SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 107:
Line 107: − +
Conservapedia proven right (view source)
Revision as of 00:30, December 28, 2015
, 00:30, December 28, 2015You're right; "asserts" is better than "claims". English is a rich an nuanced language. But we don't need to say what it's a list of twice.
|-
|-
|November 28, 2009<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&oldid=724599</ref>
|November 28, 2009<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&oldid=724599</ref>
|Conservapedia asserts that the [[Theory of relativity]] is false, and creates the page [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], initially containing 10 counterexamples. By late 2015 the number will have grown to 48 counterexamples.
|Conservapedia asserts that the [[Theory of relativity]] is false, and creates the page [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], initially containing 10 counterexamples. By late 2015 the number will have grown to 48.
|a barrage of public criticism against anyone who even questions the unproven theory; no one seeking a PhD or tenure dare express doubts about the theory
|a barrage of public criticism against anyone who even questions the unproven theory; no one seeking a PhD or tenure dare express doubts about the theory
|A ''New Scientist'' article, entitled "Breaking relativity," declares that celestial signals defy the theory
|A ''New Scientist'' article, entitled "Breaking relativity," declares that celestial signals defy the theory