Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Revert. You need to do your homework. See my user page.
Line 101: Line 101:  
|-
 
|-
 
|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.
+
|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.
|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.
+
|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.
|A ''New Scientist'' article, entitled "Breaking relativity," declares that celestial signals defy the theory
+
|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.
|January 2, 2014
+
|July 12, 2016
 
|-
 
|-
 
|January 14, 2010
 
|January 14, 2010
SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266

edits

Navigation menu