Difference between revisions of "Talk:Essay:Quantifying Order"
From Conservapedia
(I'm urging you to look beyond what you're taught. I went through the same physics curriculum as others, and it is what isn't taught that matters. Earnestly.) |
(More Mercury matters, mainly) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:I'm urging you to look beyond what you're taught. I went through the same physics curriculum as others, and it is what isn't taught that matters. Earnestly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:53, 14 November 2009 (EST) | :I'm urging you to look beyond what you're taught. I went through the same physics curriculum as others, and it is what isn't taught that matters. Earnestly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:53, 14 November 2009 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::Okay. Let's find a way of making that point without quoting an incorrect value for the Mercury anomaly then? Cause putting in a number that's not actually supported by observations just to make a philosophical point seems kind of … I dunno. Deceptive? --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 17:58, 14 November 2009 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 22:58, November 14, 2009
"Subsequently, however, more accurate measurements with more sophisticated technology have determined this precession to be 55 arc-seconds per century, nearly 30% off the number provided by relativity."
Please provide a citation in the article for this. I'm shocked that I somehow missed the news. Thanks much. --KSorenson 17:48, 14 November 2009 (EST)
- I'm urging you to look beyond what you're taught. I went through the same physics curriculum as others, and it is what isn't taught that matters. Earnestly.--Andy Schlafly 17:53, 14 November 2009 (EST)
- Okay. Let's find a way of making that point without quoting an incorrect value for the Mercury anomaly then? Cause putting in a number that's not actually supported by observations just to make a philosophical point seems kind of … I dunno. Deceptive? --KSorenson 17:58, 14 November 2009 (EST)
