Counterexamples to Relativity

techmologist · Mar 2, 2010

From Conservapedia:

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 counterexamples, and if only one of these is true, then the theory fails:

http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity

Don't forget to look at the Talk Page.

Take that, libs!

humanino · Mar 2, 2010

OMG this is so funny. Thank you for that laugh.

Klockan3 · Mar 2, 2010

"9 The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54"
Kinda hard to take it serious after that...

MotoH · Mar 2, 2010

Why must conservatives make religion look bad.

/sigh

Jack21222 · Mar 3, 2010

MotoH said: ↑

Why must conservatives make religion look bad.

/sigh

Why must religion make conservatives look bad?

/sigh

Seriously, I like to consider myself conservative on several issues (I consider myself a libertarian overall), but I HATE getting lumped in with these guys. I'd rather get lumped in with the most radical hippies on the left over my "liberal" issues.

Chi Meson · Mar 3, 2010

Jack21222 said: ↑

Why must religion make conservatives look bad?

/sigh

Seriously, I like to consider myself conservative on several issues (I consider myself a libertarian overall), but I HATE getting lumped in with these guys. I'd rather get lumped in with the most radical hippies on the left over my "liberal" issues.

Which is why we should all not consider ourselves as anything (re political box or stripe). Even donning the label of "anarchist" artificially presets one's reaction to an issue. Rather than looking objectively at a specific issue or problem, people will consult what their "team" would say.

This list represents the worst of that particular team, but there are people who consult this list in order to find out what their opinion is on the matter.

MotoH · Mar 3, 2010

They should have a pistol duel to decide who is president.

Oh, and party labeling is so. . . bad. Why would you want to lump yourself in with someone elses ideas? When it comes down to it, if you are running for a particular party; you will follow their agenda no matter what your ideas for change are. Although there is a small bit of wiggle room.

lisab · Mar 3, 2010

Yes, "bundling" of ideas and beliefs is widespread on both ends of the spectrum (you're pro-choice?...well then, you mustn't agree with nuclear power! ).

In the footnotes:

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.

Seems the writer of that statement sees a clear example cause-and-effect .

zomgwtf · Mar 3, 2010

18. 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.

w-t-f? How does this accomplish the original statement of intent for laying out the 'counter-examples'. In fact I don't think any of these are counter-examples...

EDIT: 'every verified theory of science' I assume this ALSO includes that new branch of science religious nutcases made up called 'creation science'. It's verified in the bible, I read it myself. What exactly has creation science brought to the world that 'saved lives or helped them' or has led to 'other useful theories'... have there been any useful devices developed based on insights provided by the theory???

rewebster · Mar 3, 2010

"Here is a list of counterexamples, and if only one of these is true, then the theory fails:"

hmm...

what happens when they examine the list of reasons for going into Iraq?

techmologist · Mar 4, 2010

humanino said: ↑

OMG this is so funny. Thank you for that laugh.

But wait, there's more :

I found it on Recursivity, the blog of computer scientist Jeffrey Shallit. There are more examples of this brand of nuttiness in his post and in the comments section.

zomgwtf said: ↑

18. 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.

w-t-f? How does this accomplish the original statement of intent for laying out the 'counter-examples'. In fact I don't think any of these are counter-examples...

I was wondering this myself, especially considering that same objection is listed twice (see 11). As far as the other counterexampes are concerned--at least ones that make an honest effort at disconfirming relativity rather than just ranting--I will defer to people who know a lot about relativity. I would like to hear what some of you think.

EDIT: 'every verified theory of science' I assume this ALSO includes that new branch of science religious nutcases made up called 'creation science'. It's verified in the bible, I read it myself. What exactly has creation science brought to the world that 'saved lives or helped them' or has led to 'other useful theories'... have there been any useful devices developed based on insights provided by the theory???

Again, I was thinking the same thing. So far Intelligent Design has one practical application that I know of: Southern Baptist ministers learn about it in seminary so they can pass it on to their congregations. But then, it is still a young science...

humanino · Mar 4, 2010

techmologist, I thought you posted the link as a joke. If you buy any argument in the webpage, please specifically post one so we can discuss it.

techmologist said: ↑

[...] Intelligent Design [...] it is still a young science...

If I understand correctly, this is bordering moderation. Intelligent Design is not science, it has nothing to do with science, people who even begin to study ID as a branch of science have not understood the basic principles of science. I hope this is clear to you.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=25

Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world.

The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted. Scientific investigators seek to understand natural phenomena by observation and experimentation. Scientific interpretations of facts and the explanations that account for them therefore must be testable by observation and experimentation.

Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.

No body of beliefs that has its origin in doctrinal material rather than scientific observation, interpretation, and experimentation should be admissible as science in any science course. Incorporating the teaching of such doctrines into a science curriculum compromises the objectives of public education. Science has been greatly successful at explaining natural processes, and this has led not only to increased understanding of the universe but also to major improvements in technology and public health and welfare. The growing role that science plays in modem life requires that science, and not religion, be taught in science classes.

zomgwtf · Mar 4, 2010

Humanino I think that techmo is being sarcastic with that remark.

However many people do not know enough about relativity to discredit things such as the Pioneer anomaly which is the first 'counterexample' listed. I think that techmo doesn't 'believe' what is written on there but they just don't know how to counter it and that's what they are interested in.

humanino · Mar 4, 2010

zomgwtf said: ↑

Humanino I think that techmo is being sarcastic with that remark.

However many people do not know enough about relativity to discredit things such as the Pioneer anomaly which is the first 'counterexample' listed. I think that techmo doesn't 'believe' what is written on there but they just don't know how to counter it and that's what they are interested in.

Sorry, I'm a bit tired, I did not get it

Pinu7 · Mar 4, 2010

Conservapedia is of too low quality to take seriously.

techmologist · Mar 4, 2010

humanino said: ↑

Sorry, I'm a bit tired, I did not get it

No problem. I move in and out of irony without warning. There need to be [irony]...[/irony] tags or something. But zomgwtf is right...while I can plainly see that Andrew Schlafly (Harvard-educated lawyer and son of conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly), the source of this stuff, is not on speaking terms with Reality, my knowledge of relativity is limited. And I know there are people here who know a lot more.