User:GregG/RSS 4

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:54:19 GMT (edit by BlackCat)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User:BlackCat</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Created page with "Social-democrat and proud of it"

New page

Social-democrat and proud of it
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:53:32 GMT (edit by BlackCat)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User:BlackCat</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

New user account

 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:51:16 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Description for the layman: Examples of how meaningless '''E=mc²''' is: descriptions for the layman

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 13:51, 26 March 2012
Line 13: Line 13:
The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).

—Herbert Ives, 1952

The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).

—Herbert Ives, 1952

-
== Description for the layman ==
+
== Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman ==
Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc<sup>2</sup>:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html</ref>
Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.

—Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University

You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.

—Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University

{{
Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc<sup>2</sup>:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html</ref>
Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.

—Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University

You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.

—Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University

{{
cquote|It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}
cquote|It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:50:23 GMT (edit by Conservative)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Rain:

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 13:50, 26 March 2012
Line 537: Line 537:
::::Nate (and CPalmer), One of the biggest promoters of the Question evolution campaign on the internet is a Roman Catholic and he did it due a request of mine (I have a cordial relationship with this person). Correct me if I am wrong, but no Pope has spoken ex-cathedra on behalf of the macroevolution issue. And we both know that a Pope never will given the absence of compelling evidence for macroevolutionary thought and all the evidence contrary to it. :) Conservative 09:23, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::Nate (and CPalmer), One of the biggest promoters of the Question evolution campaign on the internet is a Roman Catholic and he did it due a request of mine (I have a cordial relationship with this person). Correct me if I am wrong, but no Pope has spoken ex-cathedra on behalf of the macroevolution issue. And we both know that a Pope never will given the absence of compelling evidence for macroevolutionary thought and all the evidence contrary to it. :) Conservative 09:23, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
CPalmer, Nate is the one who is contending with me and I see no problem with spirited rejoinders and theological debate at a wiki. Christianity certainly have a history of spirited debate. Martin Luther was certainly not a shrinking violet. I see no reason for squelching a debate concerning Protestantism/Catholicism relative to biblical creation. Conservative 09:23, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
CPalmer, Nate is the one who is contending with me and I see no problem with spirited rejoinders and theological debate at a wiki. Christianity certainly have a history of spirited debate. Martin Luther was certainly not a shrinking violet. I see no reason for squelching a debate concerning Protestantism/Catholicism relative to biblical creation. Conservative 09:23, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
::CPalmer, I am certainly not anti-rain. :)  I merely quoted the verse to demonstrate the point that God is involved to some degree in weather/rain. The degree of involvement is not a matter I want to discuss at this point but the accounts of Noah, Elijah and the words/actions of Christ himself bolsters the view that God influences weather.  There are plenty of verses in the Bible to support this view. Conservative 09:50, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
== Has the scope of Conservapedia changed? ==
== Has the scope of Conservapedia changed? ==
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:49:53 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

some clean up, including restoring observation that no <a href="/Nobel_Prize" title="Nobel Prize">Nobel Prize</a> was awarded for a particular claim

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 13:49, 26 March 2012
Line 3: Line 3:
Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis.
Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis.
-
Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of gravity.[Citation Needed] In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity.  Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge.
+
Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of gravity. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity.  Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge.
For more than a century, the claim that E=mc<sup>2</sup> has never yielded anything of value.  Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the lamestream media. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons, and in the study of antimatter.<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc<sup>2</sup>." October 11, 2005. PBS NOVA. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref>
For more than a century, the claim that E=mc<sup>2</sup> has never yielded anything of value.  Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the lamestream media. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons, and in the study of antimatter.<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc<sup>2</sup>." October 11, 2005. PBS NOVA. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref>
-
The Theory of Relativity has never been able to derive E=mc<sup>2</sup> from first principles, and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh..79..591H</ref>
+
The Theory of Relativity has never been able to derive E=mc<sup>2</sup>, and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh..79..591H</ref>
-
One aspect of the formula is that radiation has a mass equivalence, which was correctly derived by Henri Poincare in 1904:<ref>http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-42-8-540</ref>  
+
At most, radiation has a mass equivalence, which was correctly derived by Henri Poincare in 1904:<ref>http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-42-8-540</ref>  
The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).

—Herbert Ives, 1952

The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).

—Herbert Ives, 1952

Line 38: Line 38:
Accurate measurements and detailed calculations allowed for verifying the theoretical values with an accuracy of ±0.5%. This was the first time a nucleus was artificially split, and thereby the first transmutation of elements using accelerated particles:
Accurate measurements and detailed calculations allowed for verifying the theoretical values with an accuracy of ±0.5%. This was the first time a nucleus was artificially split, and thereby the first transmutation of elements using accelerated particles:
-
Some claim that the best empirical verification of E=mc<sup>2</sup> was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville et al., as published in Nature (which is not a leading physics journal).<ref>Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005) doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref>  The authors state in their article in Nature magazine that "Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−Δmc²/E=(−1.4±4.4)×10<sup>−7</sup>, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described."
+
Some claim that the best empirical verification of E=mc<sup>2</sup> was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville et al., as published in Nature (which is not a leading physics journal).<ref>Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005) doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref>  The authors state in their article in Nature magazine that "Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−Δmc²/E=(−1.4±4.4)×10<sup>−7</sup>, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described." But no Nobel Prize has been awarded for this claimed achievement.
==An Isolated Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium==
==An Isolated Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium==
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:45:39 GMT (edit by Cyclofile)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Has the scope of Conservapedia changed?: new section

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 13:45, 26 March 2012
Line 537: Line 537:
::::Nate (and CPalmer), One of the biggest promoters of the Question evolution campaign on the internet is a Roman Catholic and he did it due a request of mine (I have a cordial relationship with this person). Correct me if I am wrong, but no Pope has spoken ex-cathedra on behalf of the macroevolution issue. And we both know that a Pope never will given the absence of compelling evidence for macroevolutionary thought and all the evidence contrary to it. :) Conservative 09:23, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::Nate (and CPalmer), One of the biggest promoters of the Question evolution campaign on the internet is a Roman Catholic and he did it due a request of mine (I have a cordial relationship with this person). Correct me if I am wrong, but no Pope has spoken ex-cathedra on behalf of the macroevolution issue. And we both know that a Pope never will given the absence of compelling evidence for macroevolutionary thought and all the evidence contrary to it. :) Conservative 09:23, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
CPalmer, Nate is the one who is contending with me and I see no problem with spirited rejoinders and theological debate at a wiki. Christianity certainly have a history of spirited debate. Martin Luther was certainly not a shrinking violet. I see no reason for squelching a debate concerning Protestantism/Catholicism relative to biblical creation. Conservative 09:23, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
CPalmer, Nate is the one who is contending with me and I see no problem with spirited rejoinders and theological debate at a wiki. Christianity certainly have a history of spirited debate. Martin Luther was certainly not a shrinking violet. I see no reason for squelching a debate concerning Protestantism/Catholicism relative to biblical creation. Conservative 09:23, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Has the scope of Conservapedia changed? ==
 +
 +
Hello Conservapedians. I'm a new user here, altough I follow Conservapedia for some time. Mainly  for my interest for different internet encyclopedias. However, I remember coming here, some years back at this site, it looked more or less like a regular encyclopedia. Some news, some featured articles on the frontpage etc etc. Nowadays the frontpage, seems to be a one-issue anti-evolutionist-campain folder. To my humble opinion this is a pity. It would be so much nicer if there would be a bigger variation in featered articles and less emphasis on only 1 subject. If I look at "recent changes" I see that most edits are not done in the enclopedic article, but more in debate-topics. Are there more users who noticed this change and might the be a threat for the popularity of this encyclopedia? I think a real encyclopedia could be a true conservative major competitor for Wikipedia. The way it looks now, it doesn't resemble an encyclopedia. But that is just my observation as an oustander.
 +
Furthermore I would like to excuse myself for my language. As you have probably noticed english is not my mother-tongue. Understanding however is no problem at all. Cyclofile 09:45, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:41:02 GMT (edit by Karajou)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Reverted edits by <a href="/Special:Contributions/JohnMarley" title="Special:Contributions/JohnMarley">JohnMarley</a> (<a href="/index.php?title=User_talk:JohnMarley&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="User talk:JohnMarley (page does not exist)">talk</a>) to last revision by <a href="/User:AugustO" title="User:AugustO">AugustO</a>

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 13:41, 26 March 2012
Line 82: Line 82:
No, I can't. Frankly, I don't see the clarity in this piece: at the moment, it is still sadly missing. So I hope, that Aschlafly taking care of the fact-tags (other then trimming them away) will add to this clarity! AugustO 09:13, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
No, I can't. Frankly, I don't see the clarity in this piece: at the moment, it is still sadly missing. So I hope, that Aschlafly taking care of the fact-tags (other then trimming them away) will add to this clarity! AugustO 09:13, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
-
 
-
== Seriously Andy... ==
 
-
 
-
If you don't have any working knowledge on a subject, just say so. Please don't embarrass yourself by saying things like E=mc^2 is liberal claptrap. JohnMarley 09:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:40:54 GMT (edit by Karajou)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User:JohnMarley</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

blocked [[<a href="/index.php?title=User:JohnMarley&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new mw-userlink" title="User:JohnMarley (page does not exist)">JohnMarley</a> (<a href="/index.php?title=User_talk:JohnMarley&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="User talk:JohnMarley (page does not exist)">Talk</a> | <a href="/Special:Contributions/JohnMarley" title="Special:Contributions/JohnMarley">contribs</a>)]] with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) Sockpuppet/Abusing multiple accounts: bye again

 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:40:31 GMT (edit by JohnMarley)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Seriously Andy...: new section

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 13:40, 26 March 2012
Line 82: Line 82:
No, I can't. Frankly, I don't see the clarity in this piece: at the moment, it is still sadly missing. So I hope, that Aschlafly taking care of the fact-tags (other then trimming them away) will add to this clarity! AugustO 09:13, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
No, I can't. Frankly, I don't see the clarity in this piece: at the moment, it is still sadly missing. So I hope, that Aschlafly taking care of the fact-tags (other then trimming them away) will add to this clarity! AugustO 09:13, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Seriously Andy... ==
 +
 +
If you don't have any working knowledge on a subject, just say so. Please don't embarrass yourself by saying things like E=mc^2 is liberal claptrap. JohnMarley 09:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:40:11 GMT (edit by Conservative)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Rain:

← Older revision Revision as of 13:40, 26 March 2012
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:19:58 GMT (edit by JMR10)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Willem de Kooning</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 13:19, 26 March 2012
Line 1: Line 1:
-
Willem de Kooning
+
Willem de Kooning
 +
Willem de Kooning (1904-1997) was an Abstract Expressionist painter. He emigrated from theNetherlands to the United States in 1926. There he had the influence of Arshile Gorky. He became one of the leading exponents of Abstract Expressionism and particularly of "Action Painting".
-
Willem de Kooning (1904-1997) was an Abstract Expressionist painter. He emigrated from theNetherlands to the United States in 1926.  
+
<blockquote>
 +
De Kooning constantly experimented, never content within the boundaries of the Abstract Expressionist movement that he became synonymous with. He was forever engaged with the idea of the figure, relentlessly challenging himself to address it in new ways. [1]
 +
</blockquote>
-
De Kooning is best known for the painting Woman V, which took two years to complete. He and Jackson Pollock were both important figures in the Abstract-Expressionist school. De Kooning suffered from alcoholism his entire life.
+
De Kooning is best known for the painting Woman V (part of a series of images of women), which took two years to complete. He and Jackson Pollock were both important figures in the Abstract-Expressionist school. His later work showed an increasing preoccupation with landscape. [2]
 +
 
 +
De Kooning suffered from alcoholism his entire life.
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:19:50 GMT (edit by MBluth)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User:MBluth</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

New user account

 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:14:31 GMT (edit by CPalmer)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Rain: rain

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 13:14, 26 March 2012
Line 531: Line 531:
By the way, your church hierarchy was wrong in the Galileo affair as well. The funny thing is that some prideful Catholics still can't get over the fact that the church was wrong in the Galileo affair as evidenced by the Catholic Robert Sungenis, Ph.D. who maintains that Galileo was wrong and the RCC was right as can be seen HERE. The Roman Catholic Church at the time of the Galileo affair was so enthralled by Aristotle (who was a mere man) that they blew it in the Galileo affair.[3][4]  History has a way of repeating itself and now the post 1950s liberal Roman Catholic Church is a follower of Darwinism via its ideological cousin theistic evolution. Conservative 06:54, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
By the way, your church hierarchy was wrong in the Galileo affair as well. The funny thing is that some prideful Catholics still can't get over the fact that the church was wrong in the Galileo affair as evidenced by the Catholic Robert Sungenis, Ph.D. who maintains that Galileo was wrong and the RCC was right as can be seen HERE. The Roman Catholic Church at the time of the Galileo affair was so enthralled by Aristotle (who was a mere man) that they blew it in the Galileo affair.[5][6]  History has a way of repeating itself and now the post 1950s liberal Roman Catholic Church is a follower of Darwinism via its ideological cousin theistic evolution. Conservative 06:54, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
 +
:The above seems unduly anti-Catholic.
 +
:"The rain it raineth on the just and on the unjust." I don't think bad weather at any event, no matter how atheistic, can be considered evidence of God's disapproval. It would be more pertinent to ask, if all these atheists are so scientifically minded, why they couldn't plan their event to avoid the rain.
 +
:(Of course, in the biblical context, rain is a good, life-giving event, and the original point of the verse is that good things happen to bad people, not vice versa.)--CPalmer 09:14, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:13:59 GMT (edit by AugustO)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Some points:

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 13:13, 26 March 2012
Line 80: Line 80:
::::: OK. But bear in mind that this page clearly exists to provide a counterweight to certain liberal views. To do that, clarity of message is needed, and a "citation needed" banner has a deflating effect on the strength of that clarity. So perhaps you could suggest a wording that might be acceptable without the "citation needed" bit?--CPalmer 09:03, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::: OK. But bear in mind that this page clearly exists to provide a counterweight to certain liberal views. To do that, clarity of message is needed, and a "citation needed" banner has a deflating effect on the strength of that clarity. So perhaps you could suggest a wording that might be acceptable without the "citation needed" bit?--CPalmer 09:03, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
 +
No, I can't. Frankly, I don't see the clarity in this piece: at the moment, it is still sadly missing. So I hope, that Aschlafly taking care of the fact-tags (other then trimming them away) will add to this clarity! AugustO 09:13, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:05:11 GMT (edit by JMR10)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Willem de Kooning</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

See also:

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 13:05, 26 March 2012
Line 11: Line 11:
-
 
<br>
<br>
Woman V Woman V
Woman V Woman V
 +
 +
== External links ==
 +
 +
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:03:08 GMT (edit by CPalmer)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Some points: clarity

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 13:03, 26 March 2012
Line 78: Line 78:
::::Aschlafly writes: Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of gravity. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity.
::::Aschlafly writes: Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of gravity. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity.
::::E=mc&sup2; isn't about gravity, to invoke it here is a deflection. AugustO 08:49, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::E=mc&sup2; isn't about gravity, to invoke it here is a deflection. AugustO 08:49, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
 +
::::: OK. But bear in mind that this page clearly exists to provide a counterweight to certain liberal views. To do that, clarity of message is needed, and a "citation needed" banner has a deflating effect on the strength of that clarity. So perhaps you could suggest a wording that might be acceptable without the "citation needed" bit?--CPalmer 09:03, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:59:38 GMT (edit by Conservative)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Rain:

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 12:59, 26 March 2012
Line 528: Line 528:
:::::Burn? --JoshuaB 01:21, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::Burn? --JoshuaB 01:21, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::Your pridefulness is damaging this website's credibility and would be embarrassing to a well man. I sincerely hope you get good care. I feel so badly for you. Nate 02:27, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::Your pridefulness is damaging this website's credibility and would be embarrassing to a well man. I sincerely hope you get good care. I feel so badly for you. Nate 02:27, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
-
Nate, what you feel sorry for is your bloated stubborn pride which hates being shown that you and your liberal Roman Catholic Church (RCC) are wrong on an issue and you get very angry when this occurs.  The mere thought that you and your scandal ridden post 1950s liberal church hierarchy could be wrong on an issue is intolerable to you and your embarrassing undisciplined and vitriolic rant on your user page which you took down is evidence of this. Of course, we both know that what I am saying is true in this case as evidenced by you not being able to satisfactorily the 15 questions for evolutionists.   
+
Nate, what you feel sorry for is your bloated stubborn pride which hates being shown that you and your post 1960s liberal Roman Catholic Church (RCC) are wrong on an issue and you get very angry when this occurs.  The mere thought that you and your scandal ridden post 1950s liberal church hierarchy could be wrong on an issue is intolerable to you and your embarrassing undisciplined and vitriolic rant on your user page which you took down is evidence of this. Of course, we both know that what I am saying is true in this case as evidenced by you not being able to satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists.   
-
By the way, your church hierarchy was wrong in the Galileo affair as well. The funny thing is that some prideful Catholics still can't get over the fact that the church was wrong in the Galileo affair as evidenced by the Catholic Robert Sungenis, Ph.D. who maintains that Galileo was wrong and the RCC was right as can be seen HERE. The Roman Catholic Church at the time of the Galileo affair was so enthralled by Aristotle (who was a mere man) that they blew it in the Galileo affair.[7][8]  History has a way of repeating itself and now the post 1960s liberal Roman Catholic Church is a follower of Darwinism via its ideological cousin theistic evolution. Conservative 06:54, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
+
By the way, your church hierarchy was wrong in the Galileo affair as well. The funny thing is that some prideful Catholics still can't get over the fact that the church was wrong in the Galileo affair as evidenced by the Catholic Robert Sungenis, Ph.D. who maintains that Galileo was wrong and the RCC was right as can be seen HERE. The Roman Catholic Church at the time of the Galileo affair was so enthralled by Aristotle (who was a mere man) that they blew it in the Galileo affair.[9][10]  History has a way of repeating itself and now the post 1950s liberal Roman Catholic Church is a follower of Darwinism via its ideological cousin theistic evolution. Conservative 06:54, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:54:14 GMT (edit by Karajou)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User:DrePearcy160</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

blocked [[<a href="/index.php?title=User:DrePearcy160&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new mw-userlink" title="User:DrePearcy160 (page does not exist)">DrePearcy160</a> (<a href="/index.php?title=User_talk:DrePearcy160&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="User talk:DrePearcy160 (page does not exist)">Talk</a> | <a href="/Special:Contributions/DrePearcy160" title="Special:Contributions/DrePearcy160">contribs</a>)]] with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) spam account

 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:49:56 GMT (edit by AugustO)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Some points:

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 12:49, 26 March 2012
Line 75: Line 75:
:::But they always are the same, aren't they? I don't see why knowing or not knowing the reason (yet) has any bearing on the question.--CPalmer 08:43, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::But they always are the same, aren't they? I don't see why knowing or not knowing the reason (yet) has any bearing on the question.--CPalmer 08:43, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
 +
::::Aschlafly writes: Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of gravity. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity.
 +
::::E=mc&sup2; isn't about gravity, to invoke it here is a deflection. AugustO 08:49, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:47:54 GMT (edit by Karajou)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User:Brkokko91</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

blocked [[<a href="/index.php?title=User:Brkokko91&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new mw-userlink" title="User:Brkokko91 (page does not exist)">Brkokko91</a> (<a href="/index.php?title=User_talk:Brkokko91&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="User talk:Brkokko91 (page does not exist)">Talk</a> | <a href="/Special:Contributions/Brkokko91" title="Special:Contributions/Brkokko91">contribs</a>)]] with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation disabled) multiple accounts, spam

 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:51:54 GMT (edit by R0288602)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User:R0288602</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

New user account

 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:43:38 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

An Isolated Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium: -> subheading

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 14:43, 26 March 2012
Line 41: Line 41:
Some claim that the best empirical verification of E=mc<sup>2</sup> was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville et al., as published in Nature (which is not a leading physics journal).<ref>Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005) doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref>  The authors state in their article in Nature magazine that "Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−Δmc²/E=(−1.4±4.4)×10<sup>−7</sup>, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described."  But no Nobel Prize has been awarded for this claimed achievement.
Some claim that the best empirical verification of E=mc<sup>2</sup> was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville et al., as published in Nature (which is not a leading physics journal).<ref>Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005) doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref>  The authors state in their article in Nature magazine that "Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−Δmc²/E=(−1.4±4.4)×10<sup>−7</sup>, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described."  But no Nobel Prize has been awarded for this claimed achievement.
-
==An Isolated Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium==
+
===An Isolated Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium===
For most types of physical interactions, the masses of the initial reactants and of the final products match so closely that it is essentially impossible to measure any difference.  But for nuclear reactions, the difference is measurable.  That difference is related to the energy absorbed or released, described by the equation E=mc&sup2;.  (The equation applies to all interactions; the fact that nuclear interactions are the only ones for which the mass difference is measurable has led people to believe, wrongly, that E=mc&sup2; applies only to nuclear interactions.)
For most types of physical interactions, the masses of the initial reactants and of the final products match so closely that it is essentially impossible to measure any difference.  But for nuclear reactions, the difference is measurable.  That difference is related to the energy absorbed or released, described by the equation E=mc&sup2;.  (The equation applies to all interactions; the fact that nuclear interactions are the only ones for which the mass difference is measurable has led people to believe, wrongly, that E=mc&sup2; applies only to nuclear interactions.)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:42:48 GMT (edit by AugustO)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 14:42, 26 March 2012
Line 41: Line 41:
Pssst! DavidEdwards! You're trying waaaaay too hard. --JoshuaB 21:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
Pssst! DavidEdwards! You're trying waaaaay too hard. --JoshuaB 21:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
-
=Question=
+
==Question==
This snipet of sentence appears in the introduction: "...a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory." Let's compare that to the entire sentence it was lifted from: "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory." One can't help but notice that the part of the sentence that states that the theory has been observed to be valid in real world experimentation, has been surgically removed. Why is this? Is it because it stands in contradiction to the claim the lead author of this article is trying to promulgate? --JoshuaB 20:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
This snipet of sentence appears in the introduction: "...a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory." Let's compare that to the entire sentence it was lifted from: "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory." One can't help but notice that the part of the sentence that states that the theory has been observed to be valid in real world experimentation, has been surgically removed. Why is this? Is it because it stands in contradiction to the claim the lead author of this article is trying to promulgate? --JoshuaB 20:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
Line 60: Line 60:
:::Andy, do you accept the possibility that the Theory of Relativity may be correct, and would you approve a well-written paper or book that supported it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question. --FrederickT3 03:28, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::Andy, do you accept the possibility that the Theory of Relativity may be correct, and would you approve a well-written paper or book that supported it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question. --FrederickT3 03:28, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
-
= Some points =
+
== Some points ==
*Misplaced claims of experimental verification: if you want to put on the disclaimer misplaced, please explain the results of the experiments in another way.
*Misplaced claims of experimental verification: if you want to put on the disclaimer misplaced, please explain the results of the experiments in another way.
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:40:36 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Experimental verification: -> Claims of Experimental Verification

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 14:40, 26 March 2012
Line 24: Line 24:
Over time, physicists became used to multiplying an object's mass by the square of its velocity (mv<sup>2</sup>) to come up with a useful indicator of its energy. If the velocity of a ball or rock was 100 mph, then they knew that the energy it carried would be proportional to its mass times 100 squared. If the velocity is raised as high as it could go, to 670 million mph, it's almost as if the ultimate energy an object will contain should be revealed when you look at its mass times c squared, or its mc<sup>2</sup>.
Over time, physicists became used to multiplying an object's mass by the square of its velocity (mv<sup>2</sup>) to come up with a useful indicator of its energy. If the velocity of a ball or rock was 100 mph, then they knew that the energy it carried would be proportional to its mass times 100 squared. If the velocity is raised as high as it could go, to 670 million mph, it's almost as if the ultimate energy an object will contain should be revealed when you look at its mass times c squared, or its mc<sup>2</sup>.
-
==Experimental verification==
+
==Claims of Experimental Verification==
The first experimental verification for the equation was performed 1932 by a team of an English and an Irish physicist, John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton, as a byproduct of "their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles"<ref>Nobel Prize Organization</ref> for which they were honored with the Nobel Prize in physics in 1951.  The idea of the mass defect - and its calculation using E=mc&sup2; can be found on page 169-170 of his Nobel lecture.<ref>http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-lecture.pdf</ref>
The first experimental verification for the equation was performed 1932 by a team of an English and an Irish physicist, John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton, as a byproduct of "their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles"<ref>Nobel Prize Organization</ref> for which they were honored with the Nobel Prize in physics in 1951.  The idea of the mass defect - and its calculation using E=mc&sup2; can be found on page 169-170 of his Nobel lecture.<ref>http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-lecture.pdf</ref>
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:40:05 GMT (edit by Cyclofile)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Has the scope of Conservapedia changed?:

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 14:40, 26 March 2012
Line 545: Line 545:
Furthermore I would like to excuse myself for my language. As you have probably noticed english is not my mother-tongue. Understanding however is no problem at all. Cyclofile 09:45, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
Furthermore I would like to excuse myself for my language. As you have probably noticed english is not my mother-tongue. Understanding however is no problem at all. Cyclofile 09:45, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::There are plenty of news stories on other issues. Conservapedia goes through seasons where various issues have more coverage depending on events occurring. Lately, there has been a rash of anti-evolution bills and increased advocacy of biblical creationism in the world. Plus, evolutionary thought is at the root of much of liberal thought. In addition, post the growth of Christian conservatism and post New Atheism, the issues of theism/atheism/evolutionism have become more an issue in the public discourse. Conservative 09:56, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::There are plenty of news stories on other issues. Conservapedia goes through seasons where various issues have more coverage depending on events occurring. Lately, there has been a rash of anti-evolution bills and increased advocacy of biblical creationism in the world. Plus, evolutionary thought is at the root of much of liberal thought. In addition, post the growth of Christian conservatism and post New Atheism, the issues of theism/atheism/evolutionism have become more an issue in the public discourse. Conservative 09:56, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
-
:: I have to agree on the fact that issues on evolutionism are in the public discourse. Howver, I think that the balance between anit-evolutionisme/anti-theism and "normal" topics is a bit tilted. Why not some more links to the the many non-political lemmas this encyclopeida has? I read somewhere that Conservapedia is a family-encyclopedia, so why not link to interesting topics like famous poets, painters or geographical articles? I think there's enough space for both anti-atheist articles and for "not-anti-articles" on the main page at the same time. Cyclofile 10:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
+
:: I have to agree on the fact that issues on evolutionism are in the public discourse. Howver, I think that the balance between anit-evolutionisme/anti-theism and "normal" topics is a bit tilted. Why not some more links to the the many non-political lemmas this encyclopedia has? I read somewhere that Conservapedia is a family-encyclopedia, so why not link to interesting topics like famous poets, painters or geographical articles? I think there's enough space for both anti-atheist articles and for "not-anti-articles" on the main page at the same time. Cyclofile 10:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::Well for a while, I relentlessly pounded the atheism beaches via the main page and it was very popular post New Atheism. :) Shockofgod and his fans certainly liked it. :) I think Christendom is going to be increasingly active on the evolutionism front and I see no reason for not covering it on the main page. With global atheism getting weaker by the day and this trend accelerating, Christendom should certainly capitalize on this matter and evolutionism is the air supply of atheism.  Much of conservatism is driven by religious conservatism after all and this is going to increasingly be the case.[11] Conservative 10:30, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::Well for a while, I relentlessly pounded the atheism beaches via the main page and it was very popular post New Atheism. :) Shockofgod and his fans certainly liked it. :) I think Christendom is going to be increasingly active on the evolutionism front and I see no reason for not covering it on the main page. With global atheism getting weaker by the day and this trend accelerating, Christendom should certainly capitalize on this matter and evolutionism is the air supply of atheism.  Much of conservatism is driven by religious conservatism after all and this is going to increasingly be the case.[12] Conservative 10:30, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
-
:::: Ok I think I get your point. I also think you should cover the anti-atheistic artciles on the frontpage. Still I miss a bit of normal artcles which are not anti-XXXX, but just neutral and non-political. I understand that as a conservative you want to use the encyclopedia as a measure to bring down atheism, but please don't forget that Coservapedia is also a encyclopedia which is just interesting to read and learn from. Anyway, in the end it's all a matter of taste and mine is just a bit different than the main page we have nowadays. Cyclofile 10:39, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
+
:::: Ok I think I get your point. I also think you should cover the anti-atheistic artciles on the frontpage. Still I miss a bit of normal artcles which are not anti-XXXX, but just neutral and non-political. I understand that as a conservative you want to use the encyclopedia as a measure to bring down atheism, but please don't forget that Conservapedia is also a encyclopedia which is just interesting to read and learn from. Anyway, in the end it's all a matter of taste and mine is just a bit different than the main page we have nowadays. Cyclofile 10:39, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:39:44 GMT (edit by AugustO)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Aschlafly, could you give us...: new section

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 14:39, 26 March 2012
Line 89: Line 89:
:The quotes (and others that could be added) illustrate how meaningless the formula is.--Andy Schlafly 10:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:The quotes (and others that could be added) illustrate how meaningless the formula is.--Andy Schlafly 10:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::The quotes illustrate how difficult it is to explain the concept to a layman. Take a look here, where you can find the quotes in context. AugustO 10:16, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::The quotes illustrate how difficult it is to explain the concept to a layman. Take a look here, where you can find the quotes in context. AugustO 10:16, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Aschlafly, could you give us... ==
 +
 +
... your interpretation of the results of the experiment by Cockroft and Walton? Cockroft describes in his Nobel Lecture how the kinetic energy of the alpha-particles could be provided by diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass
 +
units. (p. 170). Please take into account that this isn't about energy in form of electromagnetic waves!
 +
 +
If you don't address the results of the actual experiments, all your claims are just meaningless verbiage.
 +
AugustO 10:39, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:39:06 GMT (edit by Cyclofile)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Has the scope of Conservapedia changed?:

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 14:39, 26 March 2012
Line 547: Line 547:
:: I have to agree on the fact that issues on evolutionism are in the public discourse. Howver, I think that the balance between anit-evolutionisme/anti-theism and "normal" topics is a bit tilted. Why not some more links to the the many non-political lemmas this encyclopeida has? I read somewhere that Conservapedia is a family-encyclopedia, so why not link to interesting topics like famous poets, painters or geographical articles? I think there's enough space for both anti-atheist articles and for "not-anti-articles" on the main page at the same time. Cyclofile 10:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:: I have to agree on the fact that issues on evolutionism are in the public discourse. Howver, I think that the balance between anit-evolutionisme/anti-theism and "normal" topics is a bit tilted. Why not some more links to the the many non-political lemmas this encyclopeida has? I read somewhere that Conservapedia is a family-encyclopedia, so why not link to interesting topics like famous poets, painters or geographical articles? I think there's enough space for both anti-atheist articles and for "not-anti-articles" on the main page at the same time. Cyclofile 10:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::Well for a while, I relentlessly pounded the atheism beaches via the main page and it was very popular post New Atheism. :) Shockofgod and his fans certainly liked it. :) I think Christendom is going to be increasingly active on the evolutionism front and I see no reason for not covering it on the main page. With global atheism getting weaker by the day and this trend accelerating, Christendom should certainly capitalize on this matter and evolutionism is the air supply of atheism.  Much of conservatism is driven by religious conservatism after all and this is going to increasingly be the case.[13] Conservative 10:30, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::Well for a while, I relentlessly pounded the atheism beaches via the main page and it was very popular post New Atheism. :) Shockofgod and his fans certainly liked it. :) I think Christendom is going to be increasingly active on the evolutionism front and I see no reason for not covering it on the main page. With global atheism getting weaker by the day and this trend accelerating, Christendom should certainly capitalize on this matter and evolutionism is the air supply of atheism.  Much of conservatism is driven by religious conservatism after all and this is going to increasingly be the case.[14] Conservative 10:30, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
:::: Ok I think I get your point. I also think you should cover the anti-atheistic artciles on the frontpage. Still I miss a bit of normal artcles which are not anti-XXXX, but just neutral and non-political. I understand that as a conservative you want to use the encyclopedia as a measure to bring down atheism, but please don't forget that Coservapedia is also a encyclopedia which is just interesting to read and learn from. Anyway, in the end it's all a matter of taste and mine is just a bit different than the main page we have nowadays. Cyclofile 10:39, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:33:47 GMT (edit by Conservative)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Has the scope of Conservapedia changed?:

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 14:33, 26 March 2012
Line 546: Line 546:
:::There are plenty of news stories on other issues. Conservapedia goes through seasons where various issues have more coverage depending on events occurring. Lately, there has been a rash of anti-evolution bills and increased advocacy of biblical creationism in the world. Plus, evolutionary thought is at the root of much of liberal thought. In addition, post the growth of Christian conservatism and post New Atheism, the issues of theism/atheism/evolutionism have become more an issue in the public discourse. Conservative 09:56, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::There are plenty of news stories on other issues. Conservapedia goes through seasons where various issues have more coverage depending on events occurring. Lately, there has been a rash of anti-evolution bills and increased advocacy of biblical creationism in the world. Plus, evolutionary thought is at the root of much of liberal thought. In addition, post the growth of Christian conservatism and post New Atheism, the issues of theism/atheism/evolutionism have become more an issue in the public discourse. Conservative 09:56, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:: I have to agree on the fact that issues on evolutionism are in the public discourse. Howver, I think that the balance between anit-evolutionisme/anti-theism and "normal" topics is a bit tilted. Why not some more links to the the many non-political lemmas this encyclopeida has? I read somewhere that Conservapedia is a family-encyclopedia, so why not link to interesting topics like famous poets, painters or geographical articles? I think there's enough space for both anti-atheist articles and for "not-anti-articles" on the main page at the same time. Cyclofile 10:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:: I have to agree on the fact that issues on evolutionism are in the public discourse. Howver, I think that the balance between anit-evolutionisme/anti-theism and "normal" topics is a bit tilted. Why not some more links to the the many non-political lemmas this encyclopeida has? I read somewhere that Conservapedia is a family-encyclopedia, so why not link to interesting topics like famous poets, painters or geographical articles? I think there's enough space for both anti-atheist articles and for "not-anti-articles" on the main page at the same time. Cyclofile 10:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
-
:::Well for a while, I relentlessly pounded the atheism beaches and it was very popular post New Atheism. :) Shockofgod and his fans certainly liked it. :) I think Christendom is going to be increasingly active on the evolutionism front and I see no reason for not covering it on the main page. With global atheism getting weaker by the day and this trend accelerating, Christendom should certainly capitalize on this matter and evolutionism is the air supply of atheism.  Much of conservatism is driven by religious conservatism after all and this is going to increasingly be the case.[15] Conservative 10:30, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
+
:::Well for a while, I relentlessly pounded the atheism beaches via the main page and it was very popular post New Atheism. :) Shockofgod and his fans certainly liked it. :) I think Christendom is going to be increasingly active on the evolutionism front and I see no reason for not covering it on the main page. With global atheism getting weaker by the day and this trend accelerating, Christendom should certainly capitalize on this matter and evolutionism is the air supply of atheism.  Much of conservatism is driven by religious conservatism after all and this is going to increasingly be the case.[16] Conservative 10:30, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:32:23 GMT (edit by AugustO)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman:

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 14:32, 26 March 2012
Line 14: Line 14:
== Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman ==
== Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman ==
-
Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc<sup>2</sup>:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html</ref>
Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.

—Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University

You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.

—Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University

{{
+
Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc<sup>2</sup>:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html</ref>
Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.

—Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University

You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.

—Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University

It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.

—Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University

-
cquote|It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}
+
 
 +
== History of E=mc<sup>2</sup> ==
== History of E=mc<sup>2</sup> ==
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:31:37 GMT (edit by Conservative)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Has the scope of Conservapedia changed?:

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 14:31, 26 March 2012
(One intermediate revision not shown)
Line 546: Line 546:
:::There are plenty of news stories on other issues. Conservapedia goes through seasons where various issues have more coverage depending on events occurring. Lately, there has been a rash of anti-evolution bills and increased advocacy of biblical creationism in the world. Plus, evolutionary thought is at the root of much of liberal thought. In addition, post the growth of Christian conservatism and post New Atheism, the issues of theism/atheism/evolutionism have become more an issue in the public discourse. Conservative 09:56, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::There are plenty of news stories on other issues. Conservapedia goes through seasons where various issues have more coverage depending on events occurring. Lately, there has been a rash of anti-evolution bills and increased advocacy of biblical creationism in the world. Plus, evolutionary thought is at the root of much of liberal thought. In addition, post the growth of Christian conservatism and post New Atheism, the issues of theism/atheism/evolutionism have become more an issue in the public discourse. Conservative 09:56, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:: I have to agree on the fact that issues on evolutionism are in the public discourse. Howver, I think that the balance between anit-evolutionisme/anti-theism and "normal" topics is a bit tilted. Why not some more links to the the many non-political lemmas this encyclopeida has? I read somewhere that Conservapedia is a family-encyclopedia, so why not link to interesting topics like famous poets, painters or geographical articles? I think there's enough space for both anti-atheist articles and for "not-anti-articles" on the main page at the same time. Cyclofile 10:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:: I have to agree on the fact that issues on evolutionism are in the public discourse. Howver, I think that the balance between anit-evolutionisme/anti-theism and "normal" topics is a bit tilted. Why not some more links to the the many non-political lemmas this encyclopeida has? I read somewhere that Conservapedia is a family-encyclopedia, so why not link to interesting topics like famous poets, painters or geographical articles? I think there's enough space for both anti-atheist articles and for "not-anti-articles" on the main page at the same time. Cyclofile 10:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
:::Well for a while, I relentlessly pounded the atheism beaches and it was very popular post New Atheism. :) Shockofgod and his fans certainly liked it. :) I think Christendom is going to be increasingly active on the evolutionism front and I see no reason for not covering it on the main page. With global atheism getting weaker by the day and this trend accelerating, Christendom should certainly capitalize on this matter and evolutionism is the air supply of atheism.  Much of conservatism is driven by religious conservatism after all and this is going to increasingly be the case.[17] Conservative 10:30, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:27:29 GMT (edit by CPalmer)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Derby (sports)</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Scotland: more Scottish derbies

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 14:27, 26 March 2012
Line 13: Line 13:
==Scotland==
==Scotland==
In Scotland, the biggest derbies are between the two Glasgow teams, Rangers and Celtic. These games are known as "Old Firm" matches. Because of the way the Scottish league is structured, there can be three or even four Old Firm matches in a season.
In Scotland, the biggest derbies are between the two Glasgow teams, Rangers and Celtic. These games are known as "Old Firm" matches. Because of the way the Scottish league is structured, there can be three or even four Old Firm matches in a season.
 +
 +
Other Scottish derbies include the Edinburgh derby, Hearts vs Hibernian, and the slightly confusing Dundee derby, Dundee vs Dundee United.
==Spain==
==Spain==
In Spain, there is a Madrid derby between Real Madrid and Atletico Madrid, and a Barcelona derby between Barcelona FC and Espanyol. However, in recent years the match between Real Madrid and Barcelona, generally agreed to be the top two teams in the country, has eclipsed the local derbies in terms of significance; this match is known as El Clásico.
In Spain, there is a Madrid derby between Real Madrid and Atletico Madrid, and a Barcelona derby between Barcelona FC and Espanyol. However, in recent years the match between Real Madrid and Barcelona, generally agreed to be the top two teams in the country, has eclipsed the local derbies in terms of significance; this match is known as El Clásico.
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:25:41 GMT (edit by AugustO)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman:

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 14:25, 26 March 2012
(One intermediate revision not shown)
Line 15: Line 15:
== Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman ==
== Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman ==
Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc<sup>2</sup>:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html</ref>
Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.

—Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University

You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.

—Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University

{{
Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc<sup>2</sup>:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html</ref>
Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.

—Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University

You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.

—Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University

{{
-
cquote|It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}
+
cquote|It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}
</div></td></tr>
</td></td> </td></td></tr>
</td>
== History of E=mc<sup>2</sup> ==
</td>
</td>
== History of E=mc<sup>2</sup> ==
</td></tr>

</table>

 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:23:28 GMT (edit by TerryH)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Template:Mainpageright</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 14:23, 26 March 2012
Line 3: Line 3:
<!-- Please, to help with searching of topics, include tag line in edit notes below before saving. EG:"Obama Fails" -->
<!-- Please, to help with searching of topics, include tag line in edit notes below before saving. EG:"Obama Fails" -->
<!--============================BEGIN COPY BELOW THIS LINE!=============================== -->
<!--============================BEGIN COPY BELOW THIS LINE!=============================== -->
 +
The analysis that the Mainstream Media should have done on the Zimmerman case, but didn't. [18]
 +
----
Syria: Clinton Admits US On Same Side As Al Qaeda To Destabilise Assad Government US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has acknowledged that Al Qaeda and other organizations on the US “terror list” are supporting the Syrian opposition. [19]
Syria: Clinton Admits US On Same Side As Al Qaeda To Destabilise Assad Government US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has acknowledged that Al Qaeda and other organizations on the US “terror list” are supporting the Syrian opposition. [20]
----
----
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:21:09 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Reverted edits by <a href="/Special:Contributions/AugustO" title="Special:Contributions/AugustO">AugustO</a> (<a href="/User_talk:AugustO" title="User talk:AugustO">talk</a>) to last revision by <a href="/User:Aschlafly" title="User:Aschlafly">Aschlafly</a>

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 14:21, 26 March 2012
Line 13: Line 13:
The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).

—Herbert Ives, 1952

The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).

—Herbert Ives, 1952

-
== Description for the layman ==
+
== Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman ==
Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc<sup>2</sup>:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html</ref>
Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.

—Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University

You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.

—Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University

{{
Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc<sup>2</sup>:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html</ref>
Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.

—Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University

You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.

—Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University

{{
cquote|It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}
cquote|It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:18:02 GMT (edit by Joaquín Martínez)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Template:Mainpageright</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 14:18, 26 March 2012
Line 3: Line 3:
<!-- Please, to help with searching of topics, include tag line in edit notes below before saving. EG:"Obama Fails" -->
<!-- Please, to help with searching of topics, include tag line in edit notes below before saving. EG:"Obama Fails" -->
<!--============================BEGIN COPY BELOW THIS LINE!=============================== -->
<!--============================BEGIN COPY BELOW THIS LINE!=============================== -->
 +
Syria: Clinton Admits US On Same Side As Al Qaeda To Destabilise Assad Government US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has acknowledged that Al Qaeda and other organizations on the US “terror list” are supporting the Syrian opposition. [21]
 +
----
"Why isn't there more outrage when innocent kids die in Detroit? ... What have we done for Delric? Or Kade'jah? Or Je'Rean? They were black kids, too. They were innocent. And they were killed for stupid, stupid reasons right here in Detroit," writes Opinion Editor Stephen Henderson.
"Why isn't there more outrage when innocent kids die in Detroit? ... What have we done for Delric? Or Kade'jah? Or Je'Rean? They were black kids, too. They were innocent. And they were killed for stupid, stupid reasons right here in Detroit," writes Opinion Editor Stephen Henderson.
----
----
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:17:59 GMT (edit by AugustO)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

repeating a statement doesn'tt make an argument

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 14:17, 26 March 2012
Line 13: Line 13:
The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).

—Herbert Ives, 1952

The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).

—Herbert Ives, 1952

-
== Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman ==
+
== Description for the layman ==
Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc<sup>2</sup>:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html</ref>
Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.

—Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University

You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.

—Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University

{{
Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc<sup>2</sup>:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html</ref>
Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.

—Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University

You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.

—Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University

{{
cquote|It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}
cquote|It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:16:50 GMT (edit by AugustO)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman:

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 14:16, 26 March 2012
Line 88: Line 88:
:The quotes (and others that could be added) illustrate how meaningless the formula is.--Andy Schlafly 10:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:The quotes (and others that could be added) illustrate how meaningless the formula is.--Andy Schlafly 10:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
::The quotes illustrate how difficult it is to explain the concept to a layman. Take a look here, where you can find the quotes in context. AugustO 10:16, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:10:39 GMT (edit by BlackCat)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Evolution</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Factual error:

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 14:10, 26 March 2012
Line 38: Line 38:
:::::::The agnostic Carl Sagan, who said he obtained his greatest scientific insights smoking marijuana, claimed evolution is a fact. :)  Conservative 11:36, 22 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::The agnostic Carl Sagan, who said he obtained his greatest scientific insights smoking marijuana, claimed evolution is a fact. :)  Conservative 11:36, 22 December 2011 (EST)
Yuck. What a hack. I hate pot-smokers almost as much as I hate agnostics (and I really hate agnostics--what a cop-out). Carl Sagan was certainly wrong--evolution could never be proven, but I think FactCheck47 was referring to what is called microevolution. That is the phenomenon observed with the Galapagos Finches. It will be important for us to distinguish upon this point because a lot of what liberals try to do is prove microevolution (which is fairly easy) and then conclude that all life must come from evolution (ridiculous). But if we get into an argument over whether or not microevolution exists we will lose. Scottma 12:26, 22 December 2011 (EST)
Yuck. What a hack. I hate pot-smokers almost as much as I hate agnostics (and I really hate agnostics--what a cop-out). Carl Sagan was certainly wrong--evolution could never be proven, but I think FactCheck47 was referring to what is called microevolution. That is the phenomenon observed with the Galapagos Finches. It will be important for us to distinguish upon this point because a lot of what liberals try to do is prove microevolution (which is fairly easy) and then conclude that all life must come from evolution (ridiculous). But if we get into an argument over whether or not microevolution exists we will lose. Scottma 12:26, 22 December 2011 (EST)
 +
:And why, may I ask, do you hate agnostics ? Do you think God has had a great influence on world history recently ? Did He stop WWII ? Or did Satan start it ? Did He elect anybody to president ? What influence did He have in non-mythological times ? And back to the theory of evolutionsim and creationism : what proof do you have that the world was created by God 5'000 years ago ? As much as I revere and respect the Holy Bible, I think that it should be taken on a non-literal level : thus, when the Bible says Jesus does miracle, we must not take that on the literal sense, but on the sense that faith makes miracle, one of the greatest messages in the history of humanity, propaged by the ecclasiastics I admire most (Martin Luther King, Jr. and Desmond Tutu), and by many other wise men (and women) around the world. This said, I think that the proofs recorded, most notably by the study of skeletons, prove evolutionism to be the right theory, or at least on the right path, while creationism's proofs are a few pieces of paper
== Evolution as a theory or hypothesis ==
== Evolution as a theory or hypothesis ==
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:10:11 GMT (edit by Cyclofile)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Has the scope of Conservapedia changed?:

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 14:10, 26 March 2012
Line 545: Line 545:
Furthermore I would like to excuse myself for my language. As you have probably noticed english is not my mother-tongue. Understanding however is no problem at all. Cyclofile 09:45, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
Furthermore I would like to excuse myself for my language. As you have probably noticed english is not my mother-tongue. Understanding however is no problem at all. Cyclofile 09:45, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::There are plenty of news stories on other issues. Conservapedia goes through seasons where various issues have more coverage depending on events occurring. Lately, there has been a rash of anti-evolution bills and increased advocacy of biblical creationism in the world. Plus, evolutionary thought is at the root of much of liberal thought. In addition, post the growth of Christian conservatism and post New Atheism, the issues of theism/atheism/evolutionism have become more an issue in the public discourse. Conservative 09:56, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::There are plenty of news stories on other issues. Conservapedia goes through seasons where various issues have more coverage depending on events occurring. Lately, there has been a rash of anti-evolution bills and increased advocacy of biblical creationism in the world. Plus, evolutionary thought is at the root of much of liberal thought. In addition, post the growth of Christian conservatism and post New Atheism, the issues of theism/atheism/evolutionism have become more an issue in the public discourse. Conservative 09:56, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
:: I have to agree on the fact that issues on evolutionism are in the public discourse. Howver, I think that the balance between anit-evolutionisme/anti-theism and "normal" topics is a bit tilted. Why not some more links to the the many non-political lemmas this encyclopeida has? I read somewhere that Conservapedia is a family-encyclopedia, so why not link to interesting topics like famous poets, painters or geographical articles? I think there's enough space for both anti-atheist articles and for "not-anti-articles" on the main page at the same time. Cyclofile 10:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:02:46 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman: The quotes (and others that could be added) illustrate how meaningless the formula is.

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 14:02, 26 March 2012
Line 86: Line 86:
Try to explain a complicated formula in 1-2min, then have a single sentence of this soundbit taken out. You can bet that this may sound meaningless. That's no fault of the formula. I'll change the title back. AugustO 09:58, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
Try to explain a complicated formula in 1-2min, then have a single sentence of this soundbit taken out. You can bet that this may sound meaningless. That's no fault of the formula. I'll change the title back. AugustO 09:58, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
 +
:The quotes (and others that could be added) illustrate how meaningless the formula is.--Andy Schlafly 10:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:01:58 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Reverted edits by <a href="/Special:Contributions/AugustO" title="Special:Contributions/AugustO">AugustO</a> (<a href="/User_talk:AugustO" title="User talk:AugustO">talk</a>) to last revision by <a href="/User:Aschlafly" title="User:Aschlafly">Aschlafly</a>

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 14:01, 26 March 2012
Line 13: Line 13:
The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).

—Herbert Ives, 1952

The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).

—Herbert Ives, 1952

-
== Description for the layman ==
+
== Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman ==
Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc<sup>2</sup>:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html</ref>
Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.

—Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University

You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.

—Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University

{{
Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc<sup>2</sup>:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html</ref>
Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.

—Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University

You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.

—Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University

{{
cquote|It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}
cquote|It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:59:27 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Abortion legislation 2012</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

improved

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 13:59, 26 March 2012
Line 11: Line 11:
|passed a law establishing, similar to most operations, a minimum 72-hour waiting period "after a face-to-face consultation informing her how the fetus grows and providing information about alternatives such as adoption," before having an abortion<ref>http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/03/21/Abortion-waiting-period-now-law-in-Utah/UPI-16701332303997/#ixzz1qCCds2pW</ref>   
|passed a law establishing, similar to most operations, a minimum 72-hour waiting period "after a face-to-face consultation informing her how the fetus grows and providing information about alternatives such as adoption," before having an abortion<ref>http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/03/21/Abortion-waiting-period-now-law-in-Utah/UPI-16701332303997/#ixzz1qCCds2pW</ref>   
|Loopholes included in the law allow the initial consultation to be almost anywhere rather than in the abortion clinic, rendering the 72-hour waiting period less meaningful.
|Loopholes included in the law allow the initial consultation to be almost anywhere rather than in the abortion clinic, rendering the 72-hour waiting period less meaningful.
-
|
+
|Moderate Republicans dominate Utah politics.
|-
|-
|Virginia
|Virginia
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:59:11 GMT (edit by AugustO)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

please make your point at the talk-page before reverting the title

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 13:59, 26 March 2012
Line 13: Line 13:
The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).

—Herbert Ives, 1952

The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).

—Herbert Ives, 1952

-
== Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman ==
+
== Description for the layman ==
Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc<sup>2</sup>:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html</ref>
Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.

—Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University

You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.

—Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University

{{
Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc<sup>2</sup>:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html</ref>
Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.

—Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University

You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.

—Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University

{{
cquote|It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}
cquote|It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:58:01 GMT (edit by AugustO)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman: new section

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 13:58, 26 March 2012
Line 82: Line 82:
No, I can't. Frankly, I don't see the clarity in this piece: at the moment, it is still sadly missing. So I hope, that Aschlafly taking care of the fact-tags (other then trimming them away) will add to this clarity! AugustO 09:13, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
No, I can't. Frankly, I don't see the clarity in this piece: at the moment, it is still sadly missing. So I hope, that Aschlafly taking care of the fact-tags (other then trimming them away) will add to this clarity! AugustO 09:13, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman  ==
 +
 +
Try to explain a complicated formula in 1-2min, then have a single sentence of this soundbit taken out. You can bet that this may sound meaningless. That's no fault of the formula. I'll change the title back. AugustO 09:58, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:56:35 GMT (edit by CPalmer)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Rain: reply

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 13:56, 26 March 2012
Line 538: Line 538:
CPalmer, Nate is the one who is contending with me and I see no problem with spirited rejoinders and theological debate at a wiki. Christianity certainly have a history of spirited debate. Martin Luther was certainly not a shrinking violet. I see no reason for squelching a debate concerning Protestantism/Catholicism relative to biblical creation. Conservative 09:23, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
CPalmer, Nate is the one who is contending with me and I see no problem with spirited rejoinders and theological debate at a wiki. Christianity certainly have a history of spirited debate. Martin Luther was certainly not a shrinking violet. I see no reason for squelching a debate concerning Protestantism/Catholicism relative to biblical creation. Conservative 09:23, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::CPalmer, I am certainly not anti-rain. :)  I merely quoted the verse to demonstrate the point that God is involved to some degree in weather/rain. The degree of involvement is not a matter I want to discuss at this point but the accounts of Noah, Elijah and the words/actions of Christ himself bolsters the view that God influences weather.  There are plenty of verses in the Bible to support this view. Conservative 09:50, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::CPalmer, I am certainly not anti-rain. :)  I merely quoted the verse to demonstrate the point that God is involved to some degree in weather/rain. The degree of involvement is not a matter I want to discuss at this point but the accounts of Noah, Elijah and the words/actions of Christ himself bolsters the view that God influences weather.  There are plenty of verses in the Bible to support this view. Conservative 09:50, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
:::I still think that the more interesting question is why these supposedly brilliant atheists couldn't plan around the weather forecast, or at least arrange some kind of wet weather alternative to their event.--CPalmer 09:56, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
== Has the scope of Conservapedia changed? ==
== Has the scope of Conservapedia changed? ==
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:56:05 GMT (edit by Cyclofile)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Willem de Kooning</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 13:56, 26 March 2012
Line 1: Line 1:
Willem de Kooning
Willem de Kooning
-
Willem de Kooning (1904-1997) was an Abstract Expressionist painter. He emigrated from theNetherlands to the United States in 1926. There he had the influence of Arshile Gorky. He became one of the leading exponents of Abstract Expressionism and particularly of "Action Painting".
+
Willem de Kooning (1904-1997) was an Abstract Expressionist painter. He emigrated from the Netherlands to the United States in 1926. There he had the influence of Arshile Gorky. He became one of the leading exponents of Abstract Expressionism and particularly of "Action Painting".
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:56:04 GMT (edit by Conservative)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Has the scope of Conservapedia changed?:

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 13:56, 26 March 2012
Line 543: Line 543:
Hello Conservapedians. I'm a new user here, altough I follow Conservapedia for some time. Mainly  for my interest for different internet encyclopedias. However, I remember coming here, some years back at this site, it looked more or less like a regular encyclopedia. Some news, some featured articles on the frontpage etc etc. Nowadays the frontpage, seems to be a one-issue anti-evolutionist-campain folder. To my humble opinion this is a pity. It would be so much nicer if there would be a bigger variation in featered articles and less emphasis on only 1 subject. If I look at "recent changes" I see that most edits are not done in the enclopedic article, but more in debate-topics. Are there more users who noticed this change and might the be a threat for the popularity of this encyclopedia? I think a real encyclopedia could be a true conservative major competitor for Wikipedia. The way it looks now, it doesn't resemble an encyclopedia. But that is just my observation as an oustander.  
Hello Conservapedians. I'm a new user here, altough I follow Conservapedia for some time. Mainly  for my interest for different internet encyclopedias. However, I remember coming here, some years back at this site, it looked more or less like a regular encyclopedia. Some news, some featured articles on the frontpage etc etc. Nowadays the frontpage, seems to be a one-issue anti-evolutionist-campain folder. To my humble opinion this is a pity. It would be so much nicer if there would be a bigger variation in featered articles and less emphasis on only 1 subject. If I look at "recent changes" I see that most edits are not done in the enclopedic article, but more in debate-topics. Are there more users who noticed this change and might the be a threat for the popularity of this encyclopedia? I think a real encyclopedia could be a true conservative major competitor for Wikipedia. The way it looks now, it doesn't resemble an encyclopedia. But that is just my observation as an oustander.  
Furthermore I would like to excuse myself for my language. As you have probably noticed english is not my mother-tongue. Understanding however is no problem at all. Cyclofile 09:45, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
Furthermore I would like to excuse myself for my language. As you have probably noticed english is not my mother-tongue. Understanding however is no problem at all. Cyclofile 09:45, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
:::There are plenty of news stories on other issues. Conservapedia goes through seasons where various issues have more coverage depending on events occurring. Lately, there has been a rash of anti-evolution bills and increased advocacy of biblical creationism in the world. Plus, evolutionary thought is at the root of much of liberal thought. In addition, post the growth of Christian conservatism and post New Atheism, the issues of theism/atheism/evolutionism have become more an issue in the public discourse. Conservative 09:56, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:54:19 GMT (edit by BlackCat)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User:BlackCat</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Created page with "Social-democrat and proud of it"

New page

Social-democrat and proud of it
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:53:32 GMT (edit by BlackCat)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User:BlackCat</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

New user account

 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:51:16 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Description for the layman: Examples of how meaningless '''E=mc²''' is: descriptions for the layman

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 13:51, 26 March 2012
Line 13: Line 13:
The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).

—Herbert Ives, 1952

The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).

—Herbert Ives, 1952

-
== Description for the layman ==
+
== Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman ==
Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc<sup>2</sup>:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html</ref>
Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.

—Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University

You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.

—Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University

{{
Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc<sup>2</sup>:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html</ref>
Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.

—Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University

You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.

—Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University

{{
cquote|It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}
cquote|It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:50:23 GMT (edit by Conservative)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Rain:

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 13:50, 26 March 2012
Line 537: Line 537:
::::Nate (and CPalmer), One of the biggest promoters of the Question evolution campaign on the internet is a Roman Catholic and he did it due a request of mine (I have a cordial relationship with this person). Correct me if I am wrong, but no Pope has spoken ex-cathedra on behalf of the macroevolution issue. And we both know that a Pope never will given the absence of compelling evidence for macroevolutionary thought and all the evidence contrary to it. :) Conservative 09:23, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::Nate (and CPalmer), One of the biggest promoters of the Question evolution campaign on the internet is a Roman Catholic and he did it due a request of mine (I have a cordial relationship with this person). Correct me if I am wrong, but no Pope has spoken ex-cathedra on behalf of the macroevolution issue. And we both know that a Pope never will given the absence of compelling evidence for macroevolutionary thought and all the evidence contrary to it. :) Conservative 09:23, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
CPalmer, Nate is the one who is contending with me and I see no problem with spirited rejoinders and theological debate at a wiki. Christianity certainly have a history of spirited debate. Martin Luther was certainly not a shrinking violet. I see no reason for squelching a debate concerning Protestantism/Catholicism relative to biblical creation. Conservative 09:23, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
CPalmer, Nate is the one who is contending with me and I see no problem with spirited rejoinders and theological debate at a wiki. Christianity certainly have a history of spirited debate. Martin Luther was certainly not a shrinking violet. I see no reason for squelching a debate concerning Protestantism/Catholicism relative to biblical creation. Conservative 09:23, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
::CPalmer, I am certainly not anti-rain. :)  I merely quoted the verse to demonstrate the point that God is involved to some degree in weather/rain. The degree of involvement is not a matter I want to discuss at this point but the accounts of Noah, Elijah and the words/actions of Christ himself bolsters the view that God influences weather.  There are plenty of verses in the Bible to support this view. Conservative 09:50, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
== Has the scope of Conservapedia changed? ==
== Has the scope of Conservapedia changed? ==
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:49:53 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

some clean up, including restoring observation that no <a href="/Nobel_Prize" title="Nobel Prize">Nobel Prize</a> was awarded for a particular claim

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 13:49, 26 March 2012
Line 3: Line 3:
Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis.
Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis.
-
Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of gravity.[Citation Needed] In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity.  Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge.
+
Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of gravity. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity.  Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge.
For more than a century, the claim that E=mc<sup>2</sup> has never yielded anything of value.  Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the lamestream media. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons, and in the study of antimatter.<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc<sup>2</sup>." October 11, 2005. PBS NOVA. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref>
For more than a century, the claim that E=mc<sup>2</sup> has never yielded anything of value.  Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the lamestream media. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons, and in the study of antimatter.<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc<sup>2</sup>." October 11, 2005. PBS NOVA. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref>
-
The Theory of Relativity has never been able to derive E=mc<sup>2</sup> from first principles, and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh..79..591H</ref>
+
The Theory of Relativity has never been able to derive E=mc<sup>2</sup>, and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh..79..591H</ref>
-
One aspect of the formula is that radiation has a mass equivalence, which was correctly derived by Henri Poincare in 1904:<ref>http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-42-8-540</ref>  
+
At most, radiation has a mass equivalence, which was correctly derived by Henri Poincare in 1904:<ref>http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-42-8-540</ref>  
The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).

—Herbert Ives, 1952

The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).

—Herbert Ives, 1952

Line 38: Line 38:
Accurate measurements and detailed calculations allowed for verifying the theoretical values with an accuracy of ±0.5%. This was the first time a nucleus was artificially split, and thereby the first transmutation of elements using accelerated particles:
Accurate measurements and detailed calculations allowed for verifying the theoretical values with an accuracy of ±0.5%. This was the first time a nucleus was artificially split, and thereby the first transmutation of elements using accelerated particles:
-
Some claim that the best empirical verification of E=mc<sup>2</sup> was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville et al., as published in Nature (which is not a leading physics journal).<ref>Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005) doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref>  The authors state in their article in Nature magazine that "Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−Δmc²/E=(−1.4±4.4)×10<sup>−7</sup>, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described."
+
Some claim that the best empirical verification of E=mc<sup>2</sup> was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville et al., as published in Nature (which is not a leading physics journal).<ref>Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005) doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref>  The authors state in their article in Nature magazine that "Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−Δmc²/E=(−1.4±4.4)×10<sup>−7</sup>, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described." But no Nobel Prize has been awarded for this claimed achievement.
==An Isolated Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium==
==An Isolated Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium==
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:45:39 GMT (edit by Cyclofile)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Has the scope of Conservapedia changed?: new section

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 13:45, 26 March 2012
Line 537: Line 537:
::::Nate (and CPalmer), One of the biggest promoters of the Question evolution campaign on the internet is a Roman Catholic and he did it due a request of mine (I have a cordial relationship with this person). Correct me if I am wrong, but no Pope has spoken ex-cathedra on behalf of the macroevolution issue. And we both know that a Pope never will given the absence of compelling evidence for macroevolutionary thought and all the evidence contrary to it. :) Conservative 09:23, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::Nate (and CPalmer), One of the biggest promoters of the Question evolution campaign on the internet is a Roman Catholic and he did it due a request of mine (I have a cordial relationship with this person). Correct me if I am wrong, but no Pope has spoken ex-cathedra on behalf of the macroevolution issue. And we both know that a Pope never will given the absence of compelling evidence for macroevolutionary thought and all the evidence contrary to it. :) Conservative 09:23, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
CPalmer, Nate is the one who is contending with me and I see no problem with spirited rejoinders and theological debate at a wiki. Christianity certainly have a history of spirited debate. Martin Luther was certainly not a shrinking violet. I see no reason for squelching a debate concerning Protestantism/Catholicism relative to biblical creation. Conservative 09:23, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
CPalmer, Nate is the one who is contending with me and I see no problem with spirited rejoinders and theological debate at a wiki. Christianity certainly have a history of spirited debate. Martin Luther was certainly not a shrinking violet. I see no reason for squelching a debate concerning Protestantism/Catholicism relative to biblical creation. Conservative 09:23, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Has the scope of Conservapedia changed? ==
 +
 +
Hello Conservapedians. I'm a new user here, altough I follow Conservapedia for some time. Mainly  for my interest for different internet encyclopedias. However, I remember coming here, some years back at this site, it looked more or less like a regular encyclopedia. Some news, some featured articles on the frontpage etc etc. Nowadays the frontpage, seems to be a one-issue anti-evolutionist-campain folder. To my humble opinion this is a pity. It would be so much nicer if there would be a bigger variation in featered articles and less emphasis on only 1 subject. If I look at "recent changes" I see that most edits are not done in the enclopedic article, but more in debate-topics. Are there more users who noticed this change and might the be a threat for the popularity of this encyclopedia? I think a real encyclopedia could be a true conservative major competitor for Wikipedia. The way it looks now, it doesn't resemble an encyclopedia. But that is just my observation as an oustander.
 +
Furthermore I would like to excuse myself for my language. As you have probably noticed english is not my mother-tongue. Understanding however is no problem at all. Cyclofile 09:45, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:41:02 GMT (edit by Karajou)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Reverted edits by <a href="/Special:Contributions/JohnMarley" title="Special:Contributions/JohnMarley">JohnMarley</a> (<a href="/index.php?title=User_talk:JohnMarley&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="User talk:JohnMarley (page does not exist)">talk</a>) to last revision by <a href="/User:AugustO" title="User:AugustO">AugustO</a>

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 13:41, 26 March 2012
Line 82: Line 82:
No, I can't. Frankly, I don't see the clarity in this piece: at the moment, it is still sadly missing. So I hope, that Aschlafly taking care of the fact-tags (other then trimming them away) will add to this clarity! AugustO 09:13, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
No, I can't. Frankly, I don't see the clarity in this piece: at the moment, it is still sadly missing. So I hope, that Aschlafly taking care of the fact-tags (other then trimming them away) will add to this clarity! AugustO 09:13, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
-
 
-
== Seriously Andy... ==
 
-
 
-
If you don't have any working knowledge on a subject, just say so. Please don't embarrass yourself by saying things like E=mc^2 is liberal claptrap. JohnMarley 09:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:40:54 GMT (edit by Karajou)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User:JohnMarley</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

blocked [[<a href="/index.php?title=User:JohnMarley&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new mw-userlink" title="User:JohnMarley (page does not exist)">JohnMarley</a> (<a href="/index.php?title=User_talk:JohnMarley&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="User talk:JohnMarley (page does not exist)">Talk</a> | <a href="/Special:Contributions/JohnMarley" title="Special:Contributions/JohnMarley">contribs</a>)]] with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) Sockpuppet/Abusing multiple accounts: bye again

 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:40:31 GMT (edit by JohnMarley)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Seriously Andy...: new section

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 13:40, 26 March 2012
Line 82: Line 82:
No, I can't. Frankly, I don't see the clarity in this piece: at the moment, it is still sadly missing. So I hope, that Aschlafly taking care of the fact-tags (other then trimming them away) will add to this clarity! AugustO 09:13, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
No, I can't. Frankly, I don't see the clarity in this piece: at the moment, it is still sadly missing. So I hope, that Aschlafly taking care of the fact-tags (other then trimming them away) will add to this clarity! AugustO 09:13, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Seriously Andy... ==
 +
 +
If you don't have any working knowledge on a subject, just say so. Please don't embarrass yourself by saying things like E=mc^2 is liberal claptrap. JohnMarley 09:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:40:11 GMT (edit by Conservative)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Rain:

← Older revision Revision as of 13:40, 26 March 2012
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:19:58 GMT (edit by JMR10)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Willem de Kooning</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 13:19, 26 March 2012
Line 1: Line 1:
-
Willem de Kooning
+
Willem de Kooning
 +
Willem de Kooning (1904-1997) was an Abstract Expressionist painter. He emigrated from theNetherlands to the United States in 1926. There he had the influence of Arshile Gorky. He became one of the leading exponents of Abstract Expressionism and particularly of "Action Painting".
-
Willem de Kooning (1904-1997) was an Abstract Expressionist painter. He emigrated from theNetherlands to the United States in 1926.  
+
<blockquote>
 +
De Kooning constantly experimented, never content within the boundaries of the Abstract Expressionist movement that he became synonymous with. He was forever engaged with the idea of the figure, relentlessly challenging himself to address it in new ways. [22]
 +
</blockquote>
-
De Kooning is best known for the painting Woman V, which took two years to complete. He and Jackson Pollock were both important figures in the Abstract-Expressionist school. De Kooning suffered from alcoholism his entire life.
+
De Kooning is best known for the painting Woman V (part of a series of images of women), which took two years to complete. He and Jackson Pollock were both important figures in the Abstract-Expressionist school. His later work showed an increasing preoccupation with landscape. [23]
 +
 
 +
De Kooning suffered from alcoholism his entire life.
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:19:50 GMT (edit by MBluth)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User:MBluth</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

New user account

 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:14:31 GMT (edit by CPalmer)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Rain: rain

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 13:14, 26 March 2012
Line 531: Line 531:
By the way, your church hierarchy was wrong in the Galileo affair as well. The funny thing is that some prideful Catholics still can't get over the fact that the church was wrong in the Galileo affair as evidenced by the Catholic Robert Sungenis, Ph.D. who maintains that Galileo was wrong and the RCC was right as can be seen HERE. The Roman Catholic Church at the time of the Galileo affair was so enthralled by Aristotle (who was a mere man) that they blew it in the Galileo affair.[24][25]  History has a way of repeating itself and now the post 1950s liberal Roman Catholic Church is a follower of Darwinism via its ideological cousin theistic evolution. Conservative 06:54, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
By the way, your church hierarchy was wrong in the Galileo affair as well. The funny thing is that some prideful Catholics still can't get over the fact that the church was wrong in the Galileo affair as evidenced by the Catholic Robert Sungenis, Ph.D. who maintains that Galileo was wrong and the RCC was right as can be seen HERE. The Roman Catholic Church at the time of the Galileo affair was so enthralled by Aristotle (who was a mere man) that they blew it in the Galileo affair.[26][27]  History has a way of repeating itself and now the post 1950s liberal Roman Catholic Church is a follower of Darwinism via its ideological cousin theistic evolution. Conservative 06:54, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
 +
:The above seems unduly anti-Catholic.
 +
:"The rain it raineth on the just and on the unjust." I don't think bad weather at any event, no matter how atheistic, can be considered evidence of God's disapproval. It would be more pertinent to ask, if all these atheists are so scientifically minded, why they couldn't plan their event to avoid the rain.
 +
:(Of course, in the biblical context, rain is a good, life-giving event, and the original point of the verse is that good things happen to bad people, not vice versa.)--CPalmer 09:14, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:13:59 GMT (edit by AugustO)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Some points:

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 13:13, 26 March 2012
Line 80: Line 80:
::::: OK. But bear in mind that this page clearly exists to provide a counterweight to certain liberal views. To do that, clarity of message is needed, and a "citation needed" banner has a deflating effect on the strength of that clarity. So perhaps you could suggest a wording that might be acceptable without the "citation needed" bit?--CPalmer 09:03, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::: OK. But bear in mind that this page clearly exists to provide a counterweight to certain liberal views. To do that, clarity of message is needed, and a "citation needed" banner has a deflating effect on the strength of that clarity. So perhaps you could suggest a wording that might be acceptable without the "citation needed" bit?--CPalmer 09:03, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
 +
No, I can't. Frankly, I don't see the clarity in this piece: at the moment, it is still sadly missing. So I hope, that Aschlafly taking care of the fact-tags (other then trimming them away) will add to this clarity! AugustO 09:13, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:05:11 GMT (edit by JMR10)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Willem de Kooning</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

See also:

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 13:05, 26 March 2012
Line 11: Line 11:
-
 
<br>
<br>
Woman V Woman V
Woman V Woman V
 +
 +
== External links ==
 +
 +
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:03:08 GMT (edit by CPalmer)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Some points: clarity

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 13:03, 26 March 2012
Line 78: Line 78:
::::Aschlafly writes: Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of gravity. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity.
::::Aschlafly writes: Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of gravity. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity.
::::E=mc&sup2; isn't about gravity, to invoke it here is a deflection. AugustO 08:49, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::E=mc&sup2; isn't about gravity, to invoke it here is a deflection. AugustO 08:49, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
 +
::::: OK. But bear in mind that this page clearly exists to provide a counterweight to certain liberal views. To do that, clarity of message is needed, and a "citation needed" banner has a deflating effect on the strength of that clarity. So perhaps you could suggest a wording that might be acceptable without the "citation needed" bit?--CPalmer 09:03, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:59:38 GMT (edit by Conservative)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Rain:

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 12:59, 26 March 2012
Line 528: Line 528:
:::::Burn? --JoshuaB 01:21, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::Burn? --JoshuaB 01:21, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::Your pridefulness is damaging this website's credibility and would be embarrassing to a well man. I sincerely hope you get good care. I feel so badly for you. Nate 02:27, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::Your pridefulness is damaging this website's credibility and would be embarrassing to a well man. I sincerely hope you get good care. I feel so badly for you. Nate 02:27, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
-
Nate, what you feel sorry for is your bloated stubborn pride which hates being shown that you and your liberal Roman Catholic Church (RCC) are wrong on an issue and you get very angry when this occurs.  The mere thought that you and your scandal ridden post 1950s liberal church hierarchy could be wrong on an issue is intolerable to you and your embarrassing undisciplined and vitriolic rant on your user page which you took down is evidence of this. Of course, we both know that what I am saying is true in this case as evidenced by you not being able to satisfactorily the 15 questions for evolutionists.   
+
Nate, what you feel sorry for is your bloated stubborn pride which hates being shown that you and your post 1960s liberal Roman Catholic Church (RCC) are wrong on an issue and you get very angry when this occurs.  The mere thought that you and your scandal ridden post 1950s liberal church hierarchy could be wrong on an issue is intolerable to you and your embarrassing undisciplined and vitriolic rant on your user page which you took down is evidence of this. Of course, we both know that what I am saying is true in this case as evidenced by you not being able to satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists.   
-
By the way, your church hierarchy was wrong in the Galileo affair as well. The funny thing is that some prideful Catholics still can't get over the fact that the church was wrong in the Galileo affair as evidenced by the Catholic Robert Sungenis, Ph.D. who maintains that Galileo was wrong and the RCC was right as can be seen HERE. The Roman Catholic Church at the time of the Galileo affair was so enthralled by Aristotle (who was a mere man) that they blew it in the Galileo affair.[28][29]  History has a way of repeating itself and now the post 1960s liberal Roman Catholic Church is a follower of Darwinism via its ideological cousin theistic evolution. Conservative 06:54, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
+
By the way, your church hierarchy was wrong in the Galileo affair as well. The funny thing is that some prideful Catholics still can't get over the fact that the church was wrong in the Galileo affair as evidenced by the Catholic Robert Sungenis, Ph.D. who maintains that Galileo was wrong and the RCC was right as can be seen HERE. The Roman Catholic Church at the time of the Galileo affair was so enthralled by Aristotle (who was a mere man) that they blew it in the Galileo affair.[30][31]  History has a way of repeating itself and now the post 1950s liberal Roman Catholic Church is a follower of Darwinism via its ideological cousin theistic evolution. Conservative 06:54, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:54:14 GMT (edit by Karajou)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User:DrePearcy160</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

blocked [[<a href="/index.php?title=User:DrePearcy160&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new mw-userlink" title="User:DrePearcy160 (page does not exist)">DrePearcy160</a> (<a href="/index.php?title=User_talk:DrePearcy160&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="User talk:DrePearcy160 (page does not exist)">Talk</a> | <a href="/Special:Contributions/DrePearcy160" title="Special:Contributions/DrePearcy160">contribs</a>)]] with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) spam account

 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:49:56 GMT (edit by AugustO)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Some points:

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 12:49, 26 March 2012
Line 75: Line 75:
:::But they always are the same, aren't they? I don't see why knowing or not knowing the reason (yet) has any bearing on the question.--CPalmer 08:43, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::But they always are the same, aren't they? I don't see why knowing or not knowing the reason (yet) has any bearing on the question.--CPalmer 08:43, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
 +
::::Aschlafly writes: Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of gravity. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity.
 +
::::E=mc&sup2; isn't about gravity, to invoke it here is a deflection. AugustO 08:49, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:47:54 GMT (edit by Karajou)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User:Brkokko91</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

blocked [[<a href="/index.php?title=User:Brkokko91&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new mw-userlink" title="User:Brkokko91 (page does not exist)">Brkokko91</a> (<a href="/index.php?title=User_talk:Brkokko91&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="User talk:Brkokko91 (page does not exist)">Talk</a> | <a href="/Special:Contributions/Brkokko91" title="Special:Contributions/Brkokko91">contribs</a>)]] with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation disabled) multiple accounts, spam

 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:52:39 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User:R0288602</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

blocked [[<a href="/index.php?title=User:R0288602&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new mw-userlink" title="User:R0288602 (page does not exist)">R0288602</a> (<a href="/index.php?title=User_talk:R0288602&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="User talk:R0288602 (page does not exist)">Talk</a> | <a href="/Special:Contributions/R0288602" title="Special:Contributions/R0288602">contribs</a>)]] with an expiry time of 1 year (autoblock disabled) user name policy: please consider recreating your account with a real first name and last initial

 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:52:35 GMT (edit by Cyclofile)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Global warming</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Reported effects of Climate Change: keep it serious

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 14:52, 26 March 2012
Line 370: Line 370:
* Tiger Attacks.<ref>Global Warming Linked to Indian Tiger Attacks, Reuters, Mon Oct 20, 2008</ref>  
* Tiger Attacks.<ref>Global Warming Linked to Indian Tiger Attacks, Reuters, Mon Oct 20, 2008</ref>  
-
* Shark attacks.<ref>Johnston, Shark attack on boat result of global warming Augsut 31, 1998, Electronic Telegraph (U.K.)</ref>
+
* Shark attacks.<ref>Johnston, Shark attack on boat result of global warming Augsut 31, 1998, Electronic Telegraph (U.K.)</ref>  
-
 
+
-
* Walrus stampede deaths.<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1939754/posts Global warming is blamed for walrus stampede deaths, Associated Press - December 14, 2007</ref> 
+
-
 
+
-
* Imminent cannibalism.<ref>Ted Turner, April 1, 2008, Charlie Rose PBS show</ref> 
+
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:01:23 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

replies

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 15:01, 26 March 2012
Line 89: Line 89:
:The quotes (and others that could be added) illustrate how meaningless the formula is.--Andy Schlafly 10:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:The quotes (and others that could be added) illustrate how meaningless the formula is.--Andy Schlafly 10:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::The quotes illustrate how difficult it is to explain the concept to a layman. Take a look here, where you can find the quotes in context. AugustO 10:16, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::The quotes illustrate how difficult it is to explain the concept to a layman. Take a look here, where you can find the quotes in context. AugustO 10:16, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
 +
:::The quotes were solicited to describe the meaning of the equation to laymen, not to illustrate how difficult that is.  The difficulty arises from the meaningless nature of the equation.--Andy Schlafly 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
== Aschlafly, could you give us... ==
== Aschlafly, could you give us... ==
Line 97: Line 99:
If you don't address the results of the actual experiments, all your claims are just meaningless verbiage.
If you don't address the results of the actual experiments, all your claims are just meaningless verbiage.
AugustO 10:39, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
AugustO 10:39, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
 +
:Cockcroft (please spell his name correctly) does not even cite E=mc<sup>2</sup> in his Nobel lecture.--Andy Schlafly 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:03:26 GMT (edit by Cyclofile)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Netherlands</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

incorrect number

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 15:03, 26 March 2012
Line 22: Line 22:
The Netherlands (Dutch: Nederland) is a country in the European Union in northwestern Europe, north of Belgium and France. It is a part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Koninkrijk der Nederlanden). It is bordered by Belgium and Germany, and has a total population of 16.5 million (2009). Its system of government is constitutional monarchy. The country is often referred to as "Holland", this was originally the name of two densely populated provinces of the country (North-Holland and South-Holland), the cities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague all lie in these provinces that have always been the most influential regions in the Netherlands. The official language is Dutch and the people are referred to in English as Dutchmen or collectively as the Dutch.
The Netherlands (Dutch: Nederland) is a country in the European Union in northwestern Europe, north of Belgium and France. It is a part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Koninkrijk der Nederlanden). It is bordered by Belgium and Germany, and has a total population of 16.5 million (2009). Its system of government is constitutional monarchy. The country is often referred to as "Holland", this was originally the name of two densely populated provinces of the country (North-Holland and South-Holland), the cities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague all lie in these provinces that have always been the most influential regions in the Netherlands. The official language is Dutch and the people are referred to in English as Dutchmen or collectively as the Dutch.
-
The major ethnic groups in the Netherlands are Dutch 94%, Surinamese 2%, Asians 2% and others 2%.
+
The major ethnic groups in the Netherlands are Dutch 94%, Surinamese 2% and others 2%.
==Dike system==
==Dike system==
The term "Netherlands" means "low country," and it is a very low-lying country. About a quarter of the land area, containing more than half of the population, is actually below sea level, and would flood if the sea were not held back by a system of dikes. The Dutch have a saying  that "God created the earth, but the Dutch made Holland".
The term "Netherlands" means "low country," and it is a very low-lying country. About a quarter of the land area, containing more than half of the population, is actually below sea level, and would flood if the sea were not held back by a system of dikes. The Dutch have a saying  that "God created the earth, but the Dutch made Holland".
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:02:57 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Global warming</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Reverted edits by <a href="/Special:Contributions/Cyclofile" title="Special:Contributions/Cyclofile">Cyclofile</a> (<a href="/index.php?title=User_talk:Cyclofile&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="User talk:Cyclofile (page does not exist)">talk</a>) to last revision by <a href="/User:Aschlafly" title="User:Aschlafly">Aschlafly</a>

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 15:02, 26 March 2012
Line 370: Line 370:
* Tiger Attacks.<ref>Global Warming Linked to Indian Tiger Attacks, Reuters, Mon Oct 20, 2008</ref>  
* Tiger Attacks.<ref>Global Warming Linked to Indian Tiger Attacks, Reuters, Mon Oct 20, 2008</ref>  
-
* Shark attacks.<ref>Johnston, Shark attack on boat result of global warming Augsut 31, 1998, Electronic Telegraph (U.K.)</ref>  
+
* Shark attacks.<ref>Johnston, Shark attack on boat result of global warming Augsut 31, 1998, Electronic Telegraph (U.K.)</ref>
 +
 
 +
* Walrus stampede deaths.<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1939754/posts Global warming is blamed for walrus stampede deaths, Associated Press - December 14, 2007</ref> 
 +
 
 +
* Imminent cannibalism.<ref>Ted Turner, April 1, 2008, Charlie Rose PBS show</ref> 
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:10:41 GMT (edit by FrederickT3)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Aschlafly, could you give us...:

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 15:10, 26 March 2012
Line 101: Line 101:
:Cockcroft (please spell his name correctly) does not even cite E=mc<sup>2</sup> in his Nobel lecture.--Andy Schlafly 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:Cockcroft (please spell his name correctly) does not even cite E=mc<sup>2</sup> in his Nobel lecture.--Andy Schlafly 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
::You don't think that it is implied by the quote that AugustO provided? --FrederickT3 11:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:03:49 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User talk:Cyclofile</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

The deletion of factual material is disfavored on Conservapedia. This isn't Wikipedia.

New page

The deletion of factual material is disfavored on Conservapedia. This isn't Wikipedia.--Andy Schlafly 11:03, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:14:15 GMT (edit by EricHalterman)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User:EricHalterman</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

New user account

 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:10:41 GMT (edit by FrederickT3)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Aschlafly, could you give us...:

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 15:10, 26 March 2012
Line 101: Line 101:
:Cockcroft (please spell his name correctly) does not even cite E=mc<sup>2</sup> in his Nobel lecture.--Andy Schlafly 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:Cockcroft (please spell his name correctly) does not even cite E=mc<sup>2</sup> in his Nobel lecture.--Andy Schlafly 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
::You don't think that it is implied by the quote that AugustO provided? --FrederickT3 11:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:03:49 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User talk:Cyclofile</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

The deletion of factual material is disfavored on Conservapedia. This isn't Wikipedia.

New page

The deletion of factual material is disfavored on Conservapedia. This isn't Wikipedia.--Andy Schlafly 11:03, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:03:26 GMT (edit by Cyclofile)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Netherlands</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

incorrect number

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 15:03, 26 March 2012
Line 22: Line 22:
The Netherlands (Dutch: Nederland) is a country in the European Union in northwestern Europe, north of Belgium and France. It is a part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Koninkrijk der Nederlanden). It is bordered by Belgium and Germany, and has a total population of 16.5 million (2009). Its system of government is constitutional monarchy. The country is often referred to as "Holland", this was originally the name of two densely populated provinces of the country (North-Holland and South-Holland), the cities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague all lie in these provinces that have always been the most influential regions in the Netherlands. The official language is Dutch and the people are referred to in English as Dutchmen or collectively as the Dutch.
The Netherlands (Dutch: Nederland) is a country in the European Union in northwestern Europe, north of Belgium and France. It is a part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Koninkrijk der Nederlanden). It is bordered by Belgium and Germany, and has a total population of 16.5 million (2009). Its system of government is constitutional monarchy. The country is often referred to as "Holland", this was originally the name of two densely populated provinces of the country (North-Holland and South-Holland), the cities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague all lie in these provinces that have always been the most influential regions in the Netherlands. The official language is Dutch and the people are referred to in English as Dutchmen or collectively as the Dutch.
-
The major ethnic groups in the Netherlands are Dutch 94%, Surinamese 2%, Asians 2% and others 2%.
+
The major ethnic groups in the Netherlands are Dutch 94%, Surinamese 2% and others 2%.
==Dike system==
==Dike system==
The term "Netherlands" means "low country," and it is a very low-lying country. About a quarter of the land area, containing more than half of the population, is actually below sea level, and would flood if the sea were not held back by a system of dikes. The Dutch have a saying  that "God created the earth, but the Dutch made Holland".
The term "Netherlands" means "low country," and it is a very low-lying country. About a quarter of the land area, containing more than half of the population, is actually below sea level, and would flood if the sea were not held back by a system of dikes. The Dutch have a saying  that "God created the earth, but the Dutch made Holland".
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:02:57 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Global warming</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Reverted edits by <a href="/Special:Contributions/Cyclofile" title="Special:Contributions/Cyclofile">Cyclofile</a> (<a href="/User_talk:Cyclofile" title="User talk:Cyclofile">talk</a>) to last revision by <a href="/User:Aschlafly" title="User:Aschlafly">Aschlafly</a>

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 15:02, 26 March 2012
Line 370: Line 370:
* Tiger Attacks.<ref>Global Warming Linked to Indian Tiger Attacks, Reuters, Mon Oct 20, 2008</ref>  
* Tiger Attacks.<ref>Global Warming Linked to Indian Tiger Attacks, Reuters, Mon Oct 20, 2008</ref>  
-
* Shark attacks.<ref>Johnston, Shark attack on boat result of global warming Augsut 31, 1998, Electronic Telegraph (U.K.)</ref>  
+
* Shark attacks.<ref>Johnston, Shark attack on boat result of global warming Augsut 31, 1998, Electronic Telegraph (U.K.)</ref>
 +
 
 +
* Walrus stampede deaths.<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1939754/posts Global warming is blamed for walrus stampede deaths, Associated Press - December 14, 2007</ref> 
 +
 
 +
* Imminent cannibalism.<ref>Ted Turner, April 1, 2008, Charlie Rose PBS show</ref> 
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:01:23 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

replies

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 15:01, 26 March 2012
Line 89: Line 89:
:The quotes (and others that could be added) illustrate how meaningless the formula is.--Andy Schlafly 10:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:The quotes (and others that could be added) illustrate how meaningless the formula is.--Andy Schlafly 10:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::The quotes illustrate how difficult it is to explain the concept to a layman. Take a look here, where you can find the quotes in context. AugustO 10:16, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::The quotes illustrate how difficult it is to explain the concept to a layman. Take a look here, where you can find the quotes in context. AugustO 10:16, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
 +
:::The quotes were solicited to describe the meaning of the equation to laymen, not to illustrate how difficult that is.  The difficulty arises from the meaningless nature of the equation.--Andy Schlafly 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
== Aschlafly, could you give us... ==
== Aschlafly, could you give us... ==
Line 97: Line 99:
If you don't address the results of the actual experiments, all your claims are just meaningless verbiage.
If you don't address the results of the actual experiments, all your claims are just meaningless verbiage.
AugustO 10:39, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
AugustO 10:39, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
 +
:Cockcroft (please spell his name correctly) does not even cite E=mc<sup>2</sup> in his Nobel lecture.--Andy Schlafly 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:52:35 GMT (edit by Cyclofile)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Global warming</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Reported effects of Climate Change: keep it serious

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 14:52, 26 March 2012
Line 370: Line 370:
* Tiger Attacks.<ref>Global Warming Linked to Indian Tiger Attacks, Reuters, Mon Oct 20, 2008</ref>  
* Tiger Attacks.<ref>Global Warming Linked to Indian Tiger Attacks, Reuters, Mon Oct 20, 2008</ref>  
-
* Shark attacks.<ref>Johnston, Shark attack on boat result of global warming Augsut 31, 1998, Electronic Telegraph (U.K.)</ref>
+
* Shark attacks.<ref>Johnston, Shark attack on boat result of global warming Augsut 31, 1998, Electronic Telegraph (U.K.)</ref>  
-
 
+
-
* Walrus stampede deaths.<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1939754/posts Global warming is blamed for walrus stampede deaths, Associated Press - December 14, 2007</ref> 
+
-
 
+
-
* Imminent cannibalism.<ref>Ted Turner, April 1, 2008, Charlie Rose PBS show</ref> 
+
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:15:25 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Aschlafly, could you give us...: No, I don't. E=mc<sup>2</sup> is supposedly a general truth of universal applicability. The case for it, if true, needs to be far stronger than what is quoted a

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 15:15, 26 March 2012
Line 102: Line 102:
:Cockcroft (please spell his name correctly) does not even cite E=mc<sup>2</sup> in his Nobel lecture.--Andy Schlafly 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:Cockcroft (please spell his name correctly) does not even cite E=mc<sup>2</sup> in his Nobel lecture.--Andy Schlafly 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::You don't think that it is implied by the quote that AugustO provided? --FrederickT3 11:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::You don't think that it is implied by the quote that AugustO provided? --FrederickT3 11:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
 +
:::No, I don't.  E=mc<sup>2</sup> is supposedly a general truth of universal applicability.  The case for it, if true, needs to be far stronger than what is quoted above.--Andy Schlafly 11:15, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:14:15 GMT (edit by EricHalterman)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User:EricHalterman</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

New user account

 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:23:03 GMT (edit by Cyclofile)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User talk:Cyclofile</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 15:23, 26 March 2012
Line 1: Line 1:
The deletion of factual material is disfavored on Conservapedia.  This isn't Wikipedia.--Andy Schlafly 11:03, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
The deletion of factual material is disfavored on Conservapedia.  This isn't Wikipedia.--Andy Schlafly 11:03, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
: I'm well aware this is not Wikipedia, but I can hardly call this removal of factual material. This are just not the official numers and this was neither sourced. Cyclofile 11:23, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:26:02 GMT (edit by AugustO)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Aschlafly, could you give us...:

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 15:26, 26 March 2012
Line 104: Line 104:
:::No, I don't.  E=mc<sup>2</sup> is supposedly a general truth of universal applicability.  The case for it, if true, needs to be far stronger than what is quoted above.--Andy Schlafly 11:15, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::No, I don't.  E=mc<sup>2</sup> is supposedly a general truth of universal applicability.  The case for it, if true, needs to be far stronger than what is quoted above.--Andy Schlafly 11:15, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
 +
From the lecture: It was obvious then that lithium was being disintegrated into two α-particles with a total energy release of 17.2 million volts. This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass
 +
units.
 +
 +
Aschlafly, your ignorance is showing:
 +
17.2 MeV /c&sup2; = 1.602*10<sup>-19</sup>kg m²/s² *17.2 *10<sup>9</sup>/(3*10<sup>8</sup> m/s)² = 3.0616 * 10<sup>-29</sup>kg = 0.0184 amu
 +
AugustO 11:26, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:23:03 GMT (edit by Cyclofile)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User talk:Cyclofile</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 15:23, 26 March 2012
Line 1: Line 1:
The deletion of factual material is disfavored on Conservapedia.  This isn't Wikipedia.--Andy Schlafly 11:03, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
The deletion of factual material is disfavored on Conservapedia.  This isn't Wikipedia.--Andy Schlafly 11:03, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
: I'm well aware this is not Wikipedia, but I can hardly call this removal of factual material. This are just not the official numers and this was neither sourced. Cyclofile 11:23, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:15:25 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Aschlafly, could you give us...: No, I don't. E=mc<sup>2</sup> is supposedly a general truth of universal applicability. The case for it, if true, needs to be far stronger than what is quoted a

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 15:15, 26 March 2012
Line 102: Line 102:
:Cockcroft (please spell his name correctly) does not even cite E=mc<sup>2</sup> in his Nobel lecture.--Andy Schlafly 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:Cockcroft (please spell his name correctly) does not even cite E=mc<sup>2</sup> in his Nobel lecture.--Andy Schlafly 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::You don't think that it is implied by the quote that AugustO provided? --FrederickT3 11:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::You don't think that it is implied by the quote that AugustO provided? --FrederickT3 11:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
 +
:::No, I don't.  E=mc<sup>2</sup> is supposedly a general truth of universal applicability.  The case for it, if true, needs to be far stronger than what is quoted above.--Andy Schlafly 11:15, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:26:54 GMT (edit by Cyclofile)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User talk:Cyclofile</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 15:26, 26 March 2012
Line 1: Line 1:
The deletion of factual material is disfavored on Conservapedia.  This isn't Wikipedia.--Andy Schlafly 11:03, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
The deletion of factual material is disfavored on Conservapedia.  This isn't Wikipedia.--Andy Schlafly 11:03, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
: I'm well aware this is not Wikipedia, but I can hardly call this removal of factual material. This are just not the official numers and this was neither sourced. Cyclofile 11:23, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
: I'm well aware this is not Wikipedia, but I can hardly call this removal of factual material. This are just not the official numers and this was neither sourced. Cyclofile 11:23, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
:: I'm sorry, I was mistaken. I thought you ment the ethnic numbers in the Netherlands. Instead you meant that I removed the walrus stampede. OK that was sourced, but I don't think that walrus stampeds are generally seriously are called as a result of global heating. I don't now of this remarks deserve a place in a serious encyclopedia. Cyclofile 11:26, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:29:36 GMT (edit by AugustO)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Aschlafly, could you give us...:

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 15:29, 26 March 2012
(One intermediate revision not shown)
Line 110: Line 110:
Aschlafly, your ignorance is showing:
Aschlafly, your ignorance is showing:
17.2 MeV /c&sup2; = 1.602*10<sup>-19</sup>kg m²/s² *17.2 *10<sup>9</sup>/(3*10<sup>8</sup> m/s)² = 3.0616 * 10<sup>-29</sup>kg = 0.0184 amu
17.2 MeV /c&sup2; = 1.602*10<sup>-19</sup>kg m²/s² *17.2 *10<sup>9</sup>/(3*10<sup>8</sup> m/s)² = 3.0616 * 10<sup>-29</sup>kg = 0.0184 amu
 +
 +
In fact as this is such a general truth of universal applicability,  J. Cockroft could take it for granted that his scientifically literate audience would be able to make this calculation.
AugustO 11:26, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
AugustO 11:26, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:31:35 GMT (edit by Cyclofile)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Netherlands</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

different numbers

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 15:31, 26 March 2012
Line 22: Line 22:
The Netherlands (Dutch: Nederland) is a country in the European Union in northwestern Europe, north of Belgium and France. It is a part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Koninkrijk der Nederlanden). It is bordered by Belgium and Germany, and has a total population of 16.5 million (2009). Its system of government is constitutional monarchy. The country is often referred to as "Holland", this was originally the name of two densely populated provinces of the country (North-Holland and South-Holland), the cities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague all lie in these provinces that have always been the most influential regions in the Netherlands. The official language is Dutch and the people are referred to in English as Dutchmen or collectively as the Dutch.
The Netherlands (Dutch: Nederland) is a country in the European Union in northwestern Europe, north of Belgium and France. It is a part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Koninkrijk der Nederlanden). It is bordered by Belgium and Germany, and has a total population of 16.5 million (2009). Its system of government is constitutional monarchy. The country is often referred to as "Holland", this was originally the name of two densely populated provinces of the country (North-Holland and South-Holland), the cities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague all lie in these provinces that have always been the most influential regions in the Netherlands. The official language is Dutch and the people are referred to in English as Dutchmen or collectively as the Dutch.
-
The major ethnic groups in the Netherlands are Dutch 94%, Surinamese 2% and others 2%.
+
The major ethnic groups in the Netherlands are Dutch 85%, Indonesian 2.3%, German 2.3%, Turkish 2.3%, Maroccan 2,1% and Surinamese 2,1%..
==Dike system==
==Dike system==
The term "Netherlands" means "low country," and it is a very low-lying country. About a quarter of the land area, containing more than half of the population, is actually below sea level, and would flood if the sea were not held back by a system of dikes. The Dutch have a saying  that "God created the earth, but the Dutch made Holland".
The term "Netherlands" means "low country," and it is a very low-lying country. About a quarter of the land area, containing more than half of the population, is actually below sea level, and would flood if the sea were not held back by a system of dikes. The Dutch have a saying  that "God created the earth, but the Dutch made Holland".
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:29:36 GMT (edit by AugustO)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Aschlafly, could you give us...:

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 15:29, 26 March 2012
(One intermediate revision not shown)
Line 110: Line 110:
Aschlafly, your ignorance is showing:
Aschlafly, your ignorance is showing:
17.2 MeV /c&sup2; = 1.602*10<sup>-19</sup>kg m²/s² *17.2 *10<sup>9</sup>/(3*10<sup>8</sup> m/s)² = 3.0616 * 10<sup>-29</sup>kg = 0.0184 amu
17.2 MeV /c&sup2; = 1.602*10<sup>-19</sup>kg m²/s² *17.2 *10<sup>9</sup>/(3*10<sup>8</sup> m/s)² = 3.0616 * 10<sup>-29</sup>kg = 0.0184 amu
 +
 +
In fact as this is such a general truth of universal applicability,  J. Cockroft could take it for granted that his scientifically literate audience would be able to make this calculation.
AugustO 11:26, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
AugustO 11:26, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:26:54 GMT (edit by Cyclofile)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User talk:Cyclofile</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 15:26, 26 March 2012
Line 1: Line 1:
The deletion of factual material is disfavored on Conservapedia.  This isn't Wikipedia.--Andy Schlafly 11:03, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
The deletion of factual material is disfavored on Conservapedia.  This isn't Wikipedia.--Andy Schlafly 11:03, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
: I'm well aware this is not Wikipedia, but I can hardly call this removal of factual material. This are just not the official numers and this was neither sourced. Cyclofile 11:23, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
: I'm well aware this is not Wikipedia, but I can hardly call this removal of factual material. This are just not the official numers and this was neither sourced. Cyclofile 11:23, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
:: I'm sorry, I was mistaken. I thought you ment the ethnic numbers in the Netherlands. Instead you meant that I removed the walrus stampede. OK that was sourced, but I don't think that walrus stampeds are generally seriously are called as a result of global heating. I don't now of this remarks deserve a place in a serious encyclopedia. Cyclofile 11:26, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:26:02 GMT (edit by AugustO)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Aschlafly, could you give us...:

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 15:26, 26 March 2012
Line 104: Line 104:
:::No, I don't.  E=mc<sup>2</sup> is supposedly a general truth of universal applicability.  The case for it, if true, needs to be far stronger than what is quoted above.--Andy Schlafly 11:15, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::No, I don't.  E=mc<sup>2</sup> is supposedly a general truth of universal applicability.  The case for it, if true, needs to be far stronger than what is quoted above.--Andy Schlafly 11:15, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
 +
From the lecture: It was obvious then that lithium was being disintegrated into two α-particles with a total energy release of 17.2 million volts. This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass
 +
units.
 +
 +
Aschlafly, your ignorance is showing:
 +
17.2 MeV /c&sup2; = 1.602*10<sup>-19</sup>kg m²/s² *17.2 *10<sup>9</sup>/(3*10<sup>8</sup> m/s)² = 3.0616 * 10<sup>-29</sup>kg = 0.0184 amu
 +
AugustO 11:26, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:32:54 GMT (edit by BlackCat)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User talk:BlackCat</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Created page with "Hello, Dear Sir or Madam ! I wish you a pleasant read in this page, which is bound to become a battlefield, since my views do not reflect those of the majority here. I repeat tha..."

New page

Hello, Dear Sir or Madam ! I wish you a pleasant read in this page, which is bound to become a battlefield, since my views do not reflect those of the majority here. I repeat that my objective is discussion and neutrality, not war and POV. Have a nice stay !
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:31:56 GMT (edit by Cyclofile)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Netherlands</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 15:31, 26 March 2012
(One intermediate revision not shown)
Line 22: Line 22:
The Netherlands (Dutch: Nederland) is a country in the European Union in northwestern Europe, north of Belgium and France. It is a part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Koninkrijk der Nederlanden). It is bordered by Belgium and Germany, and has a total population of 16.5 million (2009). Its system of government is constitutional monarchy. The country is often referred to as "Holland", this was originally the name of two densely populated provinces of the country (North-Holland and South-Holland), the cities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague all lie in these provinces that have always been the most influential regions in the Netherlands. The official language is Dutch and the people are referred to in English as Dutchmen or collectively as the Dutch.
The Netherlands (Dutch: Nederland) is a country in the European Union in northwestern Europe, north of Belgium and France. It is a part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Koninkrijk der Nederlanden). It is bordered by Belgium and Germany, and has a total population of 16.5 million (2009). Its system of government is constitutional monarchy. The country is often referred to as "Holland", this was originally the name of two densely populated provinces of the country (North-Holland and South-Holland), the cities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague all lie in these provinces that have always been the most influential regions in the Netherlands. The official language is Dutch and the people are referred to in English as Dutchmen or collectively as the Dutch.
-
The major ethnic groups in the Netherlands are Dutch 94%, Surinamese 2% and others 2%.
+
The major ethnic groups in the Netherlands are Dutch 85%, Indonesian 2.3%, German 2.3%, Turkish 2.3%, Maroccan 2,1% and Surinamese 2,1%.
==Dike system==
==Dike system==
The term "Netherlands" means "low country," and it is a very low-lying country. About a quarter of the land area, containing more than half of the population, is actually below sea level, and would flood if the sea were not held back by a system of dikes. The Dutch have a saying  that "God created the earth, but the Dutch made Holland".
The term "Netherlands" means "low country," and it is a very low-lying country. About a quarter of the land area, containing more than half of the population, is actually below sea level, and would flood if the sea were not held back by a system of dikes. The Dutch have a saying  that "God created the earth, but the Dutch made Holland".
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:35:51 GMT (edit by CPalmer)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Aschlafly, could you give us...: clarity

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 15:35, 26 March 2012
Line 113: Line 113:
In fact as this is such a general truth of universal applicability,  J. Cockroft could take it for granted that his scientifically literate audience would be able to make this calculation.
In fact as this is such a general truth of universal applicability,  J. Cockroft could take it for granted that his scientifically literate audience would be able to make this calculation.
AugustO 11:26, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
AugustO 11:26, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
 +
:As a point of interest, were those figures measured directly, or was one of them calculated using the equation?--CPalmer 11:35, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:35:42 GMT (edit by RubinHendricks)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User:RubinHendricks</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

New user account

 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:37:31 GMT (edit by CPalmer)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Aschlafly, could you give us...: informative

<col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' />
← Older revision Revision as of 15:37, 26 March 2012
(One intermediate revision not shown)
Line 113: Line 113:
In fact as this is such a general truth of universal applicability,  J. Cockroft could take it for granted that his scientifically literate audience would be able to make this calculation.
In fact as this is such a general truth of universal applicability,  J. Cockroft could take it for granted that his scientifically literate audience would be able to make this calculation.
AugustO 11:26, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
AugustO 11:26, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
 +
:As a point of interest, were those figures measured directly, or was one of them calculated using the equation?--CPalmer 11:35, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 +
::Sorry, I have just read the article and my question is answered. Very informative!--CPalmer 11:37, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:35:42 GMT (edit by RubinHendricks)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User:RubinHendricks</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

New user account

 </body>

</html>

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:32:54 GMT (edit by BlackCat)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User talk:BlackCat</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Created page with "Hello, Dear Sir or Madam ! I wish you a pleasant read in this page, which is bound to become a battlefield, since my views do not reflect those of the majority here. I repeat tha..."

New page

Hello, Dear Sir or Madam ! I wish you a pleasant read in this page, which is bound to become a battlefield, since my views do not reflect those of the majority here. I repeat that my objective is discussion and neutrality, not war and POV. Have a nice stay !
 </body>

</html>

Personal tools