79
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 405:
Line 405: − − == A point of view on this article == − − Hi! First of all, pardon my awful english. I'm a huge fan of Conservapedia in general, and of this article in particular: I've found the points 11 and 12 of this list (the "action-at-a-distance" points) incredibily inspired, so I use sometimes these points as sign at the end of posts in some forum. − − First of all, as I've seen during my physics studies, there is no such thing as "liberal physics", just physics. − Physicists can have different opinions on specific topics, and it's a good thing: finding who is wrong is the only way to make scientific progress. − When a new phenomenon is discovered, the first thing to do is the known physics laws can describe it: this may be called a "conservative" point of view. But if this is not possible new laws have to be found: you may call them "liberal laws". − − The special theory of relativity, though, is not object of debates, so actually the physicists are '''conservative''' in beliving − that a lot of phenomena can be explained using the relativity theory. − − This article pretends to be a page about science. Well, it turns out that it is a (wonderful) ''pure nonsense'' page (I really love nonsense!). There are conceptual errors, absurdities, even miracles (I hope that you won't call them "scientific proofs")... − for example, points 7, 11, 29, 31, 32 are all manifestly wrong, as − everyone with a little knowledge of physics can confirm. Point 13: no one is searching gravitons. − Point 25: if an object is moving in one direction, − then physics '''should''' distinguish among the direction (and, in fact, it does). − − The classic aether does not exist. − − Not all the points are wrong, though. The necessity of dark matter and dark energy in the current cosmological models it's a problem well known − to the experts. There are two possibilities: one can prove experimentally that these entities exists ''and/or'' general relativity is wrong − on large scales. My opinion (but it's just an opinion) is that the dark matter exists (it has been observed in galaxy collisions, for example), but − general relativity has to be modified on large scales (maybe a quantum theory of gravitation could help?). − − So: most of the points are trash. Some of the points are quite right indeed (not the Bible ones, at least if you want to write an article − about science). And, for the sake of correctness, someone should write a page with phenomena explained by relativity that aren't − explained in the framework of classical mechanics and electrodynamics. − − This is only my POV, obviously. But if Conservapedia wants to be a source of knowledge (regardless the "conservative" or "liberal" point of view) − you have to write facts, not nonsense. I'm a Conservapedia fan for the nonsense, so that advice is against my interests :P − − Have a nice day, [[User:MM87|<font color="#E56717">'''MM'''</font>]]''[[User_talk:MM87|<font color="#FBB117">'''''87'''''</font>]] 08:19, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 12:19, August 8, 2011
, 12:19, August 8, 2011→A point of view on this article
Have a nice day, [[User:MM87|<font color="#E56717">'''MM'''</font>]]''[[User_talk:MM87|<font color="#FBB117">'''''87'''''</font>]] 08:18, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
Have a nice day, [[User:MM87|<font color="#E56717">'''MM'''</font>]]''[[User_talk:MM87|<font color="#FBB117">'''''87'''''</font>]] 08:18, 8 August 2011 (EDT)