Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
7,846
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 101:
Line 101: − + − + − + − +
Undo revision 1313983 by SamHB (talk) Just because you say the counterexamples to relativity are "refuted" does not make it so
|-
|-
|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 mid 2016 the number will have grown to 49. The page [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]] is created, refuting all 49 of them.
|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.
|Widespread ridicule all across the internet. 98% of Google hits are sarcastic. No one who questions this well-established theory would get employment as a high school science teacher, much less a PhD or college tenure.
|Widespread ridicule all across the internet. 98% of Google hits are sarcastic. No one who questions the well-established theory would get employment as a high school science teacher, much less a PhD or college tenure.
|A ''New Scientist'' article, with the eye-catching title "Breaking relativity," declares that celestial signals "defy" the theory. It's about the disconnect between relativity an quantum mechanics at the Planck scale, a phenomenon which has been known for years. It gets added as counterexample #8, and is rebutted as rebuttal #8.
|A ''New Scientist'' article, entitled "Breaking relativity," declares that celestial signals defy the theory
|July 12, 2016
|January 2, 2014
|-
|-
|January 14, 2010
|January 14, 2010