Debate:What is CP's position on Relativity? (and, in general, on physical sciences)
As the title says, I don't understand what CP says about relativity. For example, the pages Physics and Counterexamples to relativity are not coherent at all. The former describes the most important physical branches and conceptual frameworks, including relativity, saying for example "The Standard Model of particle physics has been extremely successful insofar as it has been tested" (please note that the standard model is a relativistic field theory). In fact, this page shows that relativity is a successful theory, just as Relativity does. On the other hand, the latter contains critical sentences on relativity, most of them without citations. Should or shouldn't CP be coherent? If the answer is positive, which of the two pages should be modified?
There is currently a sort of "debate" in this talk page: I'm proposing corrections (with citations and all that stuff) to sentences incorrect and without citations, but no one is answering and I was warned not to correct the page without "consensus". A lot of people in the past tried to correct that page (much more people than people defending that page), but the situation has not changed for an year or so, mining CP's credibility.
Andy says, "It is a statement that purports to relate all matter to energy. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism), and numerous attempts to derive E=mc² in general from first principles have failed. Political pressure, however, has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of this nonsensical equation. Simply put, E=mc² is liberal claptrap." I have not aware of anyone who believes that E=mc2 attempts to unify the laws governing mass with the laws governing light. Wschact 07:22, 12 February 2013 (EST)
- http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&oldid=1034200 February 12, 2013