nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
902
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 20:
Line 20: + +
User talk:Physicsnut (view source)
Revision as of 17:53, December 19, 2007
, 17:53, December 19, 2007apologies
:: It is readily apparent that this site has some motive to slander Robert Dicke. If he were alive he would be disgusted to be used as fodder for the political grist mill. This quote was telling, from the founder and ultimate boss - "It's bias to insist on describing theories that compete with relativity in terms of relativity." - It's BIAS TO INSIST ON DESCRIBING BRANS-DICKE IN TERMS OF RELATIVITY? From Dicke's abstract - (http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v124/i3/p925_1 - "A modified '''relativistic''' theory of gravitation, apparently compatible with Mach's principle, is developed.") [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 09:40, 19 December 2007 (EST)
:: It is readily apparent that this site has some motive to slander Robert Dicke. If he were alive he would be disgusted to be used as fodder for the political grist mill. This quote was telling, from the founder and ultimate boss - "It's bias to insist on describing theories that compete with relativity in terms of relativity." - It's BIAS TO INSIST ON DESCRIBING BRANS-DICKE IN TERMS OF RELATIVITY? From Dicke's abstract - (http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v124/i3/p925_1 - "A modified '''relativistic''' theory of gravitation, apparently compatible with Mach's principle, is developed.") [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 09:40, 19 December 2007 (EST)
:::I'm sorry that your first impression of the site has been so poor... I don't make the rules though, and I don't control what remains and what is "bias" in each article - that is left up to a select few editors at Conservapedia. But thank you for the sources and the suggested changes, I'll try editing the article to implement them as "neutrally" as possible. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 12:53, 19 December 2007 (EST)