Talk:Main Page/Archive index/125

From Conservapedia
< Talk:Main Page‎ | Archive index
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Taj (Talk | contribs) at 01:30, 10 April 2013. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Speed of light

The main page right entry about the speed of light not being a constant misrepresents the article to which it links. The new scientific findings are that space is not as much of a vacuum as previously thought. The speed of light continues to be a constant in a true vacuum. Could you please change the item or delete it? Thanks, Wschact 14:48, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

Wschact, let me help you out. Scientist write papers that are dry, full of mushy tentative statements, and incomprehensible equations. Popular science periodicals take these papers and convert them into a format that is more digestible to the masses. This is accomplished by sacrificing some level of accuracy. Then the regular media takes those stories, dumbs them down even more, turns qualified statements into bold declarations, and does it all in the space of a few hundred words. Then Mr. Schlafly comes along, reads the headline, skims the rest, and you get... Conservapedia Proven Right! --DonnyC 15:15, 26 March 2013 (EDT)
Mr. DonnyC, I understand your point. However, the item cites a popular publication of the Roman Catholic Church which got it right -- space is not as much of a vacuum as scientists previously thought. The article does not cast doubt on the speed of light. Everyone knows that the light travels slower in dense media. That is how eyeglass lenses work. That is what makes rainbows. So, main page right is a very confused misreading of the article it cites. The headline is that scientists now understand that parts of space are less of a vacuum than previously believed. So, if someone could please fix this, it will save CP from any embarrassment. I don't want CP to be putting the Roman Catholic Church in a false light. Thanks, Wschact 16:08, 26 March 2013 (EDT)
Wschact, I understand your point in this specific instance. I was making a larger observation of the scientific coverage on this site, which is largely dictated by Mr. Schlafly. Andy holds passionate views on what scientific fields he is willing to accept or reject. I have yet to see him smack his forehead and go "Oh, my bad! Eating cake doesn't have anything to do with E=mc2! Let me correct that real quick." I'm not saying you're beating a dead horse... but I can't feel a pulse and the flies are getting thick. --DonnyC 17:50, 26 March 2013 (EDT)
Wschact, Andy is closer to correct than you are. The two new papers propose that a vacuum itself may impede light due to "virtual particles," created by quantum effects. It has nothing to do with space not being a perfect vacuum, which of course has been understood for a long time. The article that Andy cites oversimplifies this but the new findings do in fact suggest that the speed of light in a vacuum can vary slightly. Of course this only allows for the speed of light to be slower than c, not faster as could explain the starlight problem. MelH 19:31, 26 March 2013 (EDT)
In furtherance of Mel's point, the new scientific fact is that the speed of light does vary, contrary to what has been taught in textbooks for a century. Articles then speculate as possible reasons for this result, but the speculation is not scientific fact. Articles are cited here for their factual statements, not their liberal gloss.--Andy Schlafly 20:25, 26 March 2013 (EDT)
Andy, I find it interesting that you accept a portion of this non-experimentally verified hypothesis as "scientific fact", yet dismiss the speculations you don't like as "liberal gloss". --DonnyC 01:18, 27 March 2013 (EDT)
at least you got a reply - most criticisms / inconvenient facts go unanswered until they are convienently "trimmed." -EdgarP 01:30, 27 March 2013 (EDT)
CP has it right all along in its Snell's Law article which explains the speed of light varies in different medium. Everyone agrees that c is a constant, which has been measured to considerable precision, but whose "exact" value can not be obtained. Many thanks for the discussion. Wschact 05:56, 27 March 2013 (EDT)
It is speculation whether the variation of the speed of light in the recent scientific article is due to the "medium". Mel explained this above, yet the critics do not substantively address it.--Andy Schlafly 11:46, 27 March 2013 (EDT)
Andy is correct that there are two separate buckets: observed facts and theory. The speed of light in a perfect vacuum c is a theoretical number. The papers referenced by Mel point out that certain measurements regarding outer space have come up with a speed of light value that is 50 attoseconds per square meter of crossed vacuum slower than c. The correct conclusion regarding the facts is that the speed of light traveling in outer space may not be constant but rather might vary a tiny amount. The theoretical explanation is speculation regarding more particles in space than we previously thought or some new quantum effect. This is all interesting stuff which should probably be covered in our encyclopedia articles rather than just the main page. However, the main page item (1) does not accurately summarize the contents of the article and (2) sounds as if the author does not understand that the speed of light varies in different media. But this is your call, and I thank you for responding. Wschact 07:04, 28 March 2013 (EDT)
Sorry guys, but neither the article Mr. Schlafly posted nor the one from Mel say that a variation of the speed of light has been measured. In fact, the original paper states that quantum field theory, which is a relativistic theory by the way, suggests that due to quantum effects the speed of light could be slowed down and proposes that this prediction should be checked. After all this does not disprove Einstein. It only means that the vacuum creates its own kind of medium to slow light down. The theoretical speed of light c is still a constant. So there is no theoretical speculation about the origin of some measured effect but a prediction that arises from a fundamentally relativistic theory. Conservapedia has therefor not been proven right. JoeMal 10:46, 28 March 2013 (EDT)

Andrew Schlafly, are all the questions of Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness actually predictions? And what has the question "Do you think that it is impossible for the speed of light to have been different in the past? " to do with the article? --AugustO 10:57, 28 March 2013 (EDT)

Biden making a bigger debt for you

Biden likes to waste money. He is worse than Juliar Gillard, Commie Kevin and Wonky Wayne combined ! No wonder you have some much debt over in the states. Without the deceptions that where made by the narcissistic liar Obama america would be in a much better place right now Dvergne 10:57, 27 March 2013 (EDT)

Best of the public - I'm confused ...

Wouln'td almost all elite sports teams (and certainly the Chicago Bulls) be considered a group of experts rather than BotP? RyanFT 20:29, 28 March 2013 (EDT)

Not on the team of relatively obscure players who beat Miami.--Andy Schlafly 22:14, 28 March 2013 (EDT)
So BotP is relative? If a team with even more obscure players beat the Chicago Bulls in their next game, would they be BotP in that case? What would that make the Bulls in that case? RyanFT 03:02, 29 March 2013 (EDT)
Have to say this one completely blew me away. Relatively unknown? Derrick Rose won the mvp for the 10-11 season (granted he didn't play in this game) Noah an NCAA champion, Richard (RIP) Hamilton has at least one NBA ring. I mean really to call these guys the best of the public is flat out ridiculous.

From the best of the public article: Some confusion may exist over the difference between an "expert" and the "best of the public." The primary difference lies in the manner in which expertise is obtained. Most "experts" undergo highly specialized training, and in the process, become immersed in a sub-culture of like experts. Still sounds like the Chicago Bulls are experts to me RyanFT 01:51, 31 March 2013 (EDT)

Mr Schlafly? RyanFT 01:06, 1 April 2013 (EDT)

Good Friday a public holiday in only 14 states?

I'm genuinely shocked by that. It's a public holiday across Europe, with many events. London's Trafalgar Square, like many small towns in southern Europe, has a Passion Play this afternoon. Across Spain, there are processions for the dead Christ, including a very impressive one by the Legion (an elite unit of the Spanish Army) in Malaga. And so on across what is, according to some bloggers on MPR, a Darwinist cesspit. Royalty and politicians alike will attend public mass yesterday, today and on Sunday. So why isn't Easter, the most important Christian festival and far more important than Christmas, honoured more in the States? Rafael 09:42, 29 March 2013 (EDT)

Anyway, why does "secular" "atheistic" "Darwinist" Europe commemorate and celebrate Easter more publicly than the US? Rafael 18:33, 30 March 2013 (EDT)
Europeans like holidays and long vacations. Europeans who often avoid going to church are just fine with taking a day off from work.--Andy Schlafly 18:42, 30 March 2013 (EDT)
That is a bit shocking, I would have thought it would be a nationwide public holiday like it is here in Australia (as is Sunday and Monday, although Saturday is considered a public holiday not entirely sure it is officially recognized as one). Are many things open these days on Good Friday in America ? Pretty much everything is closed here in Australia on Good Friday, with even some of the 24 hour petrol stations being closed as well. I think maccas and the fish markets where just about the only places that where open on friday. Dvergne 23:15, 30 March 2013 (EDT)
Remarkably, Liberal British Columbia, has Good Friday as a statuary holiday. brenden 02:11, 31 March 2013 (EDT)

Great News

Less murders our local campaign has worked Dvergne 11:39, 29 March 2013 (EDT)

Good. Now all we need to do is criminalise it so that they can spend a couple of years in jail to think about what they've done. RyanFT 09:57, 30 March 2013 (EDT)

"Canada is funding opponents of an anti-homosexuality bill in Uganda"

(if this was posted already, please accept my apologies) The main argument which I can tell from your post, User:C, was that Canada has a below-replacement birth rate, therefore, by funding opponents of bigoted bills against homosexuals in Uganda, somehow, Canada, (me included) will be composed of a population of spinsters/old maids. Nevermind that Canada has a net population increase, through it's very welcoming, and tolerant immigration program, and a still fertile population, and that for the large part, all other westernized countries have already vigorously condemned the said bill. (Tl;dr: user:C, that is a patently ridiculous argument that you have inflicted on the main page of this encyclopedia, and I have just poked some very large holes in it, for you) brenden 02:10, 31 March 2013 (EDT)

Brendon, Russia is part of Western Civilization. Did Russia condemn the Uganda bill? As you can see HERE, the answer to that question is a big NYET! Second, men have higher rates of homosexuality than women and this helps cause there to be more spinsters.[1] You can run away from this fact, but you cannot hide. Third, many immigrants to Canada come from cultures which frown upon homosexuality. Conservative 09:41, 31 March 2013 (EDT)
"many immigrants to Canada come from cultures which frown upon homosexuality" Yes - and, rather than stay in those cultures, they've moved to Canada. Says something about their priorities, don't you think?--LuciaB 11:07, 1 April 2013 (EDT)
So people should be thrown in jail for disagreeing with your personal idiosyncratic views, none of which are supported by medical science? No wonder the people at Wikipedia couldn't put up with the bigoted stream of shit pouring forth from your keyboard.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yourmomssnatch (talk)

"My" so called "personal idiosyncratic views" has been the predominant view in the world for thousands of years! Male homosexuals need to man-up and help spinsters out! On the highway of love filled with wonderful women to pursue, they are driving backwards! Male homosexuals, the ladies are calling! Conservative 13:45, 31 March 2013 (EDT)

User:C, regarding your arguments in your first post, firstly, Canada still has a majority supporting homosexual marriage (66.4) , which is a good marker in terms of general acceptance of homosexuality in society. While the immigrants may indeed come from societies that frown upon homosexuality, these same immigrants understand Canada's culture of democracy, and equality, and have always voted overwhelmingly in favour of the equal rights for homosexuals. Regarding the views of Putin's government, it should be noted that his administration has been criticized more and more, internally, and externally. There are allegations of electoral fraud in the last election, resulting in widespread, often violent protests against his government. To say that Putin represents the Russian people would be a fallacy at best, and willful ignorance at worst. brenden 14:04, 31 March 2013 (EDT)
User:C, regarding your second post, (I missed that, oops!), I am quite satisfied with my personal affairs, thank you very much. As for your views being the predominant views for the past several thousand years (with the exception of ancient Greece, Japan, Mesopotamia, etc), keep in mind that commonly held truths may prove to be wrong in the future. It was common practice, in protestant Germany, and elsewhere in Europe, to persecute the Jewish population. Today, such views are considered anathema to the teachings of the Church, and of society, and as a result, is one of the least subscribed to political stances out there. brenden 14:09, 31 March 2013 (EDT)
Brendon, I helped a homeless person from Russia who needed my assistance. I got to eat Russian food and know about their culture. Russia is not a homosexuality loving place. Stop trying to bend reality to your wishful thinking. Conservative 14:15, 31 March 2013 (EDT)
You helped one person once and ate some food and so you know all about their culture? In which case I know all about French culture, South African culture, Australian culture, American culture, German culture, Botswanan culture, Zimbabwean culture, Dutch culture, Spanish culture, .... need I go on. Eating food and talking to someone does not educate you on their culture, it just makes you a decent person who helps the homeless, for which you should be commended. Davidspencer 14:51, 31 March 2013 (EDT)

Based on the hostility I've read in Conservative/"15 questions for evolutionists"' posts, that user seems to have the impression that a woman's worth is determined by the number of children she bears. This view, which is, frankly, insulting, is contrary to what the Catholic church teaches regarding the dignity of every human being (who is created in the image of God) and its support of chastity for religious and those with homosexual tendencies. (I should also add that Uganda's anti-homosexuality bill is contrary to what the Catholic church teaches regarding unjust discrimination against those with homosexual tendencies [CCC 2358].) GregG 14:15, 31 March 2013 (EDT)

User:C, I hardly think that providing facts is considered wishful thinking. [2] [3] brenden 14:36, 31 March 2013 (EDT)

GregG, whenever a liberal such as yourself talks about "impressions" he has about me/us, I/we know what is coming next, a non-existent or very weak case filled with speculation and animus. Second, the 15 questions for evolutionists are by nature hostile to you because you don't want to question your evolutionary nonsense and wish it were true. It isn't and we both know this. Conservative 20:04, 31 March 2013 (EDT)

Brendon, I notice you did not show any evidence that there is broad support for homosexuality in Russia. This was no mere accident. Conservative 20:04, 31 March 2013 (EDT)
You must be bitterly disappointed that the US seems to be heading in the opposite direction. In light of the thousands of words you've devoted to anti-gay screeds, I can't help but find this immensely funny. :) JohanZ 21:16, 31 March 2013 (EDT)
In what appears to be par for the course, you misread my carefully-written statement. I wrote
Based on the hostility I've read in Conservative/"15 questions for evolutionists"' posts, that user seems to have the impression that a woman's worth is determined by the number of children she bears.
Also, "a non-existent or very weak case filled with speculation and animus" seems to describe many of the posts by "15 questions for evolutionists," IMO. GregG 22:06, 31 March 2013 (EDT)
JohanZ, "You must be bitterly disappointed". A few points: 1) Why are you using the singular "you"? 2) What does the Bible say about the end times? Last time I/we checked the Bible says things will grow worse in the end times. So why would I/we be disappointed if conditions in the world grew worse? Hence, no disappointment 3) A student of history knows that all the empires of men eventually decline and moral decline usually proceeds other types of decline such as economic decline. The United States has 16 trillion dollars of federal government debt. 4) Christianity teaches that Christians are merely sojourners in the world and teaches Christians should be content with their present circumstances. Christians are filled with joy. They are realist who don't waste time with bitterness. 5) Are you bitterly disappointed that global atheism has a trend of shrinking in the world and that this will accelerate and have a significant impact in the West. Creationism is growing in the world - even in Europe.[4] 7) Countries and people that face adversity sometimes sober up in terms of their spiritual and moral decline. Like the story of the prodigal son. Given the debt load of America, it may soon face adversity. Plus, liberal institutions involved in indoctrination are showing growing weakness - more school vouchers, declining paper readership, liberal colleges closing, etc. Many of these institutions will face more adversity with declining federal/state/local government purses. 8) You don't know where I/we live nor what my/our future plans are in terms of location 9) It appears that some liberals, such as yourself, still don't know my/our purpose in writing the homosexuality article. 10) Armchair liberal psychology over the internet once again fails. Conservative 23:59, 31 March 2013 (EDT)
GregG, the blog contributor "15 questions for evolutionists" points out that global creationism is growing even in secular countries plus there are some significant things occurring in 2013 which will be further detrimental to Darwinism. So why would there be animus/bitterness? I think you are detecting the thrill of victory rather than the agony of defeat! Second, you haven't given any evidence showing the biblical creationism has a weak case nor have you or Kenneth Miller (your former hero) addressed the 15 questions for evolutionists.[5] Conservative 00:28, 1 April 2013 (EDT)
Conservative, your two posts above seem to be a bit off topic and also contain a few insults which I don't really think is appropriate for a conservative encyclopedia. I'm sure the atheists at wikipedia wouldn't tolerate such insults and insinuations. Dvergne 00:41, 1 April 2013 (EDT)
Cons. 1) What is a "singular you?" ("I gathered around, finally found, somebody who, could make me feel two, even a few..... Some others I've seen have to be mean; they think I'm a one but here is the fun, I'm really thirteen. Nobody else gives me the....oh what the heck! Sorry Judy (Garland). Seriously Cons. I have LP records I bought when I was fifteen that spent ten years catering for booze-ups in the tropics in the sixties and they don't sound as broken as your repeats on the same theme. GO SMELL THE ROSES OLD CHUM!! AlanE 01:35, 1 April 2013 (EDT)

AlanE, if I repeat things, it is because liberals are stubborn. :) Conservative 01:43, 1 April 2013 (EDT)

Some of us are Cons. Some of us are - but we are a varied breed and not all of us - indeed only a very few of us - are what you reckon us to be AlanE 01:49, 1 April 2013 (EDT)

The News the MSM isn't covering

It isn't more ad hominem nonsense from anonymous blogs.

It's not political gossip.

It isn't ramblings about Obama's birth certificate or paranoid fantasies about coups.

In three words:


Rafael 10:33, 31 March 2013 (EDT)

All liberals love taxes and try to raise them. All liberals love government regulation and its attendant forms to fill out. Think of the birth certificate controversy as the American people auditing Obama and making sure his paperwork is in order. It is poetic justice. Why can't liberals see this? Conservative 12:52, 31 March 2013 (EDT)
Strange set of priorities you have, User:Conservative. Rafael 13:20, 31 March 2013 (EDT)

Google isn't covering it either RobbieRoberts 13:09, 31 March 2013 (EDT)

Rafael, I posted Easter related stories the MSM is not covering. Conservative 14:03, 31 March 2013 (EDT)

"All liberals love taxes and try to raise them". I don't Cons.
"All liberals love government regulation and its attendant forms to fill out". I don't Cons.
And as I know no person, liberal or otherwise who loves these things, I must consider your statement above to be balderdash.

AlanE 15:00, 31 March 2013 (EDT)

Today is definitely a day to rejoice and not feed the trolls -EdgarP 16:02, 31 March 2013 (EDT)

Strange Priorities

Yesterday Baroness Thatcher, the greatest politician (conservative or otherwise) of the late 20th century, died after a long and immensely productive life. CP's recognition of this fact was one sentence on the main page and a link to a good article on CNAV. Meanwhile MPR continued to drown under a flood of incoherent linkspam from the QE! blog. Anyone who thinks the death of Margaret Thatcher is less newsworthy than yet another dull speech by William Lane Craig, or yet another debate challenge by someone who's too much of a Personal remark removed to actually debate himself, is delusional. if CP wants to retain any credibility please stop this Personal remark removed from turning the main page into a laughing stock.--BrandonST 08:13, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

Jesus is the King of Kings and He has had a profound effect on Western culture and conservatism and now is His influence is exploding in the Eastern World. Dr. William Lane Craig, despite his old earth leanings, is one of the world's foremost Christian apologists, and he not only won his debate against an atheist philosopher at a leading university in a gentlemanly way, but his opponent became a: quivering bowl of jelly; a dry mouth water chugging nervous wreck; a stubborn defender of obvious irrationalism; and a bitter whiner who totally embarrassed himself with his lack of machismo! It was a glorious victory for Christendom![6][7] "Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" - The Apostle Paul. It is you my friend who has strange priorities! Conservative 08:42, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
I think Brandon was complaining about Conservapedia largely ignoring the death of Baroness Thatcher but giving lots of attention to some anonymous blog that does nothing much but link to itself.--EugeneH 08:47, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
Does not that blog link to Shockofgod? What are you complaining about?!!!! :) Conservative 09:03, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
Yes, it links to Shockofgod. So what? Shock means well but he's a bit of a joke. Personally I agree with Brandon; from a conservative point of view, the death of Margaret Thatcher is far more significant than more waffle being published on some incoherent anonymous blog. The UK press is full of reactions, plans for her funeral and retrospectives of her life, but nobody cares about Shock (or WLC for that matter.) That's not because there's a cover-up; it's because Shock is just some guy with a motorbike who makes YouTube videos. He's not in the news because he isn't newsworthy, and neither is that pathetic blog. Conservative News and Views is well written and informative; it's worth promoting. The Question Evolution blog? Nah, it's just linkspam. Today, and every day until next Wednesday, I will be mourning Margaret Thatcher. I couldn't care less about Shock or WLC, because one is a nonentity and the other is a tedious windbag. Let's celebrate REAL conservatives here, not inept bloggers.--EugeneH 09:11, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
I agree. Could you please unlock the Penn Jillette article so I can get it back to a decent state from the current dogs breakfast it is in at the moment ?Dvergne 09:14, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
Huh? It's locked? That's truly bizarre. Who did that??--EugeneH 09:16, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
Also RE shock of god: How can one trust a person with such an unnatural interest in violent video games ? Maybe you should tell him he should stop playing them as it will effect his health. Dvergne 09:23, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
Back to the death of Baroness Thatcher and QE blog links, I strongly suggest creating a blacklist of discouraged "news sources". It would serve Conservapedia well in stopping the disproportionate ratio of links to QE to other more varied news sources. The story on the Steubenville rape case, for example, has never been featured on MPR, yet in the time elapsed, no less than 7 QE stories have been featured. brenden 13:29, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

On reading Conservapedia deeper you will release that user conservative is a rampant anglophobe, read his articles on the UK and bestiality,the UK and uncharitableness, the UK and its hatred of the underdog and you will understand more. I call on Mr Schlafaly to put a stop to user:Conservative's rampant hatred of the great country that is The United Kingdom before Conservapedia becomes a bastion of hatred of anything that does not fit into User:Conservative's very narrow and hate filled worldview.--Patmac 17:31, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

Anglophobe? I/we recently had lunch with a businessman friend of mine/ours who is from the UK. I/we also helped him with some editing of his upcoming book which he was about to submit to a literary agent. Second, you don't know where I/we live. For all you know, I/we could live in the UK. Next, where is this alleged UK and uncharitableness article? Conservative 18:00, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

I will have to find it but you admit the bestiality article? and your disrespect for Baroness Thatcher is well, disrespectful. Oh, and I know you're American, you know that and most contributors here know that so it is not so much a moot point than any point at all. I will just see how long it takes you to block me know: Suggested reason for blocking: defending his country, which is am sure you will agree, a good conservative should do? --Patmac 18:12, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

Patmac, I/we am getting the distinct impression that you are person who likes to throw out unsubstantiated charges and when you make a mistake, you are too proud to admit it. Again, where is this alleged UK and uncharitableness article? If you don't bring it forth, I/we demand an apology. Conservative 18:27, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

I appologise to you about the uncharitable article. It was here on conservapedia but as you don't about it obviously was not written by you and i was wrong to suggest it.I have no reason to, and do not doubt your integrity whatsoever. But do you admit to writing a number of articles about the UK which could be considered insulting to a British person? --Patmac 18:37, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

Patmac, that is an inadequate apology. Please show that a UK and uncharitableness article was ever at Conservapedia. Are you too proud to admit you were totally off base? It certainly seems so! I/we theorize that you are a proud UK atheist/evolutionist given your sloppily put together accusation and your unwillingness to be held fully accountable for your folly. See: Atheism and deception and Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation. Please let us know when you want to be fully accountable for your folly. Conservative 18:44, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

I am not an atheist, I am a christian, albeit a member of the Church of England. And what has my faith got to do with at all? I have appologised but you have not answered one of my questions or points, just turned it on it's head and now I am the bad guy. Now my appology stands. I cannot find the article but it was here, I commented on it but my remark was removed, probably because I used a vulgar word, saying the article was "a load of bo***KS",now please address my points on the underdog and bestiality articles? PS. You mention people don't want to debate you, the reason being is you do not debate, you just accuse and don't accept contrition when it is offered --Patmac 18:52, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

Patmac, just as I suspected. A proud evolutionist who is too proud to admit the extent of his folly. Conservative 18:57, 9 April 2013 (EDT)