416
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 41:
Line 41: + +
→This article is ironic, i hope.: ::::Read up on GPS -- it does not need relativity. I have reverted your censorship. ~~~~
::: Ok since nobody contradicted the arguments on relativity, i suggest to stop excepting it from the exact sciences. Moreover i suggest to put "biology" instead of evolution. One is a science, the other a process. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 15:58, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
::: Ok since nobody contradicted the arguments on relativity, i suggest to stop excepting it from the exact sciences. Moreover i suggest to put "biology" instead of evolution. One is a science, the other a process. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 15:58, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
::::Read up on GPS -- it does not need relativity. I have reverted your censorship. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:04, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
:: Thanks for the generous offer. Taken the average quality of the articles here about natural sciences i would be more on the side of improving them (which is what I do when i see an easy to correct definitive mistake). Up to that time i will rely on textbooks and the original articles in the libraries. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 10:26, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
:: Thanks for the generous offer. Taken the average quality of the articles here about natural sciences i would be more on the side of improving them (which is what I do when i see an easy to correct definitive mistake). Up to that time i will rely on textbooks and the original articles in the libraries. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 10:26, 23 March 2009 (EDT)