Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
5,023
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 606:
Line 606: − − == Notice of Pending Revision == − − It's been over a week now since the reversion (on 9<sup>th</sup> December) of several edits I made. Despite my request, now explanation has been posted, in contrast to the explanations I gave for each of my changes. I therefore see it only fit to return the article to the state I left it in. − − However, to avoid 'edit wars' I think it only fair to give notification of this, to allow a final chance for justification of the reversion. − − The specific changes are: − − *Removal of the item: ''''27. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.'''' since it is a duplicate of ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass -- does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?'''' − − *Removal of ''''26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.'''' After much discussion on this page, it seems generally agreed that there useful devices in existence. (I appreciate that some mention of GPS may be necessary, but a footnote, however valid, cannot justify the presence of the invalid section in the main article to which it is attached. GPS can have it's own separate entry on this page as a counterexample, if need be.) − − *Removal of ''''30. The Ehrenfest Paradox ...'''', ''''31. The Twin Paradox ...'''' and ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle...'''' since these are paradoxes and (as discussed above) are not appropriate to a page of counterexamples. These entries have already been moved to and expanded upon in the main [[Relativity]] page. − − --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:26, 17 December 2011 (EST) − − ::I've now implemented these changes since no objection has been forthcoming to my explaination above, posted in accordance with [[Conservapedia:Editing_etiquette#Etiquette_Rule:|editting etiquette]]. If there are any objections please discuss them here rather than engaging in revert wars. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:36, 30 December 2011 (EST) − − :::Sorry, just noticing these comments now. Let's discuss before removing insights from entries. − − :::Items 27 and 10 are similar, but not identical. 27 highlights a conflict between Relativity and basic principles of physics; item 10 emphasizes an internal contradiction in the theory that remains unanswered. − − :::Item 26 remains unrebutted. Relativity has produced nothing of value. − − :::Item 30 and 31 are logical problems which are valid counterexamples, given that Relativity claims to be based on logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 30 December 2011 (EST)
Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity/archive3 (view source)
Revision as of 07:13, December 31, 2011
, 07:13, December 31, 2011please don't archive ongoing discussions
:A selective archive (e.g., archive the older discussions only) would be terrific.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:04, 9 December 2011 (EST)
:A selective archive (e.g., archive the older discussions only) would be terrific.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:04, 9 December 2011 (EST)
::So long as it is archived and not "archived". --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 14:39, 9 December 2011 (EST)
::So long as it is archived and not "archived". --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 14:39, 9 December 2011 (EST)