Conservapedia talk:Censorship of Einstein and Relativity

Man, I was reading the stuff over there...all I can say is Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Batman!!!!--PalMD^{-Ars longa, vita brevis} 13:49, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

SJIHAS, this is a great article.-αmεσ (!) 14:24, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

One wonders what animates the CP authorities' spitefulness toward Einstein

While I'm sure that the liberalism/socalism/Jewish/Schalfly's-a-massive-tool angles are valid to a certain degree, I think the real beef with relativity is that they see God as an absolute and constant source of moral authority. No God, no morality - that's why atheism and evolutionism necessarily lead to genocide. Somehow, in what I've managed to glean from reading what they say over there at CP, the idea that the universe could be relative somehow threatens that all-important sense of absolute, undeniable moral authority. In other words, Schlafly believes that if it is the case that time and space are relative, then that would lead inexorably to moral relativity. PFoster 21:48, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Well put. What I don't get is that they have a slightly mixed message. They seems to say something like "Relativity isn't good science, but if it is, Lorentz and Poincaré came up with it and Einstein just ripped them off." It's sort of like saying, "Nobody's ever been to the moon. Plus, Neil Armstrong wasn't the first man on the moon, Buzz Aldrin was." There's a small but noticeable element to this that's uniquely anti-Einstein. I'm almost afraid to guess what the motive might be.--Bayes ^Factor 01:44, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

I might put it in the article - if anyone disagrees, feel free to take it out.PFoster 09:02, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

I still think that anti-Einstein-as-a-person is what motivates this. It's certainly true that "moral relativism" mixes in with this, but I think that's a minor part. They could easily have said something along the lines of "Some ignorant people believe that relativity makes a social/political statement about 'moral relativity'. They are wrong; Special and General Relativity as used by scientists have absolutely nothing to do with social/moral/political issues." And I would wholeheartedly agree with such a statement. Furthermore, there really aren't many people holding that position, are there? I haven't heard any such opinions in a long time. I think CP is just setting up a straw-man about the moral relativity.

On the other hand, if you go through earlier versions of the CP article, you find that they had enormous amounts of "Relativity was discovered by Poincare, Lorentz, Minkowski, etc. etc., and, oh, by the way, Einstein contributed to it also." I don't recall all the names, but it was clear they were going way out of their way to give credit to people other than Einstein.

I really think is has a lot to do with Einstein being Jewish, and Einstein being the darling of the (liberal, of course) scientific community. SJIHAS 17:33, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

SJIHAS - I agree with you on the Einstein-as-a-darling-of-the-left thing, but not so much on the Jewish thing. The brand of conservatism that we see on CP is many loathsome things, but anti-Semitic it is not, at least not typically (Anti-Muslim and anti-black, however, is another question). This , I think in part, reflects the "strange bedfellows" syndrome that occurred as neo-cons, many of whom are formerly liberal Jews (think Kristol et al), made an alliance with Evangelical/fundamentalist Christians to move the political discourse to the right during the 1990s. Look at how pro-Israel CP is, to the point of branding Cindy Sheehan or anyone else who dares to criticise the state of Israel, as an "anti-Semite." Look at their confusion over the terms "Israel" and "occupied territories." Look at their entry for "Palestinians," which pretty much follows the Joan Peters line, chapter and verse. PFoster 17:45, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

My understanding of it is that CP is anti-(removing God from the explanation of the universe). They see relativity (and frankly, any physics more advanced than Newtonian) as an attempt at gaining a better understanding of the universe, and in doing so removes God from another aspect of it. To CP, Einstein is a physics Darwin. From Einstein and his contemporaries you gain an understanding of an ancient universe that has not had God's fingers nudging things along. From quantum mechanics you get an idea of radioisotope dating being much older than 6000 years. With Einstein and Hubble, you have a universe that is billions of light years across. It is not Einstein in paticular(though his disavowing of a personal God is good enough reason for CP to attack him) but rather that relativity is one of the multiple chains of evidence that point a universe that troubles CP types. For those that this idea troubles, they must attack its foundations... and for modern physics, that is Einstein (even though some of their crazier notions about how to get a young earth and old universe requires some strange time dilation) --Shagie 18:04, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

I don't think that they are directly anti-Semitic in evaluating ideas--they can't seriously credit Protestant Christians for all CP-approved science--but I wonder if they aren't at least partly influenced by historical depictions of relativity by extreme right-wing groups. My guess is that they're influenced by some kind of recipe: mix the historical suspicion of Einstein and relativity as "Jewish science", their idea that their absolute system of morality is threatened by ANY sort of relativity (scientific or otherwise), clinging to a clockwork universe with God as the clockmaker, toss in the endorsement of the "liberal" scientific community, and stir. Let simmer over 50+ years worth of fundamentalist Christian conservatism, garnish with some douchebaggery, and (apparently?) you get a tasty dish of relativity denial.

I think that Andy himself actually said at some point (maybe on the first edition of CP's Einstein article) that Einstein's Nobel Prize was "well-deserved," so it looks like they think the guy came up with some things that were worthwhile. I'm curious about their take on quantum mechanics. Is Heisenberg evil because of the uncertainty principle? Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a recipe page to create.--Bayes ^Factor 18:13, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Nah, Heisenberg is completely wrong because, of course, God knows both the location of a particle and its velocity and thus the uncertainty principle is wrong and therefore Heisenberg is wrong, or at least a liberal atheist and wrong. An since this is the basis for quantum mechanics which has problems agreeing with relativity, quantum mechanics must be wrong to. Or something. Ok, gotta stop trying to channel the collective CP mind(lessness). It makes my brain hurt. --Shagie 18:31, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

This all reminds me of what Einstein said: "If my theory of relativity is proven successful, Germany will claim me as a German and France will declare that I am a citizen of the world. Should my theory prove untrue, France will say that I am a German and Germany will declare that I am a Jew." (Address to the French Philosophical Society at the Sorbonne (6 April 1922); French press clipping (7 April 1922) [Einstein Archive 36-378] and Berliner Tageblatt (8 April 1922) [Einstein Archive 79-535]) (from wikiquote) PFoster 18:16, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

I think that the bizarre mention of moral relativity in a physics article sums up some of it. They are too friggn blinded by ideology to see that just because the word "relativity" is used in two places, that doesn't mean they are at all connected. --PalMD^{-Ars longa, vita brevis} 18:21, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

This is quite possible given that the idea of 'evolution' meets with a similar response. --Shagie 18:31, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Good point. Ultimately, I guess you just have to recognize dumb and blind for what it is. I just wish I could synchronize two atomic clocks, set Andy in front of them, fly one around the world, and then ask him to explain the differences. Oh, wait. Atomic clocks are liberal. Silly me.--Bayes ^Factor 18:44, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Dichotomy of Good & Evil

I wonder how they feel about how relative good and evil are in context of morality? I mean after all killing is evil unless it is in the name of god.--TimS 09:16, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

...or the "third will". Synopsis: Jesus, agony in Garden; God's will=Jesus dead, (to save sinners); Satan's will=Jesus dead (to get Him out of the way); how then can Jesus speak, "Not my will but thine be done"? In a simple dichotomous world Jesus wouldn't actually have a "choice" in the matter since both "sides" agree about the outcome, (dead Jesus). I've gotten rebuked and had "holy water" thrown in my face (it burns!) for voicing this. St. CЯacke® 18:53, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

But Satan's will shouldn't be Jesus's death, it should be his corruption. The dichotomy survives because Jesus extending his life values earthly existence and experience over salvation. (Or at least that's how I'd argue it.)--MountainTiger 18:57, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

okie, why then did "Satan enter Judas" while the disciple was planning on betraying his boy?. St. CЯacke® 18:59, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

To present the temptation of extending his life to Jesus?(not sure how they'd actually argue this) My question: wouldn't the bigger temptation be to die and let there be a religion focused on your life and death? If so, isn't Christianity satanic?--MountainTiger 19:10, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Not classically, since under orthodoxy Xianity Jesus was (is) god, ipso facto he's the ONE who should oughta have a religion based on his person. My whole point was that he had a choice at all given the classic dichotomy that orthodox Christianity presents. St. CЯacke® 20:21, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

I always thought, since the nature of Jesus is both God and man, that the explanation for Jesus' prayer choice was a reflection of his humanity. The idea of impending torture and crucifixion probably wouldn't be too exciting, even if you got kudos after the fact.--Bayes ^Factor 19:17, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Right. My question only has merit if one accepts the dichotomy of good and evil premise. Without that prerequisite the question falls apart under it's own weight.St. CЯacke® 20:21, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

This restores things to my initial point, though: if Jesus's death brings about salvation, Satan shouldn't want Jesus dead, he should want Jesus to refuse death, as this would mean that Jesus had failed to provide for salvation and Satan wins.--MountainTiger 20:30, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Perhaps my understanding of the situation is in err. Even in the most devil-fearing backwoods churches, Satan, though brilliant, is in no way omniscient; the upshot of which was Satan was merely getting rid of yet another do-gooder itinerant preacher who was having a good run, he missed the "big picture", i.e. salvation.

On the other hand, I believe if one asked the most fervent Christian Evangelist they would concede that most people will end up in "hell", which seems to be an indication that "god" ain't much of a god.St. CЯacke® 20:58, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

The gospels certainly have references to demons knowing who Jesus is, though. It seems that if the lesser demons know who Jesus is, Satan should, too. Maybe he still doesn't understand the salvation part, but he'd certainly think of Jesus as more than just another preacher.--MountainTiger 21:03, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Relativity Used For Calculations

I used to work at JPL, and the CP idea that theoretical physicists and engineers have nothing to do with each other is pretty silly. I had a friend there with a physics PhD from Caltech, who had gone on to do some theoretical physic-y research at a UC before going to JPL. At JPL he was writing computer code for satelite orbits that definitely used relativity for its calculations. I don't know if it was related to GPS. It was a long time ago. I no longer have his contact info, but I wonder if this type of work has been published and could provide a source to refute the CP contentions regarding space craft engineering having nothing to do with relativity.

Also, the WP GPS article gives the effect of gravitational time dilation on the spacecraft clocks, how the clocks have been set to compensate for this, and how the difference to newtonion has been measured within 1% of that predicted by this effect, within the accuracy of measurement. So how can someone say relativity has nothing to do with GPS? That's just nuts. Tj123 (talk) 09:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Stupidity and Ignorance are not synonymous for being wrong!

Cut to Debate:Relativity-blah-blah

Sorry about the clutter

My conversation with Ahmadgad is getting long, off-topic (has nothing to do with CP), and rambling, so I've copied it here. I'd appreciate further comments to be directed there instead. --Quantheory (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That should be moved to the debate namespace instead. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Right-o. Thanks for fixing that. --Quantheory (talk) 05:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Whew. I hope he gets his Nobel Prize soon! I fixed the link above, too. ħuman 06:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)