Conservapedia: E=mc2 Is A Liberal Conspiracy

[Old Rocks]

There is something seriously flawed with our "understanding" of the Universe, that is, we don't seem to understand much at all.

Is modern physics a conspiracy perpetuated to validate liberal philosophies?

Modern physics isn't a conspiracy and doesn't validate liberal philosophies either. Twisted versions of it are used to validate liberal philosophies and prop up the lies of evolution.

Prime example of the lies of Conservatism. I suppose your next post will concern the lies of Geology and the 4.53 billion year old earth.

 

[Old Rocks]

Let me see if I understand what you are saying here.

You are not smart enough to make up stupid lies on your own, so you rely on others to do it for you, and then you are so stupid you think those lies are true.

Here is the actual article that the blog you are quoting claims to be citing.


Counterexamples to Relativity - Conservapedia

While it is not entirely accurate, it is at least as accurate as a typical
Wikipedia article, and it says nothing like your lying source claims it does.

Keep up the good work.

Not sure exactly the point you are trying to make. "Liberal theory"? Not sure what that is.

We do know for sure that Black Holes do indeed exist.

We know that in science, theories are theories because they change as data is introduced or a better of understanding of existing data is developed. Science never claims to have all the answers. But many developments have been based on those "theories".

And very recently, electrons circling atomic nuclei have been "photographed" in REAL time. Before, such behaviour was merely a "liberal" theory. I suspect it was a "liberal theory" because the event happened at Berkeley in California, a hotbed of "liberalism". Wouldn't it be grand is conservatives made some type of discovery at least once in a while? Must be terrible having to depend on liberals for everything.

What are conservative theories? There aren't any - for a couple of reasons.

The conservative philosophy is to stop change and stifle that threatening learning.

Conservatives believe in "absolutes" which is why they are so trusting of "God did it".

An interesting site with a new slant:

Einstein's theory of relativity

Relativity 4 Engineers

The point I am trying to make, for those who have trouble comprehending English (all the liberals on the board apparently fall into that category) is that the article that was being quoted is no longer present there. It was removed because it was deemed factually inaccurate and political.

Any other questions?

LOL. In other words, enough Liberals called you idiots on the nonsense that you removed it

 

[Old Rocks]

There is something seriously flawed with our "understanding" of the Universe, that is, we don't seem to understand much at all.

Is modern physics a conspiracy perpetuated to validate liberal philosophies?

As I said, modern physics could stand a little humility and admit that our theory and most basic understanding of the Universe is off out in the quintillion column.

It's not a conspiracy by the physicists, but Liberals do have a fundamental misunderstanding about the Constitution and the American system of government, or rather they see the Constitution and American Founding Principles as obstacles to inflicting their Marxist Agenda so they'll use any means, even a perverse application of Einstein's Relativity, to subvert the Constitution.

Now careful there, Frank, old boy. You are on the verge of losing your little tin hat, and do wipe the spittle off of your chin.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is modern physics a conspiracy perpetuated to validate liberal philosophies?

Modern physics isn't a conspiracy and doesn't validate liberal philosophies either. Twisted versions of it are used to validate liberal philosophies and prop up the lies of evolution.

Prime example of the lies of Conservatism. I suppose your next post will concern the lies of Geology and the 4.53 billion year old earth.

I'm still waiting for you to show me in a laboratory how a 200PPM increase in CO2 does ANY of the thing you claim it does.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is modern physics a conspiracy perpetuated to validate liberal philosophies?

As I said, modern physics could stand a little humility and admit that our theory and most basic understanding of the Universe is off out in the quintillion column.

It's not a conspiracy by the physicists, but Liberals do have a fundamental misunderstanding about the Constitution and the American system of government, or rather they see the Constitution and American Founding Principles as obstacles to inflicting their Marxist Agenda so they'll use any means, even a perverse application of Einstein's Relativity, to subvert the Constitution.

Now careful there, Frank, old boy. You are on the verge of losing your little tin hat, and do wipe the spittle off of your chin.

Does it burn you to be called an EnviroMarxist?

See, if you were a "Scientist" you'd rush to the nearest lab and show me how a 200PPM increase in "Sensitive" CO2 does all the thing you claim it does.

 

[american chaos]

Man, I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried.

Let me see if I understand what you are saying here.

You are not smart enough to make up stupid lies on your own, so you rely on others to do it for you, and then you are so stupid you think those lies are true.

Here is the actual article that the blog you are quoting claims to be citing.

he theory of relativity is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.[1] Here is a list of counterexamples, and if only one of these is true, then the theory fails:

1. The Pioneer "anomaly"
2. Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, which show a shift beyond the margin of error predicted by relativity
3. The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light
4. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?
5. The lack of curvature in overall space as observed by measurements
6. The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominate
7. The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement[2]
8. The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54
9. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching
10. The inability of the theory to produce anything of value, contrary to every other theory of physics
11. The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions
12. The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe[3]
13. "The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don’t gel."[4]
14. The theory predicts wormholes just as it predicts black holes, but wormholes violated causality and permit absurd time travel.[5]
15. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.[6]

Counterexamples to Relativity - Conservapedia

While it is not entirely accurate, it is at least as accurate as a typical
Wikipedia article, and it says nothing like your lying source claims it does.

Keep up the good work.

A good list, yet there is one problem in the list.

Using a religious text(in this case, the bible) as a basis to check the validity of a scientific theory. How can we verify that what is discussed in the religious text is true? Take someones word at it?

Do you understand the problem with this "believe and it is true" concept. If it was always the case, we would not have use for any science. All we would have to do is believe in things that are beneficial to us and we would never suffer. But all living things that can feel, feels suffering at some point in their lives. Thus the need to verify.


By the way, many of the questions you asked Deals with General relativity, Special Relativity provides the mass-energy equation of light(E=hf(energy of light)=mc^2(relative or "effective mass of light) ) and it(special relativity) does have several applications including the energy to mass conversion in nuclear reactions, the red shift found in light from a fast moving object(such as stars) and many others if the author actually set down and seperated the two theories(yes, there are two theories being posed. General Relativity and Special relativity. It is called "special" because it pertains to light!)

General Relativity poses many interesting problems for both Physicists and Mathematicians and to say it(General Realativity) is the rule without exception is not accurate.

The situation is more like--Scientist have more questions than answers concerning general relativity, there is a general idea of which way to go in and tests of the theory and its applications is still a work in progress.