From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Physics is the study of nature, and is the science of studying the laws of God's universe

God in this context is completely irrelevant. If this is the case, we should also have God's Ball, God's incline,God's Scientists, God's Galileo. Having "the" instead of "God's" universe is less biased (aren't we trying to reduce bias). --Sm355 21:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

No, it's implied through the rest of the article. It's not irrelevant because God created it, He deserves the the credit. We are privileged to be able to study and figure out different aspects of His creation. That's what science is, the study of God's creation. --Ymmotrojam 21:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Sigh. It is still not proven that God did create the Universe (The Bible does not count as proof). Its just as likely and provable that Xenu, Min, Ra, Thor, Mars, Vishnu or any other God you would care to think of created the Universe. So in an article about rocks for example, should we include the statement "God's Rocks" at the start of the article?--Sm355 21:20, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Even if they did, this is a Christian site, so one wouldn't put those anyways. --Ymmotrojam 21:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
I have to agree with Sm355 about this. The articles whould be factual in every possible way to make this site a credible source for information. Because it is still unproven that the Christian god created the universe, the word "the" fits much better into the article. Also, for a good portion of the purposes this article might be used for, the word "God's" would be an unacceptable term(I'm talking about schools, etc.).NSmyth21:28, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
I disagree, obviously. The Bible does count as proof. Take the Messianic prophesies of Christ as just one example. That right there proves that God spoke to us humans through the Bible, and that the Bible is an accurate account of history. That would also imply that the Christian God created everything, and thus He deserves the credit. "the" couldn't fit less with the article. --Ymmotrojam 21:35, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Shouldn't the definition have a source, anyways? Here's a good list of possible sources for definitions: [1]. I'll leave it up to y'all to find the one best suited. I am no physicist. Myk 01:13, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Good idea. Genesis 1:1. --Ymmotrojam 01:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Whether or not you believe it is "God's universe" or not has NO effect whatsover on the actual science of physics. Which, btw, is almost completely lacking from this article. And the Book of Genesis does not count as a reference for a scientific statement.

Actually, on this site the bible is a reliable source for... anything. But... where in Genesis is "Physics" mentioned? Myk 05:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
And, conversely, when was the last time you read a physics paper which referred to "God's Universe?" It's not a term of art in the field. Tsumetai 10:50, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I see hardly any point, this page can compete with what is on the wikipedia page. Anything less qualified than that simply backslashes.


I changed the formula to the correct typography. Now, why should gravity be here. Surely a link to a gravity article is necessary and sufficient? I don't want to edit in case someone has a reason for it to be like this. Fantomas 07:51, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Proposed Major Rewrite

The current article lacks a coherent direction and reads like a trivia list along the lines of "here's some stuff that has something to do with physics." It erroneously states that the field began with Galileo. Newton's law of gravitation is a very specific application and, IMO, should not be stated within the first few paragraphs of an article on a vast subject. Furthermore, an entire paragraph is devoted to mostly to calculus and not to physics. I've started working on an outline of a compete rewrite here. If there are no objections, I'd like to replace the current version with that one in the very near future.--Bayes 16:40, 22 July 2007 (EDT)


What was wrong with Quetzalcoatl's contributions to this page? There were a couple things I'd change, and it's worth discussing whether Islamic physics during the Middle Ages merits mention here, but the edits were generally sensible and certainly looked well-intentioned... --MarkGall 18:45, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

I talked with the administrator who blocked me and it was a misunderstanding. The problem was not the inclusion of Islamic physics, but some definitions I changed. He already reverted back to my edits. --Quetzalcoatl 22:46, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Explanation of changes in the definitions

Mechanics: Changed from "the study of forces acting on bodies " to "The study of the motion of bodies". I did this because studing the forces on bodies is just one way to study the motion. There are other ways, for example using conservation of energiy. There are alternative formulations of classical mechanics, namely lagrangian and hamiltonean dynamics, that do not use the concept of force at all, yet they deal with the motion of the bodies.

Thermodynamics: It originally said: "the study of heat and entropy". In fact, thermodynamics is basically the study of energy transformations. Energy is basically from two tipes: Work ("useful" energy) and Heat ("Useless" energy). That is why I changed the definition to "The study of work, energy and its transformations". Entropy is a concept created to explain the observation that the dissorder of the universe always increase. In other terms, that as time passes, more energy is in the form of heat and less energy in the form of work. Entropy does not transform, so I would not put "entropy and its transformations"

Relativity: It stated that it is a form of mechanics, while in reality it is a new framework for the whole of physical theories, not just mechanics. --Quetzalcoatl 22:46, 23 June 2009 (EDT)