Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
350,910
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 535:
Line 535: + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Theory of relativity (view source)
Revision as of 01:00, December 3, 2011
, 01:00, December 3, 2011→lack of footnotes in article: new section
If anyone wants to discuss this issue before I begin editing, I invite you to do so. --[[User:Virgil|Virgil]] 17:24, 26 November 2011 (EST)
If anyone wants to discuss this issue before I begin editing, I invite you to do so. --[[User:Virgil|Virgil]] 17:24, 26 November 2011 (EST)
== lack of footnotes in article ==
If memory serves, Andy's brother, Roger Schlafly, claimed that there was a claim or that there were claims made in this article which were not footnoted/sourced. The Conservapedia commandments declare you must declare your sources. The theory of relativity article is poorly footnoted in my estimation.
Second, although I received above average grades in my past physics schooling, I don't pretend to be a physics expert. I do know that none of the major Christian creationist organizations who oppose evolution oppose the theory of relativity and I have been told by a scientists I respect that atomic clocks use the theory of relativity.
When I combine all these aforementioned matters, I have doubts that theory of relativity is false as a whole, although the recent neutrino experiments may show it is false in part. Given the amount of time I have to spend learning other matters, I really don't have the inclination to ramifications of the speed of neutrinos exceeding the speed of light and its bearing on the theory of relativity.
Lastly, I really don't see the bearing of the speed of light on morality. That sounds to me like saying if the earth is not the exact center of the universe, that means that God does not care about humanity but cares about the sun or other celestial body more. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:00, 2 December 2011 (EST)