1
edit
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 150:
Line 150: + + + + + +
Talk:Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness (view source)
Revision as of 19:05, February 14, 2009
, 19:05, February 14, 2009→The gravity question: new section
: I don't have any problem with the questions posed by Aziraphale above as part of a test of open-mindedness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:42, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
: I don't have any problem with the questions posed by Aziraphale above as part of a test of open-mindedness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:42, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
== The gravity question ==
I just wanted to point out that this may not be a very good measure of open mindedness. 2 and 2.00001 are arbitrary numbers, yes, but that isn't why there is an inverse square relation ship. The square of the radius in this case comes from a derivation which is a direct result of geometry. That is to say, it isn't that the variable R was saddled with some arbitrarily accurate exponent, it specifically means that the equation holds that the value of R must be multiplied by itself. If I may use a thread of logic common at conservapedia, 1+1=2, not 2.0001. Likewise, r*r=r<sup>2</sup> not r<sup>2.00001</sup>
Open mindedness is all well and good, but I feel this question overreaches a bit, considering the fact that this proportionality holds definitively that the exponent is exactly 2.