1
edit
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 858:
Line 858: + + +
→Science vs. politics
:No, those verifications weren't just ''attempts'', they were quite successful - and they have been repeated over and over again. That doesn't mean that the theory is necessarily true, as ''verifications'' aren't ''proofs''. But we don't expect proofs in physics, and it's save to say that nearly every physicist would be quite surprised if the Special Theory of Relativity were falsified.
:No, those verifications weren't just ''attempts'', they were quite successful - and they have been repeated over and over again. That doesn't mean that the theory is necessarily true, as ''verifications'' aren't ''proofs''. But we don't expect proofs in physics, and it's save to say that nearly every physicist would be quite surprised if the Special Theory of Relativity were falsified.
::Ed may be onto something. We need to separate the politics from the science. How about starting a seperate article entitled "The politics of E=mc<sup>2</sup>" and then include only claims that can be supported in reliable sources in that new article. I have looked, but I can't find any widespread "anti-E=mc<sup>2</sup>" out there. I have only found conservative support for the civilian use of nuclear energy to produce electricity. Those conservatives claim that nuclear energy is well-understood and reliable, and that engineers do not guess as to how much energy is produced in the reactors. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 07:53, 6 April 2013 (EDT)
::Ed may be onto something. We need to separate the politics from the science. How about starting a seperate article entitled "The politics of E=mc<sup>2</sup>" and then include only claims that can be supported in reliable sources in that new article. I have looked, but I can't find any widespread "anti-E=mc<sup>2</sup>" out there. I have only found conservative support for the civilian use of nuclear energy to produce electricity. Those conservatives claim that nuclear energy is well-understood and reliable, and that engineers do not guess as to how much energy is produced in the reactors. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 07:53, 6 April 2013 (EDT)
Here's an even better idea: Andy, why don't you just protect the article? It's essentially protected right now. Any time someone tries to make a constructive edit to this article, you just revert it back to the version that you (and only you) want it to be. You don't even bother reading the talk page comments or giving serious responses to the people that raise objections, so why even bother wasting your time reverting it? Just protect it and you won't have to. We all know that this article is going to be virtually unchanged a month, or a year, from now no matter how many people try to improve it. Unfortunately you don't see the inclusion of facts in this article as improvements.
BTW, wouldn't be the first time that this policy will have worked out for you! Some of your biggest articles ([[evolution]], [[atheism]], [[homosexuality]]) have been protected and only edited by one extremely talented editor for the past few years! Just make this article your protected little pet article and be done with it! And pay no attention to the incredible amount of hypocrisy all this amounts to, what with you wantonly violating the conservapedia commandments, not being too open-minded, censorship, etc...--[[User:DavisR|DavisR]] 10:55, 6 April 2013 (EDT)