Conservapedia:Conservapedian relativity
Thunderkatz (Talk | contribs) m (→Pending Research) |
Thunderkatz (Talk | contribs) m (→Pending Research) |
||
| Line 120: | Line 120: | ||
'''From CP:''' ''Relativity continues to be tested and some physics professors remain skeptical of the theory, such as University of Maryland physics professor Carroll Alley, who served as the principle physicist on the Apollo lunar project.[http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm]'' | '''From CP:''' ''Relativity continues to be tested and some physics professors remain skeptical of the theory, such as University of Maryland physics professor Carroll Alley, who served as the principle physicist on the Apollo lunar project.[http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm]'' | ||
| − | '''Response:''' The physicist referenced is indeed involved in researching alternatives to general relativity. He appears to support [http://ecolloq.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/2001-Spring/announce.alley.html Yilmaz theory], a controversial position among gravitation experts. <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yilmaz_theory_of_gravitation Wikipedia's article ] on Yilmaz theory isn't optimistic, and these two papers [http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/ASGRG/ACGRG1/fackerell.html] [http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9504050] are critical.</ref> Even if it turned out to be an improvement on GR, it would still predict time dilation and other phenomena associated with relativity, so it is unclear what the CP sysops would gain by denying all of GR but then embracing Yilmaz theory. Physicists who research alternative theories of gravitation teach classes on relativity, and emphasize its success; they aren't skeptics who want to throw it in the trash. Improvements on GR are likely to include GR as an approximation, as Newtonian mechanics is an approximation to GR. Declaring that Professor Alley is "skeptical," especially about SR, is questionable, since '''he authored a demonstration of special relativity'''.<ref>[http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/outreach/QOTW/arch11/q218unipolar.pdf Tabletop relativity demonstration] on which Professor Alley appears as a co-author</ref> | + | '''Response:''' The physicist referenced is indeed involved in researching alternatives to general relativity. He appears to support [http://ecolloq.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/2001-Spring/announce.alley.html Yilmaz theory], a controversial position among gravitation experts.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yilmaz_theory_of_gravitation Wikipedia's article ] on Yilmaz theory isn't optimistic, and these two papers [http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/ASGRG/ACGRG1/fackerell.html] [http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9504050] are critical.</ref> Even if it turned out to be an improvement on GR, it would still predict time dilation and other phenomena associated with relativity, so it is unclear what the CP sysops would gain by denying all of GR but then embracing Yilmaz theory. Physicists who research alternative theories of gravitation teach classes on relativity, and emphasize its success; they aren't skeptics who want to throw it in the trash. Improvements on GR are likely to include GR as an approximation, as Newtonian mechanics is an approximation to GR. Declaring that Professor Alley is "skeptical," especially about SR, is questionable, since '''he authored a demonstration of special relativity'''.<ref>[http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/outreach/QOTW/arch11/q218unipolar.pdf Tabletop relativity demonstration] on which Professor Alley appears as a co-author</ref> |
== Government Support for Relativistic research == | == Government Support for Relativistic research == | ||
Revision as of 20:12, 31 May 2008
- For discussion of the talk page fiascos on this topic, see here.
The sysops at Conservapedia are concerned about a link between scientific relativity (special and general relativity) and moral relativism. Based on that misguided premise, and perhaps their mistrust of science in general (as per biological evolution), they attempt to denigrate the science of relativity as part of their anti-moral relativism agenda. As a result, the Theory of Relativity article at Conservapedia has been and is riddled with incorrect interpretations, distortions of fact, out-of-context quotes from scientists and scientific journals, and elementary errors.
Some of the mistakes may be due to basic misunderstanding of the physics involved, but as attempts to correct them have been met with admonishments and reversions from the administrators, it's likely that at least some are due to willful misrepresentation of relativity. Perhaps the admins believe they can get away with such behavior because relativity has a reputation for being "difficult," and most people who read CP's article are unlikely to question what they are told. If so, then the admins are guilty of blatant intellectual dishonesty, and their claims of being educators are nothing but a sham. Hopefully, some people who read that article will wind up here, and a few of their misconceptions about relativity caused by CP will be addressed.
Quotations from the Conservapedia Theory of Relativity article are from the article as it appeared on August 19, 2007 unless stated otherwise.
Contents |
Introductory remarks
- Abbreviations used in this article:
- CP = Conservapedia
- SR = Special Relativity
- GR = General Relativity
- Special and General Relativity, the two scientific theories that are generally referred to simply as "relativity" for short, have nothing to say about moral relativism.
- Moral relativism is a philosophical position that did not become popular until well after scientific relativity was established. Even if moral relativists pointed to scientific relativity as a justification for their philosophical ideas, as alleged by an editorial cited by CP's article,[1] there is no basis for rejecting or accepting scientific relativity based upon one's feelings about moral relativism. The CP administrators use the following logic:
- Moral relativists accept relativity.
- Moral relativism is wrong.
- Therefore, relativity is wrong.
- Most Satanists probably accept cell theory. Because I reject Satanism, must I also reject cell theory? Of course not. The only real similarity between moral relativism and scientific relativism is word choice. If you don't like the word "relativism," you may call scientific relativity whatever you like--"MoonCheese Theory" if you want.
- Moral relativism is a philosophical position that did not become popular until well after scientific relativity was established. Even if moral relativists pointed to scientific relativity as a justification for their philosophical ideas, as alleged by an editorial cited by CP's article,[1] there is no basis for rejecting or accepting scientific relativity based upon one's feelings about moral relativism. The CP administrators use the following logic:
- General Relativity is the best descriptor of gravitation that we currently have, but it is known to be incompatible with quantum mechanics under extreme conditions. Quantum mechanics has been successfully incorporated into all of the fundamental forces of nature except for gravity; consequently, most physicists expect that an improvement to GR involving quantum mechanics exists. One of the major efforts in contemporary physics is the search for ways to unite the two theories. Part of that search involves testing GR to its limits. Such testing does not mean that experts on gravitation consider GR to be a failure; it's part of the scientific endeavor. After all, Newtonian mechanics are used every day, despite quantum mechanics and relativity having surpassed it as superior descriptions of nature; the same relationship will likely be true of GR and whatever eventually replaces it as the dominant theory of gravitation.
- Relativity has been subject to denigration to some degree ever since its discovery.[2] It introduced a drastic shift from the established Newtonian paradigm of absolute space and time, and not everyone was ready to accept such a change. Relativity, and Einstein himself, occupy a unique place in the popular imagination; Einstein is a prototypical genius, and relativity is a prototypical genius' pursuit. That status can lead someone with ambition and a little bit of knowledge (always a dangerous thing) to embark on a "debunk relativity" quest. After all, anyone who takes on Einstein and wins becomes the next Einstein, right? The sensationalist tendency of the popular press can also contribute to the frenzy; every few years, there's a newspaper story about the latest "proof" against relativity. The headlines sell papers, but the substance usually amounts to a misreading or misquoting of a scientist or scientific paper by a reporter who doesn't grasp the science in enough detail.
Arthur Eddington
Those at CP emphasize the controversy about Eddington's 1919 observations as "proof" that relativity is a myth. This particular excerpt appears in the introduction, but other references to Eddington appear in CP's article.
From CP: A dramatic but later discredited claim by Sir Arthur Eddington of experimental proof of General Relativity in 1919 made Einstein a household name.
Response: This statement is presumably included to inform the reader that relativity can be discounted because an experiment performed in 1919 was "discredited." While there were problems with Eddington's original conclusions, to say he was "discredited," implying that he made the whole thing up, is something of an overstatement. Eddington encountered several technical problems involving error estimation, and his methods of analyzing data came under scrutiny. Later analysis showed that the experimental uncertainty in his measurements was probably larger than what he reported;[3] nevertheless, the most recent investigation of the 1919 experiment indicates that Eddington and his colleagues did definitively rule out the Newtonian prediction for the deflection of light. While Eddington and others were overzealous in claiming that the eclipse observations supported general relativity without doubt, the stories that "the error bars were as big as the data" or that Eddington faked the results are myths fostered by poor communication — legends which regrew in the telling.[4] Similar experiments performed later confirmed relativistic predictions, and many, many other observations over the last 80-plus years have done the same.[5] An older revision from the article goes on a tangent to suggest that Eddington had reasons to deliberatedly lie about his observations.[6]
Evidence for Relativity
Perhaps this section should be title "Attempts to Spin Evidence against Relativity," since this part of the CP article appears to be designed that way. Edit warring and disagreement over this section has resulted in a nearly incomprehensible soup of statements and counter-statements. The following excerpts are the basics of the CP position.
The Nobel Prize
From CP: There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity.[7]
Response: The CP article later notes that the 1993 Nobel Prize in physics was for relativity-related advances (see above cite). Einstein published on SR in 1905 and GR in 1916; neither was instantly elevated to Nobel Prize status. Relativity was controversial for a number of years, in part because of the difficulty in using the technology available at the time to devise an experiment capable of decisive confirmation of relativity, and also because many people were reluctant to move away from Newtonian physics (which, after all, had worked for centuries). Sadly, because Einstein was Jewish, anti-Semitism played a role as well. Relativity was derided as "Jewish science," and a 1920 demonstration in Berlin accused Einstein of "scientific dadaism" and of being a publicity hound.[8] Einstein didn't win a Nobel Prize until 1921, and it wasn't for relativity.[9] In any case, there are many, many discoveries in physics worth recognizing, and only one Nobel Prize is given per year. The validity of a scientific discovery does not depend on the number of prizes dedicated to it.
Global Positioning System
CP's management insists that the Global Positioning System (GPS) has nothing to do with relativity[10].
From CP: Tom Van Flandern, an astronomer hired to work on GPS in the late 1990s, concluded that "[t]he GPS programmers don't need relativity." He was quoted as saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein."[11] Asynchronization can be easily addressed through communications between the satellites and ground stations, so it is unclear why any theory would be needed for GPS. But other obscure physicists having no connection with GPS design claim that Van Flandern is wrong about GPS, and insist that relativity provides the best explanation for its timing adjustments.[12]
Response: The inclusion of this excerpt from the cited source is perhaps the most outrageous misinterpretation of a source by CP's article. Note that the source cited is the same one referenced earlier on this page from Salon.com, which discusses the various attempts to defraud relativity. Here is what the article goes on to say about Tom Van Flandern:
“”I asked Neil Ashby, a professor of physics who works at the University of Colorado and specializes in theoretical general relativity with practical applications. "I am acquainted with Tom Van Flandern and his view," he told me. "It is incorrect to claim that no relativistic corrections are used after launch. Actually because GPS satellites are in eccentric orbits, they suffer frequency variations due to their varying speeds and varying heights above the Earth's surface. Information is transmitted down to the receivers from each satellite, which enables receivers to make a relativistic correction which accounts for these effects."
He added: "Einstein has not been 'blown off.' On the contrary, a great deal of thought has gone into the problem and all of the known special and general relativistic effects have been accounted for if they are predicted to be big enough to be important." Other gravitation specialists, such as Charles Misner at the University of Maryland, Lawrence Mead of the University of Southern Mississippi, Clifford Will of the University of Washington in St. Louis and Steve Carlip of the University of California at Davis, confirm that special and general relativity are built into the software for GPS. |
CP would have everyone who disagrees with its untenable position labeled as "obscure," but those gravitation specialists are very well-known in the field (Prof. Misner is an author of a widely-used text on gravitation).[13] Instead, according to CP's own cite, it is Mr. Van Flandern who appears to be on the fringes of the scientific community. Several sources confirm that relativistic corrections are used in GPS.[14]
Newtonian mechanics and time dilation
CP's article implies that Newtonian mechanics can predict time dilation or otherwise affect the operation of clocks in different frames, a view expressed on the article's talk page as well.[15]
From CP: the articles claiming that the slower GPS satellite clocks confirm relativity do not address the effect, if any, of the weaker gravitational force under Newton's theory on the GPS satellite clocks.
Response: The reason that the scientific papers do not address Newtonian affects on clocks is that time in Newtonian mechanics is universal and absolute.[16] In other words, Newtonian mechanics does not predict any differences in the rate at which clocks in different reference frames tick. This concept is an elementary aspect of mechanics, but it appears that those at CP have not yet mastered it.
Newtonian mechanics and the bending of starlight
CP's article notes that Newtonian mechanics can also predict deflection of light, as though gravitational lensing can be explained without GR. There are a number of problems with relying on classical mechanics to predict such deflection.
From CP: Note, however, that Newtonian mechanics also predicts deflection of light by gravity, and in the initial theory of relativity it predicted the same amount of deflection.[17] Adjustments to the theory of relativity resulted in a prediction of a greater deflection of light than that predicated by Newtonian mechanics, though it is debatable how much deflection Newtonian mechanics should predict.
Response: The citation provided by CP does indeed discuss how one might predict light deflection from a classical standpoint. However, it also addresses the problems inherent with such a position--something the CP editor has once again conveniently ignored. As the source discusses, Newtonian predictions require that light can be accelerated like all other matter, and that it is composed of particles that have a non-zero rest mass. In such a view, there would be no reason for the speed of light to be a universal constant. It would therefore become difficult to reconcile the Newtonian view with current experimental results and particle theories. In fact, GR provides a good explanation for gravitational lensing, which can be observed in some spectacular astronomical images.[18]
CP's reference to "the initial theory of relativity" probably refers not to special relativity, but to Einstein's original 1911 prediction of the degree to which starlight would be deflected by the sun. Einstein later discovered that he had made an error in his calculations, and issued a correction before reliable measurements were made.
Ostensible Paradoxes
This section appears in the CP article in an attempt to cast doubt on the postulates of relativity; in fact, the material included here, which includes interesting physics, has NO conflicts with relativity whatsoever, and probably would not even be addressed in most encyclopedic articles on relativity.
From CP: The Theory of Relativity implies that physical constants like the speed of light have remained constant. But at least one study suggests that physical constants, and possibly even the speed of light, have changed as the universe has aged.[19]
Response: The theory of relativity implies no such thing. One postulate of relativity states that all observers get the same answer when they measure the speed of light in vacuum, not that the speed of light in vacuum has been constant for all time. In other words, the speed of light is "universally constant" across all observers, not across all time. As such, relativity would not be altered even if it were conclusively shown that the speed of light has changed over time. Incidentally, such changes in the value of c would be observed as very tiny variations in the dimensionless fine structure constant; although some creation scientists attempted to explain the starlight problem by proposing huge changes in c, not even the creationists at Answers in Genesis subscribe to that idea any longer. Instead, ironically for the Conservapedians who use AiG as a scientific source,[20] they prefer a relativistic explanation.[21]
From CP: "For the first time, scientists have experimentally demonstrated that sound pulses can travel at velocities faster than the speed of light, c. William Robertson's team from Middle Tennessee State University also showed that the group velocity of sound waves can become infinite, and even negative. ... Although such results may at first appear to violate special relativity (Einstein's law that no material object can exceed the speed of light), the actual significance of these experiments is a little different. These types of superluminal phenomena, Robertson et al. explain, violate neither causality nor special relativity, nor do they enable information to travel faster than c. In fact, theoretical work had predicted that the superluminal speed of the group velocity of sound waves should exist. 'The key to understanding this seeming paradox is that no wave energy exceeded the speed of light,' said Robertson."[22]
Response: Some readers may be misled by this paragraph, which might be interpreted as casting doubt on relativity because the sound velocities measured are greater than the speed of light. In fact, as explained further on in the paragraph, no violation of relativity exists. There are several different methods of measuring the velocity of waves; a few of the most common are group velocity and phase velocity. In some instances, due to the nature of wave behavior and measurement techniques, measurements of both group and phase velocity can exceed c. As fascinating as that behavior is, however, no energy or information is transferred faster than c, in accordance with special relativity.
From CP: "A team of researchers from the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) has successfully demonstrated, for the first time, that it is possible to control the speed of light – both slowing it down and speeding it up – in an optical fiber, using off-the-shelf instrumentation in normal environmental conditions. Their results, to be published in the August 22 issue of Applied Physics Letters, could have implications that range from optical computing to the fiber-optic telecommunications industry."[23]
Response: Again, readers of this passage may be duped into believing that c is not a universal constant, which would violate one of the relativity postulates. However, it is important to remember that c is the speed of light in vacuum. In any other medium, whether that medium is air, water, optical fiber, or anything else, the speed of light can differ from c. The fact that researchers have found ways to take advantage of that type of behavior is interesting, but it doesn't have any direct bearing on relativistic predictions.
From CP: "A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light - an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space and time. ... Dr Nimtz told New Scientist magazine: 'For the time being, this is the only violation of special relativity that I know of.'"[24]
Response: CP quotes the Telegraph, a popular newspaper, despite prohibitions on using popular press articles as scientific sources [12]. The paper in question deals with quantum tunneling of virtual photons--unobservable particles that represent transitions between quantum states. Interpretation of the result is again subject to the question of what velocity is being measured, as in the above cases. Another source quotes a different scientist:
“”However, Dr. Aephraim Steinberg, from the University of Toronto, disagrees with the findings. He says its all just a matter of interpretation. The "wave packet" of the virtual photon exceeded the speed of light, but no actual information was transmitted that fast. Therefore, according to Steinberg, Einstein's cosmic speed limit remains safe.[25]
|
The paper itself[26] includes the following in its conclusion:
“”All three properties - the violation of the Einstein energy relation, the zero time spreading, and the non observability of evanescent modes - can be explained by identifying evanescent modes with virtual photons as predicted by several authors, see for instance references 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.
|
The authors aren't exactly clamoring for scrapping relativity; they confirmed a result predicted by quantum mechanics.
Pending Research
The CP editors include this conspiratorial section in an attempt to portray ongoing research on relativity as somehow detrimental to the theory.
From CP: Relativity continues to be tested and some physics professors remain skeptical of the theory, such as University of Maryland physics professor Carroll Alley, who served as the principle physicist on the Apollo lunar project.[13]
Response: The physicist referenced is indeed involved in researching alternatives to general relativity. He appears to support Yilmaz theory, a controversial position among gravitation experts.[27] Even if it turned out to be an improvement on GR, it would still predict time dilation and other phenomena associated with relativity, so it is unclear what the CP sysops would gain by denying all of GR but then embracing Yilmaz theory. Physicists who research alternative theories of gravitation teach classes on relativity, and emphasize its success; they aren't skeptics who want to throw it in the trash. Improvements on GR are likely to include GR as an approximation, as Newtonian mechanics is an approximation to GR. Declaring that Professor Alley is "skeptical," especially about SR, is questionable, since he authored a demonstration of special relativity.[28]
Government Support for Relativistic research
CP's next section tries to extend the perceived relativity conspiracy outside the scientific domain and into the political arena.
From CP: The Theory of Relativity enjoys a disproportionate share of federal funding of physics research today,[29]. In at least one case that research has been unsuccessful. The $365 million dollar LIGO project has failed to detect the gravity waves predicted by relativity.[30]
Response: These statements are unsubstantiated opinions. The first citation has nothing to do with the broad generalization that relativity is disproportionately funded compared to other research areas; it is an anti-LIGO piece written in 1993, before LIGO was even constructed. There's no mention of the large number of scientists who DID support the funding of LIGO (otherwise, how did it get funded at all?). The second citation is to a 2002 article written after LIGO's first run of data-taking. In that article, physicists are reportedly "confident" of observing such waves, so the negative treatment by CP seems to run contrary to the spirit of the article. Furthermore, LIGO is a large, complicated project; such projects are first tested at rough degrees of precision to make sure things work correctly at those levels, and are then progressively "tuned" to higher and higher precision. LIGO has still not achieved its designed level of sensitivity.[31] As for the price tag: good science can occasionally become expensive. The total cost of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), a large particle physics effort located near Geneva, Switzerland, will be several billion dollars.[32] LIGO is expected to be far more scientifically valuable than the Mars manned space program, whose cost will be astronomically higher.[33]
Philosophical Impact of Relativity
Another section designed to tie relativity to politics, and to generate sympathy for CP's distorted viewpoint by casting relativity denialists as victims of a pro-relativity censorship drive. In addition to the example below, the section hints that Robert Dicke has not won a Nobel prize because of his support of an alternative to GR, even though CP's own article cites a TIME piece illustrating how Dicke's theory is not a significant improvement on GR [34]. To imply that the Nobel Prize Committee is part of an anti-Dicke conspiracy is absurd. Only one Nobel Prize in physics is given every year; many respectable scientists do not win.
From CP: There is a correlation between enthusiasm for the theory of relativity and political views,[35] and there is an unmistakable effort to censor or ostracize criticism of relativity.[36]
Response: This sentence is unsubstantiated. The first cite is to an opinion article decrying the use of relativity to justify moral relativism; it says nothing about a correlation between relativity and politics. While most people would probably assume that the majority of self-identified moral relativists are left-wing, such statistics would not mean that everyone who accepts relativity is a moral relativist (see above). The source for the idea that criticism of relativity is censored is an Economist article (another non-scientific source) that highlights the current efforts to test general relativity, a hot topic in physics right now; there's no mention of systematic censorship. The footnote also includes the complaint that Wikipedia's entry "omits one word of criticism" (presumably the CP author meant to say "includes not one word of criticism"). It is true that there are not many well-regarded alternatives to relativity, but that reflects the success of relativity in predicting and explaining observations. The reason that Wikipedia does not discuss "criticism of relativity" in its article is that there is no legitimate alternative at the moment. Note that Wikipedia's article on cell theory does not include criticism either.
For an amusing sample of delusion, read this from an older revision:
"Just as “social Darwinism” arose from Darwinism, many seized upon the theory of relativity to apply it in a vague way to morality and social issues. “All things are relative” became popular as atheists and others used relativity to attack Christian values."[37]
See Also
References
Citations preceeded by CP Footnote: appear on Conservapedia's article.
- ↑ This WorldNetDaily column against moral relativism is cited by CP near the end of its relativity article.
- ↑ Salon.com has an interesting article about skepticism of relativity.
- ↑ See this paper, p. 17, for a discussion of Eddington's results
- ↑ Daniel Kennefick, Not Only Because of Theory: Dyson, Eddington and the Competing Myths of the 1919 Eclipse Expedition. Proceedings of the 7th Conference on the History of General Relativity, Tenerife, 2005. See also Philip Ball, Arthur Eddington was innocent!, Nature News 7 September 2007.
- ↑ Ibid.
- ↑ "Eddington liked publicity and probably dreamed of winning a Nobel Prize, and upon his return to England declared that his observations proven the theory of relativity." [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&oldid=15346 09:56, 22 February 2007 revision
- ↑ CP Footnote: http://nobelprize.org/
- ↑ Salon.com has an interesting article about skepticism of relativity.
- ↑ See the Nobel Prize website
- ↑ Page diff on CP's Talk:Theory of Relativity page, on which this type of statement appears several times.
- ↑ CP Footnote: http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html See also [1], where Van Flandern discusses how relativistic corrections might improve GPS accuracy.
- ↑ CP Footnote: Ibid.
- ↑ See Amazon's page on this book
- ↑ For example, here are three resources on the web: [2] [3] [4]
- ↑ Here, the founder of CP states that Newtonian mechanics affects clock rates.
- ↑ The relativity timeline at the Nobel Prize website states as much under the Isaac Newton entry.
- ↑ CP Footnote: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm
- ↑ Some examples of gravitational lensing: [5] [6] [7]
- ↑ CP Footnote: James Glanz and Dennis Overbye, "Cosmic Laws Like Speed of Light Might Be Changing, a Study Finds," August 15, 2001.[8]
- ↑ Note the number of references to Answers in Genesis on CP's Theory of Evolution article.
- ↑ Answers in Genesis' discussion of the starlight problem.
- ↑ CP Footnote: http://www.physorg.com/news88249076.html
- ↑ CP Footnote: http://www.scienceblog.com/light.html
- ↑ CP Footnote: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/scispeed116.xml
- ↑ DailyTech Article
- ↑ Abstract of Nimitz and Stahlhofen; PDF version of their paper.
- ↑ Wikipedia's article on Yilmaz theory isn't optimistic, and these two papers [9] [10] are critical.
- ↑ Tabletop relativity demonstration on which Professor Alley appears as a co-author
- ↑ CP Footnote: The Democratic Congress insisted on the $250 million LIGO project despite substantial criticism by scientists that it was wasting scarce research dollars. John Travis, "LIGO: a $ 250 million gamble; Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory; includes related article," Science p. 612 (Apr. 30, 1993). "Adding to the acrimony is LIGO's $ 250 million price tag, which some hold responsible for NSF's recent funding woes." Id.
- ↑ CP Footnote: http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/sept/gravitywaves/index.html
- ↑ This abstract indicates that in 2002, when the article cited by CP was written, more sensitive upgrades to LIGO were still to come.
- ↑ This estimate is £2.1 billion, the equivalent of several billion US dollars.
- ↑ This document compares two different measures of cost for Mars missions; for the first mission, one estimate is over $26 billion, and the other is over $39 billion (2002 dollars).
- ↑ Time article on Dicke and GR cited by Conservapedia's article.
- ↑ CP Footnote: "Mistakenly, in the minds of many, the theory of relativity became relativism."[11]
- ↑ CP Footnote: Although the liberally biased Wikipedia contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries, and even though publications like The Economist recognize the lack of scientific satisfaction in the theory (see, e.g., "Weighing the Universe," The Economist (Jan. 25, 2007)), Wikipedia's entry on Theory of Relativity omits one word of criticism.
- ↑ http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&oldid=15346 09:56, 22 February 2007 revision]
External links
Wikipedia's article on relativity.
NASA/Worldbook entry on relativity.