What are some examples that challenge the theory of relativity?

  • Thread starter techmologist
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Relativity
In summary, the conversation on Conservapedia discusses the theory of relativity and how it is heavily promoted by liberals, but is also criticized for its encouragement of relativism and potential to mislead people. A list of counterexamples is provided, but some of them are deemed questionable or not relevant to the theory. The conversation also delves into other topics such as the role of religion in politics and the validity of Intelligent Design as a scientific theory.
  • #1
techmologist
306
12
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!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
OMG this is so funny. Thank you for that laugh.
 
  • #3
"9 The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54"
Kinda hard to take it serious after that...
 
  • #4
Why must conservatives make religion look bad.

/sigh
 
  • #5
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.
 
  • #6
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.
 
  • #7
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.
 
  • #8
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! :rolleyes:).

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 :rolleyes:.
 
  • #9
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?
 
Last edited:
  • #10
"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?
 
  • #11
humanino said:
OMG this is so funny. Thank you for that laugh.

But wait, there's more :smile::

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...
 
  • #12
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.
 
  • #13
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.
 
  • #14
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 :redface:
 
  • #15
Conservapedia is of too low quality to take seriously.
 
  • #16
humanino said:
Sorry, I'm a bit tired, I did not get it :redface:

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.
 

1. What is a counterexample to relativity?

A counterexample to relativity is a specific instance or scenario that contradicts the principles of relativity, which is the theory that describes the laws of motion and gravity in the universe. It is used to challenge or disprove the validity of the theory.

2. Are there any commonly known counterexamples to relativity?

Yes, there are several commonly known counterexamples to relativity, such as the Twin Paradox, which examines the effects of time dilation on twin siblings who experience different rates of acceleration and velocity. Another example is the Sagnac Effect, which shows that the speed of light is not always constant in a rotating frame of reference.

3. How do counterexamples to relativity affect our understanding of the theory?

Counterexamples to relativity challenge and push the boundaries of our understanding of the theory. They can lead to revisions or modifications of the theory, or even the development of a new theory that better explains the phenomenon. However, it is important to note that counterexamples do not necessarily disprove the entire theory, but rather highlight areas that need further investigation and refinement.

4. Can counterexamples to relativity be proven or disproven?

Counterexamples to relativity cannot be proven or disproven in the traditional sense, as they are based on observations and experiments that are subject to interpretation and potential error. However, they can be evaluated and tested through further experiments and research to determine their validity and impact on the theory of relativity.

5. How do scientists use counterexamples to relativity in their research?

Scientists use counterexamples to relativity to challenge and expand our understanding of the theory, as well as to identify potential flaws or limitations. They also use them to guide their research and experiments, in order to further explore and confirm the principles of relativity or potentially discover new phenomena that could lead to the development of a new theory.

Similar threads

A Dirac's Conservation of Matter: A Closer Look
    • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
1K
B Unlearning the Block Universe: How Relativity Challenges Our Perception of Time
    • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
90
Views
5K
I Some thoughts about Bell's string paradox alternatives
    • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
75
Views
3K
A What are some example Feynman diagrams in Yang-Mills theory?
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
2K
I What does Purcell actually say about electromagnetism and relativity?
    • Special and General Relativity
Replies
32
Views
5K
I Why no plane waves of macroscopic bodies? The micro-macro threshold...
    • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
A What would it mean if symmetries in physics would not be fundamental?
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
1K
A MOND Theory Primer: Stacy McGaugh's Research Program Explored
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
11
Views
2K
Studying I have some epic math goals and creating a study plan
    • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
11
Views
1K
I Relational Hidden Variables (Real ensemble or thermal?)
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
26
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top