www.conservapedia.com - What do you think?

I find the Conservapedia article "Counterexamples to Relativity" to be a source of great entertainment and I find myself drawn to visit the page again and again.Many of the sillier pages on Conservapedia have "Talk" pages on which the silliness is revealed in great detail.

Was it a gaffe? Would people present at the meeting really believe that Obama was telling them that they did not start and build their own business?If a gaffe means making statements that no opponent could possibly twist, then yes it was a gaffe.Meanwhile, Romney's trying to extract his foot from his mouth from comments made about the Olympics in Great Britain.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Corrected first quote attribute from "Moose" to "xongsmith".

quote:

---

In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.

---

"They" in this case means Andy Schlafly. His statement is worded loosely enough so that he does not actually have to believe in aether, but merely accept aether theories as likely alternatives to GR. In essence he is saying that he would not be surprised if the aether actually exists. Counterexample 35 is principally Andy expressing his fundamentalist faith. I would read counter example 35 in light of Schlafly's counter example 36.Of course the only aether theories that would have any traction would be the ones which make the same predictions as Special Relativity and General Relativity for those experiments which confirm said predictions. That required traction would make many of the other counter examples rather pointless.I find Andy's page a little amusing because Andy and I have similar education backgrounds. Electrical engineering undergrad plus law degree. My guess is that I probably studied a bit more science than did Andy because I was double majoring in physics , but that's a guess. On the other hand I wasn't birthed and raised by Phyllis Schlafly.

I haven't reached a conclusion yet about whether Andy is being deceptive. If you consider the page to be an editorial page rather than a science page, and given the way Andy manages it, I don't see any other alternative, then the page is simply Andy's opinion, and the rebuttals are everyone else's opinon.Many of the examples can be understood as misunderstands of relativity. I can understand why Andy does not change his mind on those. He just does not get it.But on the other hand, some of the rebuttals are so thorough and easy to grasp that it's difficult to understand why anyone would continue to maintain them. The rebuttal of the counter example regarding the advance of the perihelion of Mercury is one such example. Andy used to push an alternative theory of gravity to explain Mercury's orbit, but the table containing the predictions for othe planets seems to have disappeared in the face of demonstrations that its predictions did not work for Venus and Earth. Yet Andy still pushes the alternative. In my view this looks more like deception than self deception.And the action at a distance counterexample is just plain stupid.

Andy has been exposed to a first class education at the top universities in the country. As I understand it, he has a law degree from Harvard, and an engineering degree from Princeton.And yet this is what runs through his mind:

quote:

---

Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that there is no unified theory of light and matter because they were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis.

---