Changes

|-

|-

|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.<ref>The page [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]] attempts to refute all 49 of them.</ref>

|Conservapedia asserts that the [[Theory of relativity]] is false, and creates the page [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], initially containing 10 counterexamples.  It slowly grows to a few dozen.<ref>The page [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]] attempts to refute all of them.</ref>

|Liberals do not dare criticize the theory or even discuss its flaws, or else they will never be employed as a teacher or obtain a PhD or college tenure.

|Widespread ridicule all across the internet.  Anyone questioning this theory would be unlikely to get employment as a high school science teacher, much less a PhD or college faculty position.

|A ''New Scientist'' article, entitled "Breaking relativity," declares that celestial signals "defy" the theory.<ref>The article concerns the disconnect between relativity an quantum mechanics at the Planck scale.  See #8 in [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], and a rebuttal at #8 to [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]].</ref>

|By mid-2016 the number of counterexamples has grown to 49.<ref>The [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity|rebuttal page]] keeps pace.</ref>

|July 12, 2016

|July 12, 2016

|-

|-