Conservapedia: Your New Source for "facts."

[David1967]

Some fun.....
Conservapedia:Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus - RationalWiki
Here's one of the little fellows in his natural habitat.....

Is that a squidmonkey? Looks like one of those things from the show 'The future is wild' on Natgeo a few years ago. I hear once they set up camp in your shrubbery they are near impossible to get rid of.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is that a squidmonkey? Looks like one of those things from the show 'The future is wild' on Natgeo a few years ago. I hear once they set up camp in your shrubbery they are near impossible to get rid of.

Here's a better photo of one....

They look more like an octopus, eh.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes and No. White people can make THEIR music but stay away from ours. And when your music sucks, don't legitimize it by saying it came from us.

What I see happening here......
You're taking ownership over someone else's creative works.
You may share some aspect of ethnicity with a group from which a type of music originated,
but this doesn't confer exclusive ownership, with the right to deny it to those you deem outsiders.
Unless you personally create something, it's false pride to take credit for it.
Moreover, you deny credit where credit is due, simply based upon race. I recommend
seeing people more as individuals, than as defined by some stereotype of a group.

 

[james bond]

Right here;

Counterexamples to Relativity - Conservapedia

What don't you like about them? They discuss ToR here.

Theory of relativity - Conservapedia

 

[james bond]

My god what an abysmal list of ignorance, although there are moments of humor in it, the best of all being.

"The theory of relativity is disproved by numerous counterexamples, but is promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of [moral] relativism and its tendency to pull people away from the Bible"
​

Others, such as #5 "The Sun is a perfect sphere - "the solar flattening is ... too small to agree with that predicted from its surface rotation." are non sequiturs, not even mentioning relativity. Included I suspect to help fill out the 50. So sad. So very sad.

.

.​

Ha ha. I'm not sure why you're criticizing Conservapedia except it's Conservapedia. It's not them saying that it's contrary, but these are examples to question the ToR or examples that have to do with ToR and may be questioning Quantum Physics. You say what an abysmal list of ignorance, but that's you. All CS is doing is providing a list of the contradictions found by other physicists or theoretical physics with or using ToR. Not all is critical of ToR.

 

[Revoltingest]

They obviously don't understand anything about relativity then. I'm not sure how gravity, light, space, time and motion behaves has anything to do with morality.

They examine the sounds of words rather than the meaning.
It's a powerful tool.
It can be used to prove that this....

....weighs one pound!

 

[james bond]

What about this time machine? The ToR says that we cannot travel in absolute time, but we can travel in relative time or special relativity. I agree this is the only time travel we can do. Time may be a direction, but we can't travel back in time. Around 3:50.

 

[Revoltingest]

What don't you like about them? They discuss ToR here.

Theory of relativity - Conservapedia

Fascinating!
This...

Some liberal politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, Democratic President Barack Obama helped publish an article by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to abortion.

.....would be a very interesting paper to read.
I don't see Obama doing even the most basic math involved.
Moreover, this doesn't reflect any mainstream thought.

 

[Nietzsche]

What don't you like about them? They discuss ToR here.

Theory of relativity - Conservapedia

I'm sorry, but that's a load of horse****. Their "refutations" of Relativity are no better founded than the Nazi's rejection of "Jewish Physics". There is not a single individual associated with Conservapedia that has a degree in physics. They are being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. They are effectively positing the "Jewish World Conspiracy" idea by giving it a new coat of paint and changing "Jewish" to "Liberal".

 

[YmirGF]

I'm sorry, but that's a load of horse****. Their "refutations" of Relativity are no better founded than the Nazi's rejection of "Jewish Physics". There is not a single individual associated with Conservapedia that has a degree in physics. They are being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. They are effectively positing the "Jewish World Conspiracy" idea by giving it a new coat of paint and changing "Jewish" to "Liberal".

Us old fashioned conservatives simply call the sort of crap found on Conservapedia, propaganda.

 

[Skwim]

Ha ha. I'm not sure why you're criticizing Conservapedia except it's Conservapedia. It's not them saying that it's contrary, but these are examples to question the ToR or examples that have to do with ToR and may be questioning Quantum Physics. You say what an abysmal list of ignorance, but that's you. All CS is doing is providing a list of the contradictions found by other physicists or theoretical physics with or using ToR. Not all is critical of ToR.

But it's more than just contradicting, it's a matter of disproving.

Here's the deal:
​

Conservapedia posts a web page titled

"Counterexamples to Relativity," ​

followed by its opening, and quite amusing, introductory paragraph (Please read the bolded parts carefully). . .

"The theory of relativity is disproved by numerous counterexamples, but is promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to pull people away from the Bible. Here is a list of 50 counterexamples: any one of them would show that the mathematical theory is incorrect:"​

. . .These are conservapedia's words, telling the reader that any of the examples that follow "disproves" the theory of relativity.

Do.... you.... understand?

Your Conservapedia is claiming that everyone of the
50 listed examples disproves the theory of relativity.

​

So let's take a look:

4. The Pioneer anomaly.​

Not a single scientific source is cited linking the anomaly to the theory of relativity. Just a lot of unsupported Conservapedia blather.

5. The sun is a perfect sphere - "the solar flattening is ... too small to agree with that predicted from its surface rotation.
​

Not a thing having to do with the theory of relativity

7. The speed of light in a vacuum is slower than expected—less than c—based on new data from a 25-year-old supernova​

Checking the linked source there is no "is slower," but rather "The 25-year-old supernova that could change the speed of light forever."

15. Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravitational waves predicted by the theory, no direct observation of gravity waves has occurred. Sound like global warming? Then, in classic liberal claptrap, the liberal media claimed that gravitational waves were discovered when in fact no such direct observation was made.
​

So what? Just because science did not yet detect gravity waves certainly doesn't mean the theory of relativity is disproved. BUT the biggie here is that gravity waves have been detected. See HERE.

47. Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light.
​

Again, one can only say, so what? It would no doubt break down if peanut butter could travel at the speed of light, but it doesn't and neither do solenoids.

Of course there are many other bogus counterexamples, but these five should suffice. This grasping at straws with non-sequiturs, false information, outright lying, and just plain stupidity in no way substantiates Conservapedia's claim.

"Here is a list of 50 counterexamples: any one of them would show that the mathematical theory is incorrect:"
​

They just expose Conservapedia as the comedy it is. But thanks for giving me a nice opening to show them off.

.
.

 

[james bond]

Fascinating!
This...

.....would be a very interesting paper to read.
I don't see Obama doing even the most basic math involved.
Moreover, this doesn't reflect any mainstream thought.

I'm sorry, but that's a load of horse****. Their "refutations" of Relativity are no better founded than the Nazi's rejection of "Jewish Physics". There is not a single individual associated with Conservapedia that has a degree in physics. They are being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. They are effectively positing the "Jewish World Conspiracy" idea by giving it a new coat of paint and changing "Jewish" to "Liberal".

Ok, you're both entitled to your opinions. I have mine, too, but they don't necessarily support Conservapedia's beliefs or why they're against ToR.

 

[james bond]

But it's more than just contradicting, it's a matter of disproving.

Here's the deal:
​

Conservapedia posts a web page titled

"Counterexamples to Relativity," ​

followed by its opening, and quite amusing, introductory paragraph (Please read the bolded parts carefully). . .

"The theory of relativity is disproved by numerous counterexamples, but is promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to pull people away from the Bible. Here is a list of 50 counterexamples: any one of them would show that the mathematical theory is incorrect:"​

. . .These are conservapedia's words, telling the reader that any of the examples that follow "disproves" the theory of relativity.

Do.... you.... understand?

Your Conservapedia is claiming that everyone of the
50 listed examples disproves the theory of relativity.

​

So let's take a look:

4. The Pioneer anomaly.​

Not a single scientific source is cited linking the anomaly to the theory of relativity. Just a lot of unsupported Conservapedia blather.

5. The sun is a perfect sphere - "the solar flattening is ... too small to agree with that predicted from its surface rotation.
​

Not a thing having to do with the theory of relativity

7. The speed of light in a vacuum is slower than expected—less than c—based on new data from a 25-year-old supernova​

Checking the linked source there is no "is slower," but rather "The 25-year-old supernova that could change the speed of light forever."

15. Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravitational waves predicted by the theory, no direct observation of gravity waves has occurred. Sound like global warming? Then, in classic liberal claptrap, the liberal media claimed that gravitational waves were discovered when in fact no such direct observation was made.
​

So what? Just because science did not yet detect gravity waves certainly doesn't mean the theory of relativity is disproved. BUT the biggie here is that gravity waves have been detected. See HERE.

47. Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light.
​

Again, one can only say, so what? It would no doubt break down if peanut butter could travel at the speed of light, but it doesn't and neither do solenoids.

Of course there are many other bogus counterexamples, but these five should suffice. This grasping at straws with non-sequiturs, false information, outright lying, and just plain stupidity in no way substantiates Conservapedia's claim.

"Here is a list of 50 counterexamples: any one of them would show that the mathematical theory is incorrect:"
​

They just expose Conservapedia as the comedy it is. But thanks for giving me a nice opening to show them off.

.
.

I was going to say a few seem weird, but whatever. I wanted to know your opinion first. Your opinion seems to attribute this to Conservapedia. I have no idea who wrote this, especially the first two sentences. Most of are just lists of what has been discussed on those topics. The gravitational waves were found in 2016, so it's dated. However, if Conservapedia has some criticism and bias of ToR, I do not understand why.

There is the rebuttal to that page, as well.

"This is intended as an article rebutting the points in the Counterexamples to Relativity article. That article's talk page has proven to be less than satisfactory for this purpose, because it gets archived, and much of its material has degenerated into personal disputes. We believe that the two sides of the issue are better handled in two articles—this one and Counterexamples to Relativity, rather than a talk page.

Unlike most essay pages, anyone is welcome to contribute. We ask that you abide by the usual guidelines—do not remove non-vandal, non-parody, non-libelous material without discussing it first on the talk page, or explaining after-the-fact for serious problems.""

Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity - Conservapedia

 

[james bond]

Isn't this just another example to show that "Science is science" is BS propagated by the low-brow internet atheists? Science is a search for truth and knowledge and it does not use the word "proof." Instead, it has always been about argument and which hypotheses and theories are right.

I would say these internet atheists like to jump to conclusions such as "Science is science." Clearly, they were shown to be wrong once again. Conservapedia isn't just one version of a topic such as Theory of Relativity. There may be conservatives against ToR for some reason. However, there are conservatives for the ToR like me.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ok, you're both entitled to your opinions. I have mine, too, but they don't necessarily support Conservapedia's beliefs or why they're against ToR.

In the quoted post, my opinions were actually factual.
Doesn't happen often, but there it is.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I would say these internet atheists like to jump to conclusions such as "Science is science."

You find fault with the validity of a tautology?

Clearly, they were shown to be wrong once again.

Erm, that statement is true no matter what your definition of science is. Actually, you don't need to know what science is to know that science is science.