Man! If you’ve read Part 1, by now you now that for over 100 years we have all been led like lemmings off the great cliff of liberalism. You may not even know that Medicare is a government program, that’s how free market you are, but still, you could be a liberal. How? By believing in the General Theory of Relativity. “What? But that’s a pretty solid theory that explains astronomical bodies a great deal better than Newtonian physics. And besides, what does that have to do with politics?” a lemming may object.
Pity these objecting lemmings and their support for the General Theory of Relativity. Conservapedia points out the flaws in General Relativity, and besides, we all know Newtonian physics was given to Newton by God, when Jesus threw an apple at Newton’s head, for laughs.
This is how the Best and Brightest at Conservapedia preface their Counterexamples:
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. Here is a list of 28 counterexamples: any one of them shows that the theory is incorrect.
There are two things wrong with this single paragraph. One, Conservapedia is confusing a scientific theory that has been used accurately time and again over the last century, with confused English and Philosophy majors, who come up with stupid shit all the time – to be deep and relevant. (We know it isn’t all relative and we’ve thought about it – man.) Two, it is fucking wrong, in totality.
But you heard Conservapedia. Any one of them proves the theory is incorrect. Haha, it took Einstein years to come up with this single theory, and Conservapedia can debunk it 28 different ways on any Sunday morning before church…I’ll write off 10 of these now.
11) The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics – Conservapedia
Most of these statements are logical messes. What do you mean “insights like every verified theory of physics”? The General Theory of Relativity deals with massive objects large enough to affect time and space. It’s not going to tell you how much pressure you need to apply to open your 30th can of Budweiser. Anyway insights gained from General Relativity include
- The ether does not exist. Albert Michelson and Edward Morely proved the ether does not exist in the late 1880s, setting the groundwork for relativity. It was theorized that what astronomical bodies traveled through was called the ether, and these bodies flowed through the ether. Except Michelson proved they didn’t, by measuring two light beams against and with the projected movement of the planets. They hypothesized they would detect the flow of ether by hindering the speed of the light particle going against the ether compared to the one flowing with the ether. There was no difference, the speed of light remained constant. (About Time, Paul Davies, p. 51)
Conservapedia lists the existence of the “ether-like field as Counter-example #25. I’m going to address it right now.
25) Relativity claims 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.
Wrong, at least they’re consistent. When particles moving at the speed of light interact with the Higgs Field, the particles gain mass and become slower. The constant speed of light, perhaps the most important part of General Relativity, is required to explain the Higgs Field. The Higgs Field isn’t ether-like anyway, as it’s an electromagnetic field and not an unobservable, non-interacting “flow”.
- Perpetual energy cannot occur. Mass and energy are equivalent, enough said.
12) The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions – Conservapedia
Then they use a CITATION, to show how serious they are about the loss of mass. It’s a BBC article from 2007, and Conservapedia completely fails at reading comprehension. It’s almost impossible that they got to the end of the article, or whoever authored this drivel would never have used it. This statement claims that because the official measurement for the Kg, a lump of mass called “Le Grand K”, has been losing mass, General Relativity is somehow erroneous. Considering the article states explicitly that the Standard Kilogram is losing mass because it is handled and taken out of isolation (something you never do to retain purity), it’s hard to see how this disproves anything. The Standard Kilogram doesn’t stand in ideal conditions, that was the point of the article.
13) The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe – Conservapedia (Citation)
The uniformity in temperature can be explained by General Relativity, as long as the universe is expanding. If the universe was static and finite, eventually the radiation from stars would heat up the universe. At the current rate of expansion, proved by Hubble’s observation that most galaxies are red-shifting away from each other into space, the universe’s average temperature stays pretty much constant.
If the speed of light has changed, like their citation suggests in experiments that haven’t been disproved yet, then that would require the General Relativity theory to be changed. BUT, it would make the universe even more relative, as the speed of light would depend upon the age of the universe. The universe would become even less static, and more relative, requiring a measurement by an observer’s time to decide the speed of light. Current astronomical bodies and the speed of light still behave as Einstein predicted for our time.
Mmm, you can read some other refutations after the jump. Conclusion for the speed readers: Conservapedia is cherry picking and doesn’t offer any counter-examples that refute the theory, because no one has been able to do so yet.
14) “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.” – Conservapedia (Citation)
This is true; the theories do not gel. But YoHava’s theory hasn’t been finished or proven yet. If it does, we’ll change our opinions. However, Conservapedia will remain a joke by trying to disprove a theory derived from scientific method with a call to end relativism of moral codes, which is just exogenous to the whole thing. If method disproves theory, we’ll buy it.
Cuuuurious that they lead to a reference that is unavailable and you have to purchase. Wormholes are, so far, theoretical. We don’t have the technology to play around with these, or observe them, so I believe this point is mute.
Now you’re just throwing around words. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is compatible with E=mc2. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, because energy and mass are the same thing, the state of matter can only be changed. The black holes do not destroy the matter and energy, merely prevents it from escaping its gravity. The matter and energy would still exist in the universe.
17) 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.
If you follow the link on PSR B1913+16, a radio-emitting pulsar, it will cite a study by Joel Weisberg and Joseph Taylor. Again, their citation disproves their point if you read it. I will quote the study verbatim:
We conclude that the measured orbital decay is consistent at the (0:13 § 0:21)% level with the general relativistic prediction for the emission of gravitational radiation.
And their explanation for the deviation is reasonable. The relativity measurements aren’t perfect, but the behavior can still be predicted to a consistent level.
The correction term depends on several rather poorly known quantities, including the distance and proper motion of the pulsar and the radius of the Sun’s galactic orbit.
18) 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. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science. The only devices based on relativity are the atom bomb, the nuclear power plant, and medical scans such as PET (Postitron Emmision Tomography), but they have destroyed far more lives than they have saved so they can hardly be considered useful.
Probably the single stupidest counterexample, because it admits that General Relativity has been applied, despite claiming that Relativity has been unable “to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics” in Counterexample 11. And if a phenomenon isn’t useful, then it doesn’t exist, QED! Furthermore, it’s useful if I want to do harm, muhahahaha
19) 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.
20) 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.
Neither of these have citations, and frankly, I think they’re confusing so many principles, I’m confused by what they’re trying to say. Maybe George can make more sense of these.
(George’s note: They are confusing different aspects of physics. They are trying very hard to understand relativity while only thinking about it from a classical physics point of view. They use the term “logical principle” a lot, however, their “logical principles” are only logical in classical physics, where mass and energy are not connected and the size of objects don’t contract and expand depending how fast they move. More on how awesome relativity is in part 3)
I’ll end with a brief discussion on the different between theory and law. I imagine the writers of Conservapedia fancy themselves law-abiding to both God’s laws and America’s, so this affinity may sincerely extend to science…Wait, what am I saying. The writers applied the laws of physics in this article willnilly to try and disprove General Relativity, despite confusing them as discussed, just because they fear political repercussions of a social adaptation to a scientific theory. The Theory of General Relativity is an observed theory that has better explained astronomical bodies than any other theory, and hasn’t yet been off by more than measurement error would assume. It is too early in human progress to call it an absolute, anybody would admit that. Read up on the difference.
While the article brings up an interesting phenomenon on changing speed of lights over time, this doesn’t change the effects of General Relativity and the jury’s still out on it. The jury is in on this bullshit though.