Changes

The [[theory of relativity]] is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions.  It is heavily promoted by [[liberals]] who like its encouragement of [[moral relativism|relativism]] and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.<ref>See, e.g., historian Paul Johnson's book about the 20th century, and the article written by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe as allegedly assisted by [[Barack Obama]].  Virtually no one who is taught and believes Relativity continues to read the [[Bible]], a book that outsells ''New York Times'' bestsellers by a hundred-fold.</ref>   A similar, but less well-known, example of supposedly hard science supporting political dogma comes from the promotion of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaon#Neutral_kaon_mixing neutral kaon mixing] by anti-war anarchists Gell-Mann and Pais. Here is a list of 39 counterexamples: any one of them shows that the theory is incorrect.

The [[theory of relativity]] is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions.  It is heavily promoted by [[liberals]] who like its encouragement of [[moral relativism|relativism]] and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.<ref>See, e.g., historian Paul Johnson's book about the 20th century, and the article written by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe as allegedly assisted by [[Barack Obama]].  Virtually no one who is taught and believes Relativity continues to read the [[Bible]], a book that outsells ''New York Times'' bestsellers by a hundred-fold.</ref>  Here is a list of 39 counterexamples: any one of them shows that the theory is incorrect.

#Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravitational waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3781</ref>  ''Sound like [[global warming]]?''

#Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravitational waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3781</ref>  ''Sound like [[global warming]]?''

#The [[action-at-a-distance]] of [[quantum entanglement]].<ref>Quantum entanglement has not yet communicated information faster than the speed of light, but has already exhibited action faster than the speed of light.</ref>

#The [[action-at-a-distance]] of [[quantum entanglement]].<ref>Quantum entanglement has not yet communicated information faster than the speed of light, but has already exhibited action faster than the speed of light.</ref>

#The [[action-at-a-distance]] by [[Jesus]], described in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]], [[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)|Matthew 15:28]], and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)|Matthew 27:51]].

#The [[action-at-a-distance]] by [[Jesus]], described in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]], [[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)|Matthew 15:28]], and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)|Matthew 27:51]].

#Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do '''not''' experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity.<ref>For a report on the data, see a paper submitted in 2010 by John Webb and Julian King of the University of new South Wales, Australia, to the ''Physical Review Letters''.</ref>

#Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do '''not''' experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity.<ref>For a report on the data, see a paper submitted in 2010 by John Webb and Julian King of the University of new South Wales, Australia, to the ''Physical Review Letters''.</ref>

#The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a [[black hole]].  So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."<ref>http://www.economist.com/node/17035953</ref>

#The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a [[black hole]].  So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."<ref>http://www.economist.com/node/17035953</ref>