Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Maybe that omission fools some people, but it doesn't fool conservatives aware of liberal bias.
Line 80: Line 80:     
: No, the Pioneer anomaly does not disprove relativity. It barely has anything to do with relativity. How do you think that NASA is ever able to have any successful space missions, if all its theories of gravity have been disproved? There are no discontinuities or logical flaws. Relativistic mass was already being confirmed in 1901, just a couple of years after it was predicted. Do you have any reliable sources for any of what you say? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:13, 25 November 2009 (EST)
 
: No, the Pioneer anomaly does not disprove relativity. It barely has anything to do with relativity. How do you think that NASA is ever able to have any successful space missions, if all its theories of gravity have been disproved? There are no discontinuities or logical flaws. Relativistic mass was already being confirmed in 1901, just a couple of years after it was predicted. Do you have any reliable sources for any of what you say? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:13, 25 November 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
::You say, "the Pioneer anomaly does not disprove relativity."  What do you think the "anomaly" is from, if not relativity?
 +
 +
::Perhaps you agree with Wikipedians, who admit that the data from the spacecraft is contrary to what is "predicted", but the Wikipedians refuse to admit that the contradicted theory is the theory of relativity![http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly]  Maybe that omission fools some people, but it doesn't fool conservatives aware of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:28, 25 November 2009 (EST)
Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794

edits

Navigation menu