We are 100% user-supported!
Without you, there is no RationalWiki!
|Goal: $5000||Donations so far: $2605|
Help and donate today!
Conservapedia talk:Conservapedian relativity
Nice work Bayes. Doggedpersistance 15:20, 20 August 2007 (CDT)
Moral Relativism on CP
They deleted their sentence on GR's "encouragement" of relativism. Should we update the page accordingly or...?
(Why is some of my disappointed about this? ;;) Andy Frankinson (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
“”In fact, there are numerous sources on the internet that address, and agree, that there is "conflict" between "quantum mechanics" and relativity. For example, relativity denies any action-at-a-distance, while quantum mechanics depends on it.--Aschlafly 21:41, 29 January 2008 (EST)
- Does assfly have any idea what either term means? Oh, sorry, forget it.--PalMD-Did that sound a little harsh? 22:22, 29 January 2008 (EST)
- He knows how to google and either ignore or quote mine, thassall. human 23:32, 29 January 2008 (EST)
- Andy's right when he says gravity and QM haven't been reconciled, but he's wrong about why. The action-at-a-distance "conflict" between special relativity and QM is resolved by general relativity. See here. Andy seems to have trouble differentiating between SR and GR. He just mines what he thinks are the flaws in each and then tries to (incorrectly) use them to refute some nebulous monster called RELATIVITIVITSM!! It's like watching Sysiphus at work.--Bayesyikes 19:11, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
- He knows how to google and either ignore or quote mine, thassall. human 23:32, 29 January 2008 (EST)
Why won't Conservapedia accept my truthful, unbiased edits? Who cares what their opinions are? People just want FACTS. Dark Zorro 18:36, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
Has anyone written about this BS from CP?
From the CP Universe article: "Young-Earth creationists have developed a number of models which explain the age of the universe as being affected by the time-warping effects of gravity as predicted by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, so that the age of the universe as measured by a hypothetical observer at the edge of the universe might be 14 billion years, but as measured by an observer on Earth is only 6,000 years."
Changes to the CP article
The Conservapedia article has been cleaned up a bit, with some of these issues being resolved. In particular, most references to moral relativism have been removed. However, a new section, "Political aspects of relativity," has been added, making the claim that Barak Obama helped publish an article using Einstein's relativity to argue for abortion rights(!). Someone who can stomach such BS should probably revise this article.
left by a bunchanumbers, copied to here
Spacetime doesn't exist
Because the Lorentz's invariance equation is equal to a constant, not a variable. So we can't give independent values to space and time. x and t are wavelength and period of a electromagnetic wave.
c^2t^2 - x^2 = 2x10^-34
Light speed squared times time squared minus space squared is equal to a constant. Relativity only cares with two reference frames, but if we consider n reference frames we see that all invariance equati- ons are equal to the same value.
The above was donated by 220.127.116.11 - whether it is correct or not, it's fairly badly written and doesn't say why it has anything to do with the article. ħuman 20:14, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
What's this bizarre vendetta of R. Schlafly against A. Einstein all about? He removed a couple of false attributions from the Einstein's page:
- (→E=mc2: remove false attribution)
- (→False attributions: Einstein only published faulty and incomplete proofs)
- (→False attributions: Einstein did not prove that matter was made of atoms.)
- Eh, Rudolf Schlafly needs to prove he is teh smart once in a while - how better than to argue with Einstein? Eat another hot dog, Roodger!!! The blog mommy paid for to keep your brother out of her hair is not your playground. Get a life (we know, you're trying to. Maybe you should improov your pitch?) ħuman 04:40, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
So does anyone actually know why they have such a problem with relativity? The only reason I can think of is one of the concepts you raised, about relativity being perceived as a "Jewish science". Is teh andi a wee bit antisemetic? Crundy 13:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that the response section in this article isn't altogether correct. Am I allowed to change it? (ordinarily I wouldn't ask, but calling it a "response" suggests that it represent the position of the community as a whole) Cheers.--Star trooper man 06:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Go for it. - π 09:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Update is now sorely, SORELY needed
Now that KSorenson has sorely vandalized the cp:relativity pages and other things such as the page on black holes as well, shouldn't we update or at least add a disclaimer to this page reflecting the unusual factuality of cp's relativity pages as of right now? I don't doubt that CP's going to edit over Kate's contributions in relatively short order, but certainly the whole fiasco deserves mention here at some point. Possibly add a new section to the page? Frummidge 19:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- At the very least the article should (does it?) link to the version (permalink) we are critiquing. Also, following up with the story of the last week (and Andy's lunacies on his "essay"s talkpage...) would be a good idea. ħuman 19:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Best of Pseudoscience
Should this be in best of pseudoscience seeing as it is also in best of Conservapedia? - π 06:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
What if there *is* a connection?
Richard Tarnas, in The Passion of the Western Mind (an excellent and fair-minded book, despite becoming abruptly very strange in the final few chapters), posits that there is in fact a connection with the superseding of Newtonian physics and relativism (or rather, with postmodernism). Before we knew about relativity, it was in principle more justifiable to believe that there could be a neutral observer of spacetime. Einsteinian physics introduces problems for the idea of omniscience - it's not clear how one could be an impartial observer of a relativistic universe. In the same way many theists confidently assert that evolution does not represent a challenge to a theistic concept of the universe, and many rationalists take them at their word that it doesn't, even though the atelic nature of evolution does provide substantial evidence against the argument from design.
Prior to relativity, Copernican/Newtonian cosmology and atomism were associated with the growth of Deism among the elite and the beginnings of the anti-religious sentiment of the Enlightenment. There was a gap in time between the two, as the ideas and their implications took time to percolate through society. Similarly, postmodernism didn't spring up right away after relativity was publicised, but nonetheless it did use it as something of an intellectual basis.
It's not all that surprising that Schlafly desperately tries to denigrate the science because it represents a challenge to his worldview, in the same way that he and his ilk have done with evolution. Deliberately clouding and abusing science to support one's worldview is contemptible; but the hostility towards relativity (like the hostility towards evolution) becomes less bizarre when you think that they really do support a secular worldview.
Postulates of Special Relativity
Once again, I stumbled upon cp:Talk:World_History_Lecture_Eleven#Postulates_of_Special_Relativity. Here, Andy formulates hiw own versions of the postulates, and takes offense when he is criticized. This is a fountain of wisdom, including gems like:
“”I'm not even sure you do disagree with it, except that you say it is not how Pauli (who had nothing to do with relativity) described it. I have explained why Pauli's description is inadequate: his description ("the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source") does not expressly preclude somehow increasing the speed of light. Yet the formulas for relativity do assume that is impossible.--Andy Schlafly
“”Surely you don't think Pauli's formulation is perfect, and incapable of improvement. No, your real position seems to be that a conservative cannot possibly improve on it!--Andy Schlafly 19:23, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
Great insights - at least in Andy's way of thinking...
Should there be something about all the recent hullabulloo in the blogosphere (If there is, I apologise: I couldn't see it). Incidentaly found this on Scientopia - a point by point refutation. 19:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- There are several lists of reactions, including that link, on the WIGO Conservapedia talk page and elsewhere. Someone can compile a master list, perhaps? --ZooGuard (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Call for clarity
- Did somebody speak? 18:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- What are you trying to get at here, Mr. Poor? This page (Conservapedia:Conservapedian relativity) is more or less completely about physics. I don't think there's any oversimplification going on here, the entire thing is in response to direct quotes of things that Mr. Schlafly and others have said about the theory of relativity. It doesn't say much about the non-physics meaning of the term, and your article doesn't say anything about the physics one. Is there some content here you'd characterize as an oversimplification? --MarkGall (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's unclear what you mean here. Relativism and relativity are unrelated concepts, as far as I understand it - entirely separate from consideration of the merits of either - and that's the point of this article. Are you claiming some link between them? - David Gerard (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- DG, I wouldn't say that's quite the point of the article. They are unrelated, and that's just a fact, stated in the first sentence. The point of this article is mostly that ASchlafly has said some very stupid things about the theory of relativity (maybe because he doesn't believe this fact), and RW rebuts the physics. Nobody's oversimplifying here and putting words in his mouth -- he's quite explicit about these things. There's not much room for oversimplification when we're talking physics. --MarkGall (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Relativity in engineering curriculum
In the article, it states that "It is important to note here that Andrew Schlafly, founder of Conservapedia and author of most of these articles, has a degree in electrical engineering and worked as an engineer for several years before becoming a lawyer. He would have learnt relativity in first-year physics and used concepts from the theory in his professional work". From my experience, undergraduate engineering programs do not always require study of modern physics, and at my school (University of Colorado), most engineering students never have to take relativity or quantum mechanics. First-year physics here involves mechanics and E&M, with modern physics (Introductory quantum and SR) only showing up in the third semester, which is not required for most engineering degrees. This doesn't excuse Schlafly's behavior of course, but it does make the article's statement possibly incorrect. — Unsigned, by: 18.104.22.168 / talk / contribs
- When I studied electrical engineering 1988-1990, we got relativity in first-year physics and quantum in second-year. (And, of course, complex numbers with everything.) I'd have presumed something like that was standard. We should look up the Princeton EE curriculum of the time, really - David Gerard (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)