| Line 116: |
Line 116: |
| | | | |
| | :::::::As for Wikipedia covering up evidence regarding relativity to suit a liberal bias, let me make a comment about that. I happen to also be active on Wikipedia, and from my experience the kind of people that edit the science pages are not the same kind of people who generally edit the political/philosophy pages. I have noticed a great deal of political bias in the people who dominate the latter pages, but not at all the former. I really don't think they did is -if they did it at all- for political reasons. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]] | | :::::::As for Wikipedia covering up evidence regarding relativity to suit a liberal bias, let me make a comment about that. I happen to also be active on Wikipedia, and from my experience the kind of people that edit the science pages are not the same kind of people who generally edit the political/philosophy pages. I have noticed a great deal of political bias in the people who dominate the latter pages, but not at all the former. I really don't think they did is -if they did it at all- for political reasons. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]] |
| | + | |
| | + | ::::::::The results are not within the standard of error. You're in denial: the results contradict the theory of relativity. And Wikipedians will never allow that truth on their pages. The Wikipedians who edit the science paiges there are just as liberal as those who edit the other pages, and it's implausible to suggest otherwise. Check out the global warming pages on Wikipedia, for example, if you doubt this. (My response to your earlier comments are below).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 27 November 2009 (EST) |
| | + | |
| | + | == Reply to Johanan Raatz == |
| | + | |
| | + | Mr. Raatz said, "Relativistic mass is not a defect nor is it logically flawed ...." |
| | + | |
| | + | :Then tell us whether a greater force is required to accelerate a large relativistic mass in a ''direction orthogonal to its fast motion''. Predictably you will say you never thought or heard about this logical problem before, so please then comment on ''why'' you've never thought or heard about this logical flaw. By the way, relativistic mass has been taught for decades. |
| | + | |
| | + | Mr. Raatz says his "best argument" is the "Michelson-Morley experiment." |
| | + | |
| | + | :If that's your best argument, then this case is closed. That experiment certainly does not prove relativity. |
| | + | |
| | + | Mr. Raatz asks, "How do you explain the phenomenon of time dilation without relativity?" |
| | + | |
| | + | :What is attributed to "time dilation" can be explained a variety of ways, with or without relativity. |
| | + | |
| | + | Mr. Raatz says, "You said that relativity contradicts the Bible. I have heard many criticisms of relativity before but never this." |
| | + | |
| | + | :You've never heard this because promoters of relativity virtually never read the Bible. Why is that? The Bible sells 100 times more copies ''annually'' than books on the New York Times bestseller list, and is undeniably the most influential book in history (Newton attributed his insights to it), yet relativists don't read it. Do you? The nearly 100% correlation between relativity and avoiding the Bible is striking and cannot be attributed to coincidence. |
| | + | |
| | + | Mr. Raatz denies the high correlation between belief in relativity and man-made global warming, but this is undeniable. |
| | + | |
| | + | Mr. Raatz says he "believes in objective truth and the scientific method I am not open-minded beyond reason" and "I am no liberal." |
| | + | |
| | + | :Really? So you support prayer in the classroom, as when everyone in the classroom wants to pray? I bet you don't, just as liberals oppose it. |
| | + | |
| | + | Mr. Raatz says, "RelativITY is NOT the same as relativISM." |
| | + | |
| | + | :Maybe not for you, but most people fooled by relativity become more accepting of relativism. Check out the first few pages of the respected historian Paul Johnson's book about the 20th century, where he links the "discovery" of relativity to the popularity of moral relativism that followed. He's studied history more than you have, I think. |
| | + | |
| | + | Mr. Raatz wrote, "LIGO is not designed to confirm gravity waves ...." |
| | + | |
| | + | :LIGO is set up (at an expense of hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars) to detect gravitons. You say you're not a liberal and yet you seem to support this boondoggle. How about raising donations for this from relativists, just as churches must do? That wouldn't get far, because I doubt many relativists would spend their own money on what they pretend to believe. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 27 November 2009 (EST) |