia has managed to piss off even the conservative Christians with this. I too have to doubt that Conservapedia is representative of conservatives.
- #8
- 1,816
- 33
arunma,
I would be interested to obtain a copy of this dissertation when you're done.
Mat
I would be interested to obtain a copy of this dissertation when you're done.
Mat
- #9
Galteeth
- 69
- 1
You guys should check out the talk page for the counterexamples to relativity. It's a riot.
"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.--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.
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.[1] More generally and more importantly, there is the issue of how this action in the Bible isn't light.--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...
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.--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.--NgSmith"
"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.--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.
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.[1] More generally and more importantly, there is the issue of how this action in the Bible isn't light.--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...
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.--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.--NgSmith"
- #10
Jimmy Snyder
- 1,137
- 21
If he had said "Your son will die" and he died, you might have something. If he had said "Your son will live", and the son lived (actually, he died) you might have something. If he had said "Your son's fever will lift" and the fever lifted you might have something. As it is, you have nothing.
- #11
Chi Meson
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
- 1,891
- 11
"I do have an open mind about it, but my gut feeling says you are dead wrong."
As much of a riot as this thread is, I have to protest it being in GD.
This is a clear example of what extreme political viewpoints will do to science, so maybe it's useful as a warning to those who feel that they have to join a political "team."
But this is crackpot and political. This forum should be a refuge from both.
As much of a riot as this thread is, I have to protest it being in GD.
This is a clear example of what extreme political viewpoints will do to science, so maybe it's useful as a warning to those who feel that they have to join a political "team."
But this is crackpot and political. This forum should be a refuge from both.
- #12
mugaliens
- 197
- 1
hunt_mat said:
Preferably one with the standard partitions we've all come to know and love between paragraphs... ?
I'm not a fan of ramdump. I'll invent and post a Wiki section for it later. In the meantime, it simply refers to people to copy and past info to websites. I ascribe no reason. If it's hand-written, I'll read it endlessly, and correspond the same, particularly to any personal anecdotes to which I might identify. But if it's just ramdumped, non-truncated text from some other source where the poster has zero intent of rendering it suitable for our forums, I would argue we delete it altogether and say "try again."
Please note, this concept does NOT include info either personally obtained or to which people might personally ascertain. Just the usual, ram-dump riff-raff, particularly when it's the same old paragraph-run-on blather.
Just a thought...
- #13
G01
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 2,709
- 19
The whole Conservative Bible Project is the last straw. I can't believe that this guy is real. I just can't.
Not even the most fundamental, most conservative Christian groups claim that the current Bible was written with a liberal bias towards feminism, being green, etc.
Andy Schafly has to be the Stephen Colbert of the internet. He just wants to see how far a ridiculous conservative act can take him. The fact that people posting on Conservapedia are taking him seriously is the most disturbing part about this whole situation.
(This is, however, a convenient way to make sure that the Bible says what you want even when you interpret it literally!
)
Not even the most fundamental, most conservative Christian groups claim that the current Bible was written with a liberal bias towards feminism, being green, etc.
Andy Schafly has to be the Stephen Colbert of the internet. He just wants to see how far a ridiculous conservative act can take him. The fact that people posting on Conservapedia are taking him seriously is the most disturbing part about this whole situation.
(This is, however, a convenient way to make sure that the Bible says what you want even when you interpret it literally!
)- #14
arunma
- 924
- 4
hunt_mat said:
Heh, no problem...if you can wait two to three years.
Actually, I'm sure other people in particle astrophysics have done stuff on this topic already. A quick search for "Lorentz Invariance" on ArXiv will likely turn up some interesting stuff.
- #15
vela
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
- 16,213
- 2,878
Conservapedia supposedly reflects the fundamentalist Christian viewpoint. As nutty as some of the material in Conservapedia is, I don't think it's satire. They really do see the world this way. These are the same people who reject the mountain of scientific evidence supporting evolution and insist that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time. It's sad and, frankly, scary that they've elevated ignorance to such a virtue.Vanadium 50 said:
- #16
FlexGunship
Gold Member
- 425
- 9
I hate that fiscal conservatives are lumped in with conservative religious folk. We need new words.And, yes, the Bible does provide adequate evidence to disprove relativity.
- #17
arunma
- 924
- 4
vela said:
Maybe at one point this was true. But I think that Conservapedia irreversibly pissed off the fundamentalist Christians when they decided to rewrite the Bible to make it less liberal. Even the fundamentalist Christians are aware of how logically wrong this is.
- #18
Loren Booda
- 3,115
- 4
arunma said:
My guess is that he will throw out the Old Testament as he threw out Einstein.
Similar threads
- · Replies 5 ·
Undergrad
Co- and Contravariance
- · Replies 5 ·
- · Replies 2 ·
- · Replies 29 ·
- · Replies 20 ·
- · Replies 18 ·
- · Replies 14 ·
- · Replies 29 ·
- · Replies 25 ·