Relativity is a liberal conspiracy

[Kanastrous]

I think the use of the word 'relativity' is significant for that crowd. Because conceptually the idea that observer frame-of-reference affects the observer's interpretation of the world around them is pure poison to this crowd, outside the realm of physics: no one else's religion, no one else's social practices, no one else's cultural standards can be correct or valid because Jesus Christ is the only answer and the Bible is the only truth. These are the people who decry 'cultural relativism' which is the rather like idea of frames-of-reference applied to societies.

So the idea that observer frame-of-reference affects measurements of the physical universe is a concept that this crowd would likely despise, because if that is a characteristic of the physical world it certainly pairs with the idea that it can be a characteristic of social 'worlds' too. And if you wish to deny the possibility that societies can have different but still valid cultural or religious yardsticks, it follows that individual people having different yet still valid yardsticks for measuring the physical world would be suspect, too.

[Sarevok]

Well people are free to believe whatever nonsense they want. What bugs me is that they believe much of the foundation of modern science is false. Yet they freely use products built using same principles for their own purposes like leading a comfortable live and disseminating their beliefs worldwide. If they are religious as they claim do they not realize god hates hypocrites ? Why do they use technology that they know should not exist at all because it contradicts their religious beliefs ?

[Kanastrous]

Because the technology actually flows from God, and the scientists and engineers are doing His will without even knowing it. Or something.

This is something I frequently ask believers: You don't want to be treated with Bronze-Age medicine if you're sick, you wouldn't want to depend upon Bronze-Age agriculture for your food, you wouldn't choose to live in a Bronze-Age-type dwelling with Bronze-Age-grade fixtures, you wouldn't choose to travel about using Bronze-Age modes of transportation...but you choose to take your whole world-view and conception of the universe from a Bronze-Age book. Why is that?

Needless to say I don't usually receive a reply.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

I wouldn't have thought that it'd add up to anything significant at the speeds they were moving at.

It's not just speed that results in time dilation, so does gravity. Thus satellite clocks are set to slower frequencies while on Earth to account for the lesser time dilation at the desired orbit. The importance of this depends on the required precision.

[HMS Conqueror]

Part of me doesn't want to believe it, but after this, anything is possible.

[Kanastrous]

^ that guy should get a medal.

[Eternal_Freedom]

This guy reminds me why I am ashamed to be a Christian sometimes. I mean, Jesus Christ! (and I use that term without regret)

This guy should play by his own rules of "loving your neighbour," which I always interpret to mean "live and let live".

Oh, wait, he probably cut that out of the Bible because it sounds communist. What a bastard

[Rossum]

This guy reminds me why I am ashamed to be a Christian sometimes. I mean, Jesus Christ! (and I use that term without regret)

This guy should play by his own rules of "loving your neighbour," which I always interpret to mean "live and let live".

Oh, wait, he probably cut that out of the Bible because it sounds communist. What a bastard

I know, besides its not like his "example" of Jesus knowing that a mans son will live from a distance even violates anything about the theory of relativity.

Man: "Sir, come down before my child dies."

*Jesus turns to look at an angel next to him who is invisible to all other observers, the angel touches his earpiece*

Angel: There is the son of a royal official in Capernaum, what's his status?

*the message is relayed to another angel via radio-waves. Seconds later in Capernaum an angel looks at the child*

Angel Two: The child looks like he has a virus. Want me to heal him?

*message is relayed back to Jesus who nods in the affirmative, the response goes back to the angel in Capernaum who heals the child*

Jesus (to the man): You many go, your son will live.


Later the man finds out that his son was miraculously healed around the same hour as he was having a conversation with Jesus.

I mean, we right now can accomplish near-instant communication with slower than light technology. Back in the time of Jesus, being able to talk with someone miles away on a cell phone would be considered both magic and instantaneous as far as they were concerned. If you actually want to believe in the miracles in the bible, you don't need to believe in anything that really violates physics (okay, invisible angels might be stretching it a bit... or not... I dunno how invisible you can really make something).

But... yeah... a sane person could keep their world view by believing that this remote miracle could have taken at least a minute or so for the information to travel at light speed and be enacted through whatever means Jesus does his miracles normally. The idea that these words explicitly require things to happen in zero seconds is... its just stupid.

I can't help but think that if there was an actual 'religion' out there that was both dedicated to giving itself political power and actually understanding how the universe works and maybe advancing human development then we could be building rocket ships and colonizing mars right now instead of having people think that Armageddon (aka God kills everyone in the world that doesn't believe in him despite him being invisible and never talking to anyone anymore) is a good thing for some reason.

[Simon_Jester]

The problem is that such a religion would have to be motivated more by "path seeking" than by fanatical belief in the tenets of some single prophet or divine being.

Religions like that exist, but they often don't spread across the world as effectively as the "long live the Holy One!" types.

[Patrick Degan]

This is not suprirsing. Modern hyperconservatism ideologically depends upon fixed absolutes. The very concept of relativity denies this. Hence, Einstein is now a threat that must be purged from the culture.

Sadly, I seem to recall a certain group of like-minded persons in a certain European nation who began acting along these lines sometime back in the 1930s...

[Simon_Jester]

Oh, there are plenty of fixed absolutes in relativity. It's just that people who can't do the math and don't care enough to listen to actual physicists never find out what they are.

And the sort of person who denounces relativity as a liberal conspiracy is probably the sort who can't do the math and won't listen to experts.

[Junghalli]

Sadly, I seem to recall a certain group of like-minded persons in a certain European nation who began acting along these lines sometime back in the 1930s...

I was thinking of pointing this out: didn't something similar happen in Nazi Germany?

[PeZook]

Oh, there are plenty of fixed absolutes in relativity. It's just that people who can't do the math and don't care enough to listen to actual physicists never find out what they are.

Erm...isn't one of the basic, core ideas of relativity a fixed absolute? The fact the speed of light is constant for all observers in all frames of reference?

Naturally, the funny thing is that relative motion, relative position, etc are all parts of basic Newtonian and Keplerian physics and even simple geometry! (What is a right angle? How do we define shapes? All relative positions ). If we take that Relativity is immoral, then pretty much all of physics is as well.

Too bad the universe doesn't seem to care about fundie sensibilities

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

Alright since c is out of the question, how about at a speed where relativity comes in to play and starts distorting the time between the stationary object and the object that's moving. Is there a way to "overcome" the time dilation that occurs between the stationary object and the object that's moving.

[D.Turtle]

I'm curious though and perhaps someone could explain to me, if a person on a space craft were traveling from earth to an object light years away (traveling at c) would their local travel time be equal to the the number of years in light years or would their observed travel time (relative to an observer from earth) be equal to the number of years in light years. In either case would there be a way to counteract the effects of relativity so that the time passing on the ship and the time on earth are in sequence?

If traveling very close to the speed of light, the "local travel time" would be very short, while the "observed travel time" would be close to the number of years in light years. If you have a craft capable of unlimited acceleration at 1g, you could travel through the entire universe within one lifetime (on-board time).

[Simon_Jester]

Oh, there are plenty of fixed absolutes in relativity. It's just that people who can't do the math and don't care enough to listen to actual physicists never find out what they are.

Erm...isn't one of the basic, core ideas of relativity a fixed absolute? The fact the speed of light is constant for all observers in all frames of reference?

Yes, but c and the other physical constants are just the start of it. In relativity, objects have physical properties that are "Lorentz-invariant:" they do not change when we perform the Lorentz transform from one frame of reference into another.

As a starting point, see here

Of course, good luck convincing the sort of person hubristic enough to try and censor the laws of physics to actually sit down and listen long enough to understand this concept. And even if you do, they'll probably try to censor it anyway because it frightens and confuses them...

Alright since c is out of the question, how about at a speed where relativity comes in to play and starts distorting the time between the stationary object and the object that's moving. Is there a way to "overcome" the time dilation that occurs between the stationary object and the object that's moving.

...What do you mean by "overcome?" If by that you mean "allow objects moving relative to one another to experience time at the same rate," then the answer is "not without magic." You can't push a button and suspend relativity.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Sometimes I wish we Christians couldn't just accept science as existing. I mean, how exactly is a mathematical description of motion at near-c speeds a treat to religion?

I never got why priests got so worked up about science. Religion is supposed to be about morality and stuff, not arguing the toss over the laws of physics (which if you really want, can be attributed to God anyway)

Oh, wait, Angels and Demons explained it quite well. If religion allows science to explain things, the Church loses a monopoly on TRUTH. This is why I hate my fellow man sometimes. They're all totally fucked in the head

I think Carl Sagan said it in one of his books:
"How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?' Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.'"

[Kanastrous]

What's worse is the hypocrisy: accepting and making use of scientific principles and - more to the point - the technological fruits of scientific practice (including medicine) where it seems to suit the faith while simultaneously insisting that in the particular areas in which it doesn't suit the faith to acknowledge the value of scientific methodology, well, it's crazy talk and just doesn't apply.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Par for the course as far as religious fanatics are concerned I'm afraid. Use anything you possibly can to gain an advantage, and denounce the rest as heretical

[Kanastrous]

I'm not describing 'fanatics.' I'm describing a proportion of everyday believers. Most likely the larger proportion, too.

[Vendetta]

And on the Conservapedia article, are we really sure that's Schlafly? I saw the article yesterday and immediately assumed it was an elaborate troll.

Um, yeah. Sadly, it is true. Every piece of text that the article cites is somewhere in the Conservipedia article, although it might require looking into the page history to find. Yes, even the bible reference. And from what I gather, it is Schlafly — though truthfully, it doesn't really matter since all those idiots are cut from the same cloth anyway. Poe's Law strikes again.

No, I meant that I thought the Conservapedia article was an elaborate troll, not the article quoted in the OP.

There's a special corrollary to Poe's Law for Conservapedia. Andy's Law. There is no parody so nutty that it is distinguishable from genuine Schlafly.