Conservapedia Debunks Relativity: Part 3

I’ve noticed that there are now only 28 counterexamples. When we started there were 30. Be warned, teh stoopid gets pretty thick in these last few.

21) 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.

I honestly have no idea what the author is talking about here. This reminds me of that video of the woman explaining how homeopathy works. She throws around physics terms to impress her audience. None of them have anything to do with what she is talking about. Woomisters like to take the word “quantum” and throw it into their products to make them look smarter. They come out looking like idiots. So yeah, I have no idea what point 21 means.

22) 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?

Simple answer: because we are dealing with a different type of geometry.

Long answer: Do some independent research; there are a lot of new terms and some fancy math, far too much to explain here.

23) 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.

Sigh. If the ship has to turn around, then the motion is not uniform. The internal frame of reference for the twin on the space ship has changed. It’s not that complicated. It’s also not a paradox. Fail number 23.

24) Relativity predicted 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.

WRONG! Also, new term! I like the idea of a Relativist. Anyway, the clocks do move at different speeds, if you have accurate enough clocks.

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.

Austin covered this one.

26) 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.

No? Time does have an inverse vector, but the properties of Minkowski space do not allow us to move in that vector, that would violate relativity.

27) 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.

Except for all the experiments that we have done that provide mountains of evidence that Einstein was right. Like the clocks we took to the moon (THE MOON LANDING WAS FAKED KNASKASKSF!@!@!!!11!).  Without an understanding of relativity, we wouldn’t have the GPS. Its is not faith. Faith does not require evidence. A solid theory does. Relativity is a solid theory.

The “science is faith” thing is a common tactic. It is also painfully wrong and shows that the person using the argument has no idea what science actually is. Science is a process.

Let’s look at an example. I give you a $100 bill and tell you it’s real. With faith, you believe me. If you were using science, you would hold the bill up to the light looking for the watermark, you would look at the reflective ink. If you had the technology at your disposal, you would do a chemical analysis of the fibers to see if it was a real $100 bill. Well it’s not real because I’m too poor to have a $100 bill.

You can’t believe in relativity. You can look at the experimental evidence, do the math for yourself, and if you’re super rich, build a spaceship and do these experiments for yourself.

28) 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.

Jebus Bible quotes are not evidence. And why should it be aether? Can’t it be marshmallow fluff? I rather like the idea of planets and galaxies flying through marshmallow fluff.

If you really want to get a solid grasp of Relativity, I highly recommend Why Does E=MC2 by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw. If you know A^2+B^2=C^2 you can understand time dilation. It’s really freaking amazing how simple it actually is when explained by someone like Brian Cox (I have a man crush on him).

Seriously though, why the obsession with aether?

Part 1

Part 2

This entry was posted in conspiracy theory, Education, Liars, Philosophy, Quacks, Religion, Science, Skepticism, Teabaggers and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Conservapedia Debunks Relativity: Part 3

  1. Pingback: Conservapedia Debunks Relativity Part 2 « DC Skeptics

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s