Leave the moderating to the moderators, kids.
0 Members, Big Brother and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The theory of relativity is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. No, science ALLOWS for exceptions and new discoveries--it's not like your "theories," which don't wanna change even though a lot of it is just plain irrational. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of [moral] relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.You know, I don't frequently laugh at creationists' arguments, but I had a little chuckle here...[1] Here is a list of 36 counterexamples: any one of them shows that the theory is incorrect.Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found.[2] Sound like global warming? It's because we don't have the technology--although we /do/ have indirect evidence of gravity waves. I.e., a binary star system that's losing energy as predicted by GR and gravitational waves. The eccentricity of the Moon's orbit is increasing contrary to the theory of relativity. ...It is?The Pioneer anomaly. Was shown to be weird heat engines...Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").SameSpiral galaxies confound relativity, and unseen "dark matter" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.I haven't this aspect of astronomy, but there is pretty good evidence of dark matter. 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.No it hasn't--you're cherry-picking ONE experiment where the results were just outside the experimental error...The others are inside of it.The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light. OMG LOLOLOLOL! I love it when people try to debunk theories that they've never studied. As you take m-->0 and v-->c, guess what happens? In the Newtonian momentum, yes, you get p=0. But in the relativistic case you get 0/0. Oops...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?Same...You've never studied this have you? (1) The idea of "relativistic mass" is no longer used and (2)you just use F=dp/dt. (using the relativistic definition for p, of course). The observed lack of curvature in overall space.It's b/c it's so smallThe universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity. No one has come up with a satisfactory theory for quantum gravity as of yet. But guess what? Science admits the problem and is working on a solution--please don't assume that we're like you. You'd just try to avoid the facts. The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement.[8] Same as aboveThe action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51. Oh gosh...Don't even get me started on your stupid bible nonsense...The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching. Again, the problem here lies in Quantum Gravity. No one knows whether they exist and it is quite a mystery if they do IIRC. Again, we admit this uncertainty and don't dodge the facts--stop assuming we're like you. Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do not experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity.Again, this is a mystery, but scientists are working on it. Again, STOP ASSUMING WE'RE LIKE YOU!!!!!!!!!! The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a black hole. So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."Whoever said it had to be a black hole?The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physicsWhat..? Whoever said it had to lead to "other insights"? The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.It doesn't change...The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.How the hell is this a counterexample? Hell, GR ASSUMES that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic when deriving the models for the Universe. "According to Einstein’s view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous" but observations instead show "inexplicable static" greater than "all artificial sources of" possible background noise.Cosmic background radiation...?"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."STOP ASSUMING WE'RE LIKE YOU! It's called Quantum Gravity..The theory predicts wormholes just as it predicts black holes, but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel....How many times do I have to say this? This is again is a mystery. We're not like you...And you need negative energy density to create one, and it would close off faster than you could get through it. 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.Ah, the classic Second Law of Thermo. argument by creationists... ;)It's called Hawking radiation...i.e. they'll eventually decay...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. Probably due to other sourcesThe 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.[17] This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science. Whoever said that a theory had to save lives to be valid?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 is inherently illogical. 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. OMG LOLOLOLOL! I love it when people try to debunk theories that they've never studied. As you take m-->0 and v-->c, guess what happens? In the Newtonian momentum, yes, you get p=0. But in the relativistic case you get 0/0. Oops...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.[18] No one said that, under GR, you have to have conservative fields..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? Omg you haven't studies the theory have you. Problem is, it's no longer a circle, so one can not speak of a "radius." 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.No he didn't...And again, STUDY THE DAMN THEORY!!!!1111 The moving twin is not in an INERTIAL frame; SR is only valid in those. To an excellent approximation, the earth twin is in an inertial frame. 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.No, there were no experiments on this in between the theory of SR and theory of GR--Einstein corrected himself WITHOUT experiments--nothing fishy here. And yeah, that's how the math works out...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. I don't know too much about this, but this is probably not an ether...
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. Yeah, that's why (for a similar reason) spacetime is called a pseudo-Riemannian manifold...This doesn't show that SR is incorrect--it's only a matter of what you call the set of spacetime vectors...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. I love it how you guys keep assuming we're like you--we're not. There IS evidence of SR, and not of Lorentzian theory. 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. Don't get me started on the bible argumentsDespite 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."So just b/c they are unsolvable, they are wrong? I take it you believe in Newtonian gravity, but those are unsolvable for the three-body problems. That's a well-known result...Experiments in electromagnetic induction contradict Relativity: "Einstein’s Relativity ... can not explain the experiment in graph 2, in which moving magnetic field has not produced electric field."Haha, no they don't
macaw5: *at a lunch table*.... I only have one question. Where did the table come from
Author
Topic: Send-A-Message Thread (Read 83774 times)
Information 
Content
News
Dex
Episode Guides
Trading Card Game
Columns
Interactivity 
Caption Contest
Name Rater
Ask Sentret
Cards
Trivia
PokéMole
Community 
Forums
Squads
Tournaments
Fanfics
Site 
Tagging
Mantis
About
