Conservapedia talk:Conservapedian relativity

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This Conservapedia related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please keep this in mind when editing the article. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Information icon.svg Cover Story
This article is, among others, randomly included on the Main Page.
Please keep this in mind and be sure that your edits are of the quality that this implies.
Its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here.
This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Has anyone written about this BS from CP?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]


Π just removed the cover note from the article and talk page. I suspect we should probably at least discuss it a bit first. So ... - David Gerard (talk) 11:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone care about the rantings of a wikiblog 5 years ago? - π 06:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
It's a piece of lunacy that actually achieved outside note - David Gerard (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Even though we are trying to focus less on Conservapedia, their mischaracterization and total misunderstanding of what scientific relativity is symptomatic of the general attitude towards science from the conservative perspective: that being a bastardization of things like evolution so that Kirk Cameron can ask, "Have you ever seen a crocoduck?" As such, I think leaving this as a "gold" level article is warranted if we draw lines linking "Conservapedian relativity" to the larger mischaracterizations of science that conservatives love to pull out to avoid reality. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The article is still a pretty darn good article (more so than many legacy cover articles, which could really do with an update and polish). Is there anything lacking in the actual quality? - David Gerard (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The first sentence about CP sysops could possibly be moved to the past tense or re-crafted to put Andy at the center of the "debate" -- I don't think the current sysops, such as they are, are really too interested in physics. User: Conservative has his obsessions, Terry doesn't care about CP, and JPatt and Karajou are as dumb as posts and can't think about science in any way. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it's all Andy. Tweaked - David Gerard (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


Are 'them at CP' being relatively stupid (compared to those researching the subject, or even the Brian Cox following public) or absolutely not even wrong stupid? (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Somewhere between "not even wrong" and "wronger than wrong" - David Gerard (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
To clarify - this Brian Cox [1] - and 'the public' being those willing to learn science to the level of programs and books on popular science and mathematics (and who prefer narrative explanations to 'multilayer mathematical equations, matrices and suchlike'). Their understanding of a topic may be 'reasonable as far as it goes' and occasionally confused/based on outdated information/whichever 'amusing theory they read about sometime, and they may argue back on 'counterintuitive theories' but they are willing to learn. (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

E.E. and freshman physics[edit]

Regarding Schlafly's physics education, as currently stated: "It is important to note that Schlafly has a degree in electrical engineering and would have studied relativity in first-year physics courses required for the degree."

That is not necessarily true. In fact, to the best of my knowledge (as a college ChemE major), the full year of 1st year physics for tech majors does not include relativity. There's a lot of college-level math and physics one has to study before anyone gets to the point where he can study relativity, so that has to wait until after freshman year. (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)S. Nassi, MD, PhD

Perhaps this was just Australia then. Will definitely be in by second year though - David Gerard (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't know how much curricula have changed since Schlafly was at Princeton, but having checked the Princeton EE undergraduate curriculum, it looks like Princeton only requires EE students to take Mechanics and Electromagnetism. Most American Universities structure their physics curriculum similarly, where Mechanics and E&M are taught individually (with perhaps some thermodynamics taught in the former, but it's just as often its own class), and there's a second year "Modern Physics" class that introduces special relativity and quantum mechanics (General relativity is, at every US University I've looked at, and that's quite a lot of them, a senior Physics major elective which is never required for the degree). It's possible that Schlafly may actually have never been taught even the basics of SR (not that it would matter, since he would have had to use complex numbers in his circuits and upper division electronics classes, and we all know how he feels about complex numbers).ChrisB (talk) 10:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)