Exposing More Conservapedia Detritus

In this blog we conclude our examination of the spurious objections of ‘Conservapedia’ to Relativity, especially the General Theory. The remaining objections include:

21. 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 (Positron Emission Tomography), but they have destroyed far more lives than they have saved so they can hardly be considered useful.

22. 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.

23. 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?

24. The observed lack of curvature in overall space.

25. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics

26. 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
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.

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

Now, let’s splatter each of these rubbish objections in turn.

Objection 21 makes the typical error of projecting anthropocentric chauvinist expectations onto an impersonal theory about physical nature. In fact, there is no reason whatsoever a theory pertaining to nature should deliver “benefits” or any other subjective values to humans. Theories are accepted because they fulfill predictions, and this is what General and special relativity have done.

It is also interesting that the benefits relativity has provided (by way of the E= mc^2 in terms of nuclear fission reactors) are not appreciated. For example, France now derives 80% of all its energy from nuclear power- so it certainly can’t be dismissed as a unilateral danger. The fact that France’s population of tens of millions depends on this power for their lives automatically refutes the claim that many more have been killed than helped. A genuine unilateral danger is much more the oil dependency of the U.S. – which to quote a recent TIME article – implies that “by consuming so much oil, the U.S. is fighting terrorism while funding both sides”

Let’s also get clear that the destruction of lives, i.e. in the A-bombs used on Japan, wasn't due to the theory of special relativity per se (which is valueless, as pure physics) but its specific military appropriation toward a destructive technological end: the development of a fission BOMB to kill or maim tens of thousands. I, for one, have never regarded weapons designers or expediters as true scientists- only as odious sell outs and an affront to real scientists that pursue their research for the betterment of understanding nature. Not the destruction of humans, and let's never forget the first moral principle: the ends never justifies the means.

Objection 22 is simply a blatant falsehood that reflects a fundamental lack of understanding. Once one is operating in an inertial system in the framework of special relativity, it simply doesn’t apply. The same values for inertia (mass) apply no matter which direction an object goes. But this should be immediately obvious anyway, since mass (inertia) is a scalar quantity not a vector quantity (which latter has both magnitude AND direction). But these sort of distortions are typical.

Objection 23 references a pseudo-paradox in that we know if one goes by a tangential component for a whirling device, one obtains unphysical results in certain cases. Thus, the case of a spinning hoop is irrelevant as an example of special relativity since the point on the circumference for which the tangential velocity is computed is not truly traveling at faster than light speed in an inertial frame, rather it is going at a speed of v = (2πR)/t, relative to the center of gravity of the hoop. In addition, the phenomenon of length contraction or foreshortening occurs in the direction of motion, so R (radius) would not be affected as a genuinely contracting length anyway.

Objection 24 is simply flat out wrong- as it was precisely the recent balloon borne observations of Boomerang and other craft which led to the conclusion that the cosmos has a flat, Euclidean curvature. Universes that re-collapse (decelerate), expand forever with zero limiting velocity (e.g. v uniform) or expand forever with positive limiting velocity (accelerate) are called in turn: 'closed' (can have curvature k = +1); 'critical' (k=0) or 'open' (can be k = -1), respectively.

To determine whether any F-R-W (Friedmann-Robertson-Walker) cosmological template leads to deceleration or not, we need to find the cosmic density parameter: OMEGA = rho / rho_c, where the denominator refers to the critical density. Thus if: rho > rho_ c (c = critical) then the cosmic density is able to reverse the expansion (e.g. decelerate it) and conceivably usher in a new cycle. (New Big bang etc.)

The observations that help determine how large rho is, come mainly from observing galaxy cluster distributions (e.g. via the Sloan survey)in different directions in space and obtaining a density estimates from them. Current data, e.g. from Boomerang and other satellite detectors shows that OMEGA ~ 0.3 or that: rho = 0.3 (rho_c) I.e. that rho less than rho_c so there is no danger of the cosmos decelerating- and hence it has overall curvature k = 0.

Objection 25 is also flat wrong as general relativity has led to many other insights- such as the phenomenon of gravitational lensing. This has led to novel insights in the field of celestial mechanics, especially to do with more refined astrometric measurements, as well as in the field of high energy astrophysics- in terms of the discovery of dark energy. Specifically, the dark energy state term (rho + 3p) acts as a source of gravity in general relativity, (where rho = energy density). If we set: 0 = (rho + 3p) then: p = -rho /3 (or rho = - 3p) and if: p < (rho /3) we have gravity that repels – which accounts for the accelerated expansion of the cosmos.

Objection 26 is simply a wrong-headed deconstruction of relativity, since absolutely no black holes of the type specified are demanded. Indeed, the 2nd law of black hole dynamics (previous blog on relativity) renders this impossible – in addition to violating the conservation precepts of the 1st law!

Objection 27 is merely a misrepresentation of one variant of the famous Eotvos experiment. While it has been performed and found in some instances to be inconclusive, most experiments show an equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass. Thus, one isn't compelled to accept the basis of relativity “on faith”! After all, we have all those nuclear transmutations, reactions, etc. to show it works!

Objection 28 is just plain batty, invoking some suspect text in an ancient book to try to justify the existence of aether. But this objection does embody the hidden core and agenda of those who mount resistance to relativity. That is, like Darwinian Evolution, they regard it as antithetical to their faith. Somehow, in the back of most relativity resisters' brains is a basic distrust of modern science, and that it’s newfangled ways will either destroy or compromise their god.

I beheld the giveaway agenda in an article 20 years ago, appearing in 'The Barbados Advocate', wherein a "young engineer named Dr. Stephen Gift" was quoted as having disproven the theories of relativity and hence shown "the major finding and conclusion that there is a God, a supreme supernatural Being behind the creation of the universe." In fact, as I noted in a subsequent response letter, this was absolute bollocks. What Gift expressed was his personal belief or emotional bias but that in no way represented a sound scientific conclusion based on direct or indirect evidence. As the case now with the bore-ons from Conservapedia, I showed in extended papers-articles published in both the Journal of the Barbados Astronomical Society, and the Trinidadian sister journal (Astro-News) that Gift had misrepresented the basis for special relativity in his supposed putdowns, as well as misconstrued general relativity.

For example, in one of his putdowns of time dilation, Gift omitted the inertial reference frame and clock from his example. However, as I pointed out, once one agrees to use a stationary (or inertial) frame of reference, any conflicting issues (e.g. between moving and stationary observers) can be resolved and established. The primary condition, to ensure consistency of results, is that both observers (on Earth or in the moving craft) have at least two clocks that are properly synchronized. Thus both sets of observers must include stationary clocks (or stationary 1m rules – for lengths) in their reference frames, for comparative measurements.

In any event it is doubtful the country will anytime soon run out of anti-relativity loons, just as it is nowhere near running out of anti-evolution loons. But the key fact that all the detractors of both theories miss, is that they are used and applied because they WORK! They account for a multitude of otherwise disjunctive phenomena which can't be accounted for by any competing theories. (The Brans-Dicke theory came close to usurping general relativity some years ago, but ultimately had to be shelved because it missed certain key predictions. One of its co-authors, Carl Brans, was my Mathematical Physics Prof while at Loyola.)

As I've noted many times before, people - including Stephen Gift, Herbert Dingle (another relativity opponent), Conservapedia's naysayers and even Pastor Mike, are certainly entitled to their own opinions about any theory -whether relativity, evolution, or quantum mechanics. BUT, they are not entitled to their own facts!