SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 219:
Line 219: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Line 247:
Line 261: − I'm sorry if I got your gender, or number, wrong. Would you be happy to be called ''he'' from now on, or would ''he/she/they'' be better? I do appreciate the dedication you show to the wiki's atheism articles, most of which would be neglected if you weren't here. Looking at the edit history anyone could be forgiven for thinking that you're the only one/ones who care! When I link others to Conservapedia I will make sure to link directly to one of your own articles so they can see immediately what kind of website this is. [[User:JSamson|JSamson]] 18:27, 23 December 2014 (EST) − − :Have you seen [http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=atheism%2C%20atheist%2C%20atheists%2C%20richard%20dawkins%2C%20New%20Atheism&cmpt=q THIS]? You are correct. Interest in atheism is low! And 2015 will be the WORST year in the history of atheism! − − :Feel free to engage in [[last wordism]] as the is no sense in engaging in battle with an opposition which is losing strength each day. See: [[Desecularization]] and [[Global atheism]]. Face it, the [[New Atheism]], which has gone down in flames, was your last hurrah. − − :"And therefore those skilled in war bring the enemy to the field of battle and are not brought there by him." - Sun Tzu [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:07, 23 December 2014 (EST) − ::Hello again. I don't know how to address the user/users of the Conservative account, and "he" or "she" would be assuming too much, so from now on I will address the account itself as an entity. I read the link that Conservative provided, but I don't understand what it is supposed to show about the decline of atheism, or why I should care what "New Atheism" is. Could the User:Conservative perhaps provide an explanation so that those readers who, like me, lack the insight of a Conservapedia sysop can understand. Thanks. [[User:JSamson|JSamson]] 17:16, 28 December 2014 (EST) − :::Multiple links were provided. I suggest reading all the sources provided along with all the accompanying footnoted material and all the external links. See: [http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=atheism%2C%20atheist%2C%20atheists%2C%20richard%20dawkins%2C%20New%20Atheism&cmpt=q THIS] and [[Desecularization]] and [[Global atheism]] and [[New Atheism]]. The reason I mentioned looking at all the sources and all the accompanying footnoted material and external links is that many atheists like to engage in the [[fallacy of exclusion]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:07, 28 December 2014 (EST)
Conservapedia:Community Portal (view source)
Revision as of 00:12, December 30, 2014
, 00:12, December 30, 2014→Two millionth page view for the "Counterexamples to Relativity" page: Let's get to the bottom of this.
:::::''"On the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, tweaking the Newtonian model almost certainly can fit the data."'' That's just a canard - and you know it, Andy: yes, the exponent of Newton's law of gravity can be tweaked (or error terms added), but this results in a model which doesn't fit all the other planets. That's known since Simon Newcomb's days - and [[User:SamHB]] elaborated on this '''[[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity?|nearly five years ago]]'''! The first time you came up with this idea, you could have pretended to be ignorant on this subject. But you repeat it over and over again, without having done the calculations, or looking up why physicists discarded the idea a hundred years ago! That's worse than ignorance, that's willful ignorance.
:::::''"On the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, tweaking the Newtonian model almost certainly can fit the data."'' That's just a canard - and you know it, Andy: yes, the exponent of Newton's law of gravity can be tweaked (or error terms added), but this results in a model which doesn't fit all the other planets. That's known since Simon Newcomb's days - and [[User:SamHB]] elaborated on this '''[[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity?|nearly five years ago]]'''! The first time you came up with this idea, you could have pretended to be ignorant on this subject. But you repeat it over and over again, without having done the calculations, or looking up why physicists discarded the idea a hundred years ago! That's worse than ignorance, that's willful ignorance.
:::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:36, 28 December 2014 (EST)
:::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:36, 28 December 2014 (EST)
Let's not be too hasty with judgements about ignorance, willful or otherwise. Let's see if we can get to the bottom of this (and the other two phenomena). We're making good progress by drawing the questions very narrowly.
I believe that Andy has indeed read the relevant items, like [[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity?|this page]] from nearly five years ago, and [[Relativity#Experiments that Fail to Prove Relativity|this section]], with its table of precessions of the planets. (I did not put in the phrase "fail to", by the way.)
So let's go over the situation again, extremely carefully. The bulk of the table was from me, though the all-important final column was added by [[User:Jloveday]], using some experimental data that he dug up. I'm not in full agreement with the way he rounded the data, but the effect is clear. Even though getting good error bounds on the minuscule precession of planets beyond Mercury is very difficult, one can easily see, from the last few columns, that General Relativity tracks the observed precession very well, while the Newcomb-Hall tweak of 2.000000157 tracks it extremely poorly. Except for Mercury, of course, since the exponent was tweaked specifically for that planet.
So, Andy: What is the tweak to Newtonian mechanics that explains the precession for all the planets? And, while we're at it, can you give a satisfactory explanation for the other two phenomena, time dilation and mass non-conservation?
Andy also says: "Some objected to anything other than an exponent of precisely -2 for the force, because that muddies up the math, but that is a silly objection." I agree, it's silly. Though I am a little curious about who these "some" are. Can you cite something on the subject? Perhaps one of your physics textbooks?
Also: "The reality, however, is that anyone who pursues this approach is deemed an enemy of Relativity and won't get another research grant, doctorate, or Nobel prize." As I said earlier, I'm not interested in the personalities; I just want to know why you think the precession occurs. (Actually, that's not true. I ''am'' deeply interested in the history of science and technology. But not right now. We can discuss that some other time.) So I'll make you an offer: If you get turned down for a research grant, doctorate, or Nobel prize over this, I'll stick up for you. I'll cite the spirited debate you and I have been having over the last several years as evidence that you've thought deeply about these issues. Though I don't think I have much influence over funding agencies or Nobel committees. :-)
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 19:12, 29 December 2014 (EST)
==Categories==
==Categories==
:::::I thought there was to be no further additions from the User: conservative account on the talk page? Perhaps one of the members did not get the memo? -[[User:JaysonK|JaysonK]] 13:51, 18 December 2014 (EST)
:::::I thought there was to be no further additions from the User: conservative account on the talk page? Perhaps one of the members did not get the memo? -[[User:JaysonK|JaysonK]] 13:51, 18 December 2014 (EST)
::::::Buckling down on time management. Plan to post less on talk pages. Revised plans about talk pages. Will post on talk pages when it is related to article/wiki improvement. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:54, 18 December 2014 (EST)
::::::Buckling down on time management. Plan to post less on talk pages. Revised plans about talk pages. Will post on talk pages when it is related to article/wiki improvement. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:54, 18 December 2014 (EST)
== References ==
== References ==