Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2016-05-14T15:54:56Z

JamieVa:

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>

[[Community Portal/Archives]]

''This page contains some material that has been moved from [[Talk:Main_Page]]. We are attempting to get general discussion of issues relating to Conservapedia's content and policies on this page, leaving the main talk page for its original purpose of discussing the content of the Main Page.''

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

== Yet more on the repeated 500 errors ==

I know people have said things about this before, but such comments always seem to be ignored or minimalized. Every day or two, I get a "500" (Internal Server) error message. Sometimes the site is unavailable for up to an hour and a half before I can get on again. This is not:
*A network problem - I have seen this on at least four different networks, one of which is a high-end professional network.
*Browser problem - By definition, this is a code the server returns, but I've tried at least 6 different browsers, with at least 3 different core engines
*User problem - believe it or not, I do know what I'm doing
 
That said, I understand that 500 errors are by definition unknown problems. They are sent when the server knows that something bad happened, but has no idea what and couldn't even retrieve the usual error page to serve. In other words, 500 errors are a pain, especially when they come and go. Perhaps there is really nothing which can be done about this. I will say that I've seen this kind of problem before with lower-price web hosting. In my opinion, this is often the source of a 500 error, but I know there are many others as well. If this is the case, complaining to the service provider or changing providers may be the only way to resolve this. 

If this is an issue which everyone else does not really care about, then feel free to ignore this post entirely. However, I thought I would just try to show that this is indeed a problem. I know I would want to know if my public website was going down for one or more hours every couple days. Here are some "proof" images (although I know they ''could'' be faked) in case my word isn't enough. 
[http://community.archnet.us/conservapedia/500/2016-03-04-10.jpg March 4th, 2016 at about 10am] 
[http://community.archnet.us/conservapedia/500/2016-03-08-14.jpg March 8th, 2016 at about 2pm] 
[http://community.archnet.us/conservapedia/500/2016-03-10-14.jpg March 10th, 2016 at about 2pm] 
[http://community.archnet.us/conservapedia/500/2016-03-16-18.jpg March 16th, 2016 at about 6pm] 
[http://community.archnet.us/conservapedia/500/2016-03-18-08.jpg March 18th, 2016 at about 8am] 
[http://community.archnet.us/conservapedia/500/2016-03-30-15.jpg March 30th, 2016 at about 3pm] 
[http://community.archnet.us/conservapedia/500/2016-04-02-22.jpg April 2nd, 2016 at about 10pm] 
[http://community.archnet.us/conservapedia/500/2016-04-05-12.jpg April 5th, 2016 at about 12pm] 
[http://community.archnet.us/conservapedia/500/2016-04-08-09.jpg April 8th, 2016 at about 9am] 
[http://community.archnet.us/conservapedia/500/2016-04-08-09-threeBrowsers.jpg April 8th, 2016 at about 9am #2] - Three browsers shown when [[Internet Explorer|IE]] worked but no others did. This was the only time I know of when this happened, and is a bit of a discrepancy. 
[http://community.archnet.us/conservapedia/500/2016-04-11-11.jpg April 11th, 2016 at about 11am] 
[http://community.archnet.us/conservapedia/500/2016-04-14-9.jpg April 14th, 2016 at about 9am] 
Need I go on? Just to be clear, I am not posting this just to complain, but to try to be helpful. Have a great day! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 14:40, 14 April 2016 (EDT)

==Copyright==
Many of us have been spending most of the past month trying to clean up after TAR. The fact that so many copyright problems have been left behind indicates that Conservapedia editors may not appreciate the importance of copyright law. The edit box always displays the statement "You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Conservapedia:Copyrights for details). '''Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!'''" Permission means an agreement not only to place the text on Conservapedia, but also to license it to others on the same basis that all other Conservapedia content is licensed. In some cases, TAR just copied and pasted from other websites without attributing the content to them. In other cases, TAR copied large portions of text that a blog had quoted from another source. I would suggest that everyone take the time to read [[Conservapedia:Copyrights]] again. I also believe that we need more talk page templates to document when people have received permission to copy material. I assume that getting written permissions would be best, and that they should be stored in some central place, just in case misunderstanding occur in the future. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 08:46, 24 April 2016 (EDT)

:The greatest problem for me is that I don't know if they have the right to copy on not, so I agree--it really would help to have a single place where permission proof is stored. I don't know how that would work, though. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 08:39, 25 April 2016 (EDT)
::We could have a template on the talk page which references the letter sent to Aschlafly. Perhaps the letters in the file could be numbered, and the number inserted in the template parameter. The problem is that TAR copied verbatim from a particular blog that welcomed guest editors or copied from them. Under US copyright law, the copyright belongs to the author. We don't know if the author gave the copyright to the blog owner or licensed it with restrictions. The email from the blog owner to TAR was not clear about what licensing rights he conveyed further. He just said, "You can quote my blog up to 800 words at a time." That does not give Conservapedia the right to further license the reuse of the quote (which we generally do.) There is no need to quote that blog verbatim, and TAR should have written his own definitions when he posted them are separate articles. It is almost as if he was trying to generate 100 one-sentence articles each with a footnote to a particular author (perhaps for the search engines). But we now have 100 copyright headaches.
::If Aschlafly had a scanner, we could post scanned copies of each permission letter somewhere on the internet and put a link in the talk page template. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 02:09, 4 May 2016 (EDT)

== Please unlock ==

Please unlock the [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]] page. I need to reinstate (uncomment) item #22, to track the reinstated item #22 in the main counterexamples page. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:00, 24 April 2016 (EDT)

== Please don't lock pages (other than templates and other things that can do an inordinate amount of damage.) ==

I have recently had (and still have) problems with pages being locked. It's easy to see that these acts were performed in response to vandal attacks. But it really isn't a good idea.
#It makes it harder for people to do their work, obviously. We have to request that the page be unlocked. And those requests sometimes go unheeded. See, for example, my request, just above, which has still not been acted upon. The two pages are supposed to stay synchronized with each other; there is a big editor-only-visible comment to that effect at the top of each page, but they are out of sync, and I can't fix this.
#It gives the impression that Conservapedia is not an open-editing "best of the public" web site. It could be taken as evidence that the administrators do not trust the public. Not trusting the public is not a conservative value.
#It is ineffective. We often have vandal attacks, in which someone vandalizes as many pages as possible before they get stopped. The locking is obviously a response to these attacks. But people engaging in mass vandalism will just go on to another page when they see one that is locked. The total number of pages that they vandalize before they are stopped is still the same. The amount of work that sysops (or, in a few cases, I) must do to clean up the mess is the same.
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 19:00, 1 May 2016 (EDT)

:If it's any consolation, I agree, but your argument seems to have fallen of deaf ears. In my opinion, protection should be reserved for ''some'' templates, and perhaps pages which are under heavy attack for a few days ''at most''. While it's true that they can go vandalize elsewhere, sometimes [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39xlPMs3Obk an organized effort] is made to attack a single page for one reason or another. For this reason, it could be helpful to ''temporally'' protect such a page. However, I'm not as experienced on CP as the admins here--perhaps they have tried it this way and already know it doesn't work. I won't presume to understand exactly how their job works. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 11:52, 12 May 2016 (EDT)

== What's going on with user "SoridAtom"? ==

Can someone explain why SoridAtom's writings were treated the way they were? He wrote an article [[Atheism is the default position]] that, within the space of 36 minutes, Cons deleted, restored, deleted again, restored again, moved to an essay with a redirect, deleted the redirect, and deleted the essay, as well as blocking him.

I looked at it, and found nothing outside of Conservapedia's stance on these issues. It seemed to lie fully within what is commonly accepted. I made some notes to myself for future criticism (gently, not fire and brimstone) about the fact that it had two astonishingly bad run-on sentences. One of them had three main clauses and one subordinate clause, without a single comma anywhere. It went on for 3-1/2 lines on my screen.

I would not have bothered with this if I had thought it was going to be considered trolling or vandalism, or if I had thought that he would be blocked for "liberal trolling" or some similar block reason.

Could someone please restore this, so that we can see what it was about? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:26, 12 May 2016 (EDT)
:It was a copy and paste job and I thought his username was sordidatom. I misread his username. I can unblock him, but I am not going to restore his cut and paste essay. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:41, 12 May 2016 (EDT)

== The family-friendly nature of this site is being willfully undermined ==

The [[bestiality]] article contains, in the first section, this big quote, with a footnote reference to the "newsreport3738" web site. (By the way, the Conservapedia article says that the quote is about "secular Europe", whereas the actual quote says nothing about being secular.)

{{cquote|Bestiality is having a weird renaissance in Europe. Perhaps ironically, it kicked off when activists succeeded in banning the practice in places like Germany and Norway. In the background, something else emerged simultaneously: an animal-sex-tourism industry, which has been blossoming in Denmark.<ref>[https://sites.google.com/site/newsreport3738/ Vice News report on bestiality upsurge in Europe]</ref>}}

The web reference is out there for all to see. When you go to that site, you have to make one more click to get to the actual quote. I won't repeat The URL of the web page on which that quote is found, other than to say that it has the a*****-f****** phrase, but the full quote on that page has a little extra something in front, in a large boldface font.
{{cquote|
<big>'''Animal F***ers'''</big>

Bestiality is having a weird renaissance in Europe. Perhaps ironically, it kicked off when activists succeeded in banning the practice in places like Germany and Norway. In the background, something else emerged simultaneously: an animal-sex-tourism industry, which has been blossoming in Denmark.}}

The quote goes on well beyond that first paragraph, and has a video of a person detailing his tastes in bestiality. The whole thing is utterly disgusting and obscene. And yet it is here at Conservapedia. The third of the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] says that everything, including links, must be "... family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language".

Can someone clean this place up? I'm trying to get students of high school age to read my stuff, and I'm sure a lot of other people are as well. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 21:21, 13 May 2016 (EDT)
:It's gonna a big job that would require some cooperation between editors. Is this the page those sorts of things are discussed? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] ([[User talk:RobSmith|talk]]) 22:44, 13 May 2016 (EDT)
::The godless European evolutionists who want to have sexual relations with their furry "kissing cousins" is an embarrassing problem for evolutionists. It's a shame that pseudoscience would help create such depravity.

::Second, a new source is being used for the information and the new source is at: http://combatingatheism.blogspot.com/2016/05/secular-europes-weird-bestiality.html [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:22, 13 May 2016 (EDT)

:::Ah c'mon Cons! Vice News a "new source" indeed! It would be amusing if it weren't so pathetic. It's a lie, Cons, and we all know it. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] ([[User talk:AlanE|talk]]) 01:05, 14 May 2016 (EDT)
So, Europe is not very secular and several evolution loving countries didn't have a problem with bestiality recently? The Jerusalem Post was wrong and Copenhagen was not the "bestiality capital" of Europe? The first "bestiality rights" organization in the world didn't happen in Europe? Liberals, it is time to stop living in denial!

AlanE, according to Wikipedia, a website founded by an atheist and an agnostic: "In December 2013, Vice Media expanded its international news division into an independent division dedicated to news exclusively and created Vice News. Vice Media put $50 million into its news division, which now has 34 bureaus worldwide and has been praised for in-depth coverage of international news."[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_News#cite_note-2] Here is the source they used: "[http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2014/03/04/vice-news-launches-promising-changing-of-the-guard-in-media/ Vice News Launches, Promising 'Changing Of The Guard In Media]'". ''Forbes''. AlanE, is Forbes magazine a news organization?

Atheists, agnostics, evolutionists and liberals, it is time to put on your sackcloth and ashes and repent of your foray into the decadent sin of bestiality! You were caught red-handed!

Just admit it. There was a notable problem in the atheist population with bestiality and the young earth creationist community didn't have this problem despite the Amish being around animals frequently! The Amish are a tight-nit community and unlike atheists, they haven't had a notable problem with bestiality or loneliness. See also: [[Atheism and loneliness]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 06:31, 14 May 2016 (EDT)
:"As of today, serious journalism officially has a home on Vice: Vice News. The new web channel launched today with reports from Myanmar, Russia, Venezuela and other global hot spots." - Forbes Magazine, 3/14/2014.[http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2014/03/04/vice-news-launches-promising-changing-of-the-guard-in-media/][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 06:50, 14 May 2016 (EDT)
::I am taking a break from the internet for awhile for the most part. The issue has been resolved.

::Also, there was a notable problem with bestiality in secular Europe. Some European governments passed laws in order to tamp down the problem. Hopefully, there will not be a significant problem with illegal activity in this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:30, 14 May 2016 (EDT)
:::I agree. No parent who has their child's welfare as a priority would not allow them to visit Conservapedia. What was once a good conservative resource, meant for children, has devolved into resource that has many more words on bestiality than the Lord of the Rings has on Hobbits.--[[User:JamieVa|JamieVa]] ([[User talk:JamieVa|talk]]) 11:18, 14 May 2016 (EDT)
::::There are some articles related to bestiality that tie it to atheism, evolutionism, liberalism and homosexuality using relevant information. That is what is getting some liberals upset.

::::None of the web pages being linked in the article are from disreputable/salacious sources. In fact, LifeSite News, a pro-life news website which the owner of the website very much likes, has material on the bestiality problem which occurred in Sweden which I cited in the article.

::::The Bible mentions the bestiality problem of the Canaanites according to Bible.org (see: [[Liberal Christianity and bestiality]]).[https://bible.org/seriespage/letting-go-liberal-christianity-retreating-faith#] So certainly Conservapedia can point out the bestiality problem the atheists/evolutionists/liberals in Europe recently had. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:46, 14 May 2016 (EDT)
:::::ad infinitum. And I do like your policy of mulitple oversites of your posts when you are backed into a corner, very convenient.--[[User:JamieVa|JamieVa]] ([[User talk:JamieVa|talk]]) 11:54, 14 May 2016 (EDT)

Debate:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?

2016-03-26T05:27:25Z

JamieVa:

{{debate-politics}}

=='''The problem is that "Democracy" means two things'''==

...and we often get the two confused. The "Democracy" that tugs at people's heartstrings -- the one worth fighting for, the one that is associated with liberty and rights -- is the ''philosophy'' of Democracy. This is a government "of the people, by the people, for the people." There is also a government ''type'' which is called Democracy (hereafter called Democratic Government), which is a government where people vote for things. This type of government is not all that worth getting excited about ''unless'' it is built on a foundation of the philosophy of Democracy. We can't give someone a government that is built on that philosophy, because by nature democracy must be "of the people". So, if America gives any other country a government, no matter how much it looks like a Democratic Government, it will never truly be a democracy. And a dictatorship, if put in place by the people, consisting of the people, and working for the people, will be more of a true democracy than anything we can give them. Granted, Saddam's leadership was certainly not "for the people", but our leadership there is not "of the people", so they are equally not democracy. So the answer is "yes, we can give them a Democratic Government, but no, we can't give them Democracy." --[[User:ChristianHero|ChristianHero]]

I disagree. In small communities the "Democracy" that tugs at people is possible because the group is small and everyone's say can be heard. As communities grow large, this has generally become impossible. The founders of the US of A (as I understand it), based America's government on the Greek forum, where everyone was heard by the attending community. Whether fortunate or unfortunate, when a group grows large is becomes efficient for sections of the large group to elect or appoint a spokesperson to represent the section in the public forum. In the US of A, this sectionizing is done mainly by geography. Each state (a stand alone member of the US of A) is represented by 2 Senators. And in the other House of Congress, representation is done by population, again with a geographical distribution (mostly). Can these, or some part of these, ideas work anywhere? Well, yes BUT the underlying assumptions need to be agreed to by those who engage in the forum. The idea that everyone should have an equal say is not present in Iraq. In fact, it is strongly objected to by persons who wield weapons to make themselves heard and to quell other voices. The second assumption that worked in the US of A was elected representation. This assumption is also against Iraq traditions. There, the interests of a group have traditionally been a matter of blood or other means of selection rather than by vote. A brief answer to "Is democracy possible in Iraq" could be stated, "yes, but it will need many indidivudals to tolerate new ideas traditionally unsupported." [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 02:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

Read the entry on [[Turkey]].

==='''Yes ...'''===

It depends how you do you interpret democracy. If democracy means walking around naked, not being interested in where your daughter, sister or mom is sleeping tonight, being able to deny the presence of God, drinking alcohol all night and then staggering like an ill-minded animal on the streets, not respecting your parents by putting them in retirement houses when they become old, kicking your children out of your houses when they become 18, not knowing your neighbors after living thirty years door to door with them, having disposable marriages, watching two men kissing each other on the street ''and'' yet claim to be socialized and free then the answer is ''no''.

But if democracy means having free right of speech in the ways that God permits (by not doing all of above and some others), being able to question the ruling authority, women's right of voting, equality of women and men in terms of religious moral ethical social conjugal and political rights, respecting each others' lives and possessions, and many many more righteous aspects which have already been explained in the Holy Quran, then the answer is ''yes''.

And if you want to know more about democracy please do read the history of first fifty years of Islam where the complete democracy was introduced to the mankind for the first time.

It is not a matter of me being right or you being wrong, it is a matter between you and your God so contemplate before you leave.

-I think that there are already democracies in The Middle East, but I think some people question that because they see a democracy more as upholding American values, but the Arabs don't seem to want that

If they want it they will take it. ([[User:Gosweden|Gosweden]])

==='''We're not even democratic.'''===

Quite honestly, our system of government is only very loosely democratic (in that we "vote", but that's it -- more of a Republic), and the structure of our government was based largely on a series of events. As well, there are forms of democracy in the Mid-East, such as Iran which does in fact hold elections (yes, they do). However, the largest problem dealing with countries such as Iraq is that the people are more or less split into a few prominent groups, with a minority of them actually causing the problems. But bleh, I don't want to go into specifics of Middle Eastern politics right now, so yes and no. Yes, a form can exist (under the correct circumstance -- which is why Iraq is a cesspool of a civil war right now -- because of a lack of acknowledgment to the reality of the situation), but not actual democracy.
: Rather than represent our own interests, we elect a person who, we hope, will represent our interests for us. Such people are (generally) experienced in the area. Iran would be a democracy except that it has a sort of monarchy of religious overseers who (apparently) can override any portion of the democractic process. For example the religious overseers decared a number of candiates who were going to be voted on by the populace as "unqualified". [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 02:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==='''No ...'''===

Democracy is likened unto a wolf, a fox and a sheep voting on what they will have for supper. The sheep will quickly lose.
Democracy is likened unto a man and his dog out in the woods. The man gets real hungry. So he cuts off the dog's tail and cooks it and gives the bone to the dog.
The forefathers knew about a democracy. That is why they created a republic.

'''Comment:''' I am sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. The United States is a ''democratic'' republic. Are you saying that democracy alone is a bad form of government? If you are then I would have to agree with you ... to an extent. After a while, democracy alone begins to falter, as seen in ancient Athens. But building a republic on the foundation of a democracy is a very strong government. If you could please tell me if this was what you were getting at, it would be greatly appreciated. [[User:David R|David R]]
:'''Reply''' The United States is not a democracy, and "democratic republic" is not the right term either. The U.S. is a republic, a republic is called a "democratic" form of government, but it is not a democracy, and not very similar to a democracy. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:51, 4 February 2007 (EST)
In democracy the people ''are'' the government, they propose and vote on the laws, and there is no elected legislature. A republic is different. A republic is better then a democracy because it recognizes the fact that the people in general do not know enough to govern properly. In a Republic the people choose representatives who are (hopefully) better informed and know enough to do the job. A republic takes the strong points of democracy (no tyrants, self government ...) without some of the problems (uninformed government, rule by popular opinion) and creates a better form of government. That said, this debate was meant to apply to all kinds of self government, and was misnamed, it should say: "Is it even possible to install self government in a Muslim country." --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:47, 4 February 2007 (EST)

'''Comment'''
:There is a phrase which has grown so common in the world's mouth that it has come to seem to have sense and meaning—the sense and meaning implied when it is used; that is the phrase which refers to this or that or the other nation as possibly being "capable of self-government"; and the implied sense of it is, that there has been a nation somewhere, some time or other which ''wasn't'' capable of it—wasn't as able to govern itself as some self-appointed specialists were or would be to govern it. The master-minds of all nations, in all ages, have sprung in affluent multitude from the mass of the nation, and from the mass of the nation only—not from its privileged classes; and so, no matter what the nation's intellectual grade was; whether high or low, the bulk of its ability was in the long ranks of its nameless and its poor, and so it never saw the day that it had not the material in abundance whereby to govern itself. Which is to assert an always self-proven fact: that even the best governed and most free and most enlightened monarchy is still behind the best condition attainable by its people; and that the same is true of kindred governments of lower grades, all the way down to the lowest.

::—Mark Twain, ''A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.'' [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:45, 4 February 2007 (EST)

Er, I rather suspect it would be better for everyone if, rather than "installing" democracy, one attempted to ''instill'' it. Just a thought.

:Some nations are born democracies, some achieve democracy, and some have democracy thrust upon them. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:00, 8 March 2007 (EST)

For the sake of argument here, let's presume that "republic with democratic elections" is the meaning of democracy in the question. Anything else is a bit nitpicky, that's obviously what's intended in context. This being said, however, something else makes the question rather hard to answer. Turkey has a large Muslim population, and is a republic. Iran is as well, but is most certainly not. Egypt? Syria? Just what country are we talking about here? Those aren't any more similar than the US and the Netherlands, despite the fact that both are predominantly Christian.

So, this being said, it is more than "possible" for a democracy to exist in a Muslim country, it is a fact of life in Turkey. (And perhaps more, but certainly that one offhand.) If we are speaking of ''Iraq'', on the other hand (and whoever wrote the question most certainly thinking of it) ...

Unfortunately, to that one, no. Iraq has been botched terribly, and at this point is likely unsalvageable. There's going to be a long civil war there. I hope very much that I am wrong, but I don't see it ending any other way. I really don't know if it could've ever been salvaged, but at this point I don't think it's possible. [[User:Thatguy|Thatguy]] 00:18, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==='''You can install a muffler or battery but not a Democracy'''===
'''Comment'''
:Democracy is one of those words that is mostly misused and misunderstood .
Lets look at the definition:
“Demos: mean common people
“kratos”: means rule
so democracy means “ruled by people”
There probably are few purer examples of democracy than a lynch mob,
As a matter of fact though most Islamic countries are fascist they are better examples of pure democracies than the U.S..

Now let me try to explain that. If the vast majority of a population desire their government to impose sharia law and they believe that infidels should be killed or converted there is nothing undemocratic about that, though the infidel might disagree.

The U.S. is not a democracy.
It is a hybrid “constitutional representative federal republic”
This is far from a pure democracy. The U.S. is governed by a constitution of laws not of people.
Early in the history of the U.S. it’s founders agreed on a set of rules that would limit not only the power and discretion of the government ( it’s self and it’s law) but also it’s people and it’s subsequent elected leaders. Why did they do this? Well they knew that absolute power is corrupting and oppressive in any one entities hands. So, they basically spread it out .
Constitutional ( we are ruled by law )
Federation (we are made up of smaller sovereign countries or “states” )
Republic ( we are ruled by consent )
Representative ( we vote for our leaders )

: Good gosh. We govern ourselves because we create the laws we live under and we remove the laws we don't like. The Constitituion is a framework (and again, we could and have modified it) the laws fit within. We are not the effect of what has gone before, but use it as a guideline toward changes that will be to our benefit. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 03:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I love the heading. Most, if not all, of the world's democracies were not "installed" by outsiders (although many, many hated regimes were), but were worked towards and fought for by the populations of the countries involved. PS, I tried installing Democracy 2.1, but it crashed my hard drive and printer. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:58, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree with [[Human]]. Democracy can be inspired, but not installed. Ironically, it sometimes emerges in what could from a narrow [[nationalist]] standpoint be considered the defeat of an existing democracy (see [[India]]). [[User:Amyz]] 14:28, May 18, 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==
Yes, Indonesia is the the world's third largest democracy, and the world's largest Muslim country. There you go.
--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:15, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:We're talking extremist, e.g. Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they have a strong foothold and will not abandon it without Jihad. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 18:19, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::So, should the original question read "Is it possible to install a democracy in a country that's run by radical mideastern fundamentalist Muslims?". Perhaps the question should have been more precise. And what do you mean by "not abandon it without Jihad"? Indonesians aren't exactly fickle, and I don't think they'd abandon their power anytime soon without some sort of struggle (literal definition of jihad). Oh, and Lebanon and Yemen are middle-eastern Muslim republican democracies.--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:42, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::I guess I should be more precise in my answer too. Installing democracy strikes me as fundamentally naive. The very nature of democracy is supposed to be power derived from the people. Coming in and artificially imposing a democracy strikes me as nearly impossible, especially in such a foreign environment. Yes, democracy is possible in a predominantly Islamic country, no, "installing" it probably is an incredibly naive idea. Bush, bleh.--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==='''No ...'''===

Its not possible to "install" democracy. It is something that must evolve of the people. The question that needs to be asked is is it even right for us to try to install our system on anyone else? Why are we so assured that the way we do things is the only way that they can be done that will work. We came to our democratic system through our own will and process. No other country or people are going to replicate that process so why should they replicate the result? [[User:Little Suspicious|Little Suspicious]]

==='''No ...'''===

You Said That "We came to our democratic system through our own will and process." However that is not true, Thomas Jefferson once said "I would not want any man to judge me, unless he believed that someday god would judge him" The founding of this nation was based on christain principles. Our "democracy" was a system spoken of in the book of jeremiah: "The lord is our lawgiver, the lord is our judge and the lord is our king" The reason why democracy is not working in Iraq is because they are trying to create a government under muslim principles, contrary to the very foundation upon wich america was formed, the word of god. Freedom only works if you have responsibility. the only way that "democracy" will work, in any country is if the people in that country turn their hearts to god, the creator.

==='''Not for long ...'''===
Oh, a representative government can be set up easily enough. The problem is that in a democracy, people will vote for who they want to rule them. And in a highly devout Muslim country, what the people want to rule them is a group of very religious Muslims who are completely and openly dedicated to upholding the principles of the Koran. That is, oppressive theocrats who want woman to be covered and banned from education, think infidels should be killed on sight and have the long-term objective of taking over the world with an Islamic Superstate. Oh, its a democracy all right - its a government that carries out the will of the people. And if they people (Or at least the men, as women would either be forbidden from voting or prevented by intimidation and violence) ''want'' to live under the type of government that considers the Koran to be the unalterable defining document of law... well, thats exactly what they will vote in. - BornAgainBrit

Erk...Okay, first, learn to spellcheck. It's not that hard. Actually, while I'm here, why don't I do just that.
Now, spelling errors aside, you're doing some interesting things here. What's wrong with upholding the principles of the Koran? I could just as easily say all hardcore Christians should be banned from public office because they uphold the principles of the Bible. But aside from that, you're rather interestingly blending 'devout Muslim' with 'rabid extremist.' Sorry, but they're not quite the same. Why should a country dedicated to the Koran (and not, for instance, modern Islam) have any problem with women being educated or walking around unveiled? The Prophet himself married a woman 15 years his senior who ran a well-to-do trading company. My point here is that you're taking the extremists from a religious group and extrapolating back to the religion - it's both ignorant, incorrect and impolite. - Reasonless

Ironically, one of the most democratic middle eastern countries was Iran. Under the oppressive shahs and imperialist Great Britain, the Iranian people demanded for a parliament and rights to all people. They even elected Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh who was primarily secular and supported the highest levels of religious freedom and freedom of speech under this Iranian's time in power. The only issues people had with him was that he believed so much in political freedom (he did, after all, allow the communist Tudeh party operate and his National Front was in a coalition with Tudeh) and did not support Great Britain's corrupt Anglo-Iranian Oil Company exploiting their natural resources for little Iranian profit. The only time Iran was not democratic was when America and Great Britain overthrew the lawfully elected Mossadegh, so Mohammad Reza Shah could rule Iran with an iron fist, and when the fundamentalists came along,they were so dissolutioned with western society, they decided to become an insular country. It sucks, but i can see why they'd do it. I'd certainly be pissed if some random country took advantage of my homeland.

Yes. [[Indonesia]] [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] ([[User talk:AlanE|talk]]) 01:06, 26 March 2016 (EDT)

Yes. [[Bosnia and Herzegovina]].

Yes. [[Albania]].

Yes. [[Kosovo]]. (Sovereignty disputed).

Talk:Essay: Dawkins is conquered and muzzled by women

2016-03-22T21:23:46Z

JamieVa:

You wrote "Meanwhile, secular Europe is seeing a flood of religious immigrants". It's true, they are, and this is what they do.[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35869254].--[[User:JamieVa|JamieVa]] ([[User talk:JamieVa|talk]]) 08:40, 22 March 2016 (EDT)
: Those in ISIS are not truly religious people as they preach hate, and don't adhere to christian values. Your argument is flawed. [[User:TerryW|TerryW]] ([[User talk:TerryW|talk]]) 08:48, 22 March 2016 (EDT)
: great article by the way!
[[File:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|When told that Red Army soldiers sexually assaulted German refugees, the atheist [[Joseph Stalin]] reportedly declared: "We lecture our soldiers too much; let them have their initiative." See: [[Mass rape of German women by the Soviet army]] ]]
:::Jesus was crucified due to religious people. And technically speaking, [[atheism is a religion]] and historically it is responsible for more untimely deaths than Islam (see: [[Atheism and Mass Murder|Atheism and mass murder]]).

:::I know Muslims have been raping non-Muslim women in Europe, but on the domestic violence front and rape front, irreligion does not have a great record (see: [[Irreligion and domestic violence]] and [[Atheism and rape]] and [[Mass rape of German women by the Soviet army]]). "
::A primary reason why irreligious and politically left of center European countries are bringing Muslims into their countries is due to the sub-replacement level of births. Employers need workers (I am guessing this is partly the reason why Germany has so many immigrants). Another is that new immigrants generally vote for leftists. See: [[Desecularization]].

::Europe is on the decline and they need to make some changes. I hope to see a resurgence of Christianity in Europe. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:35, 22 March 2016 (EDT)
:::I had my doubts that Angela Merkel was taking in a lot of immigrants for humanitarian reasons. I think this article confirms my suspicions: [http://www.businessinsider.com/r-in-ageing-germany-refugees-seen-as-tomorrows-skilled-workers-2015-9 There's a very practical reason why Germany is taking in so many refugees]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:44, 22 March 2016 (EDT)
Anyways, [[New Atheism]] is on its last legs. And I think the public mood and the mood within atheism is for there to be less friction between the irreligious and religious and not more. Post-Elevatorgate and Hitchen's death, the atheist movement has a [[Atheist factions|lot of dissension within it]] and is it more docile in terms of their interaction with the religious (see: [[New Atheism#Decline of New Atheism|Decline of New Atheism]]).

New Atheism is on its last legs and is almost dead. And with an [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|abrasive]] [[Atheism and cowardice|pantywaist]] like Dawkins and a clown like [[David Silverman]] (who resides in a religious country) being the leading spokesmen of New Atheism, I don't think things are going to turn around. I call Dawkins an abrasive pantywaist because like many [[Atheism and intolerance#Examples of intolerance from Richard Dawkins|intolerant bullies]], he will back down when "punched in the nose" (I am speaking figuratively of course).

It is rather humorous that the supposed alpha male (One of his Dawkins' donors called him "Darwin's Rottweiler") and bully boy Dawkins was trounced and made more docile by feminists. I always suspected that Dawkins had a glass jaw and he would be turned into a whimpering bowl of jelly when faced with enough opposition. [[William Lane Craig]] showed Dawkins to be a coward. And given the public statement of Oxford atheist [[Daniel Came]], I think even he thinks Dawkins is a coward (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]).

I think movements that want to change society need both diplomats and firebrands. The atheist movement seems to have lost its most effective firebrands due to death (Christopher Hitchens) or missteps (Dawkins and [[PZ Myers]]). A lot of people within the atheist population have soured on Dawkins/Myers. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:02, 22 March 2016 (EDT)
::No Conservative, you were celebrating the influx of religious immigrants into Europe, you did not specify Christian. And when they commit attrocities you turn it around and blame it on atheism; no. These people are/were the followers of the the Ambrahamic god, the same one that you and I believe in. The Madrid train bombings, London Underground, Paris on more than one occassion and now in Belgium people have been slaughtered by people worshipping the One God. Joseph Stalin has been dead over 60 years so don't try pushing the blame onto him.--[[User:JamieVa|JamieVa]] ([[User talk:JamieVa|talk]]) 17:19, 22 March 2016 (EDT)
:::PS, If Donald Trump was British and running for Prime Minister, I would vote for him.--[[User:JamieVa|JamieVa]] ([[User talk:JamieVa|talk]]) 17:23, 22 March 2016 (EDT)

Talk:Essay: Dawkins is conquered and muzzled by women

2016-03-22T21:19:31Z

JamieVa:

Talk:Essay: Dawkins is conquered and muzzled by women

2016-03-22T12:40:39Z

JamieVa: Created page with "You wrote "Meanwhile, secular Europe is seeing a flood of religious immigrants". It's true, they are, and this is what they do.[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35869254..."

User talk:JamieVa

2016-02-22T03:09:19Z

JamieVa:

Conservative, I was joking about Andy and reading the Bible, the dry humor you mentioned.--[[User:JamieVa|JamieVa]] ([[User talk:JamieVa|talk]]) 14:21, 11 February 2016 (EST)
:OK. Put some material on relevant talk pages to show Aschlafly that his underlying objection to Einstein's theory of relativity is misplaced.

:We'll see what happens. Maybe I will achieve a persuasion breakthrough and succeed where many others have failed. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 14:35, 11 February 2016 (EST)
::Conservative, look at this again, Ted Cruz has fallen through the floor[http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/us-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=791149]--[[User:JamieVa|JamieVa]] ([[User talk:JamieVa|talk]]) 22:09, 21 February 2016 (EST)

Talk:E=mc²

2016-02-11T20:03:33Z

JamieVa:

*<big><big><big>[[Talk:E=mc²/Archive 1|Archive 1]]</big></big></big>
*<big><big><big>[[Talk:E=mc²/Archive 2|Archive 2]]</big></big></big>

== A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft and Walton ==

More than two years ago, I posed the following questions for Andy Schlafly to answer. I'd still appreciate an answer by him, making my wait worthwhile.

'''1.''' Do you accept that the mass of the Lithium-kernel (7Li), of alpha-particles (4He) and of protons (1H) can be measured fairly accurately, as these are charged particles?

'''2.''' Do you accept the measurements for the mass of the particles as used by Cockcroft¹ and Walton, i.e.
:::{|
!particle
!mass
|-
|1H||1.0072 amu
|-
|4He||4.0011 amu
|-
|7Li||7.0130 amu
|}
If not, which values do you think to be right?

'''3.''' Do you agree that before the reaction the mass of the particles involved was 8.0202 amu?

'''4.''' Do you agree that after the reaction the mass of the particles involved is 8.00220 amu?

'''5.''' Do you agree that there is a mass decrease of 0.0180 amu?

'''6.''' Before the experiment, the Li was at rest and the proton had a kinetic energy of less than 1MeV. Do you accept these values?

'''7.''' After the experiment, a pair of alpha-particles was observed, both having an kinetic energy of 8.6MeV. Do you think that this value is correct?

'''8.''' Can you tell me where the mass went? Can you tell me where the energy came from?

'''9.''' If your answer to question 8. is ''no'' in both accounts, than my answer is that there is a theory which explains the conversion of mass to energy, even if you don't like it!

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:33, 23 June 2014 (EDT)

The list of administrators of Conservapedia includes [[User:RSchlafly]] ("I'm related to Andrew Schlafly") and [[User:PhyllisS]] ("Phy Schlafly"). Both are knowledgeable about this stuff. Why don't you get their input on this article? And could you please answer the questions above? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:50, 23 July 2014 (EDT)

Another five months later, still nothing. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 07:42, 21 December 2014 (EST)

== Robert Dicke ==

I want to revisit the statement: ''For example, Robert Dicke, perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century, was denied a Nobel Prize because he doubted the Theory of Relativity.''

*"perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century" - according to whom?
*"was denied a Nobel Prize because he doubted the Theory of Relativity" - where is the evidence for this claim?

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:30, 20 February 2015 (EST)

:*Read also the article of [[Robert Dicke]]: "Indeed, Dicke should have won the Nobel Prize for one of his many other achievements also (such as his laser work), but was similarly denied recognition." --[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 06:56, 21 March 2015 (EDT)
::Thanks, I looked into it. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:22, 22 March 2015 (EDT)

== E=mc² is regularly tested, using the best equipment available ==

Take for instance the [[National Institute of Standards and Technology]]'s summer-school of 2009, which allows grad-students and junior faculty to get their hands on their newest equipment: Here, NIST-physicist Maynard Scott Dewey shows how this can be used to test the equation E=mc² directly ([http://www.ncnr.nist.gov/summerschool/ss09/pdf/Dewey_FP09_Part2b.pdf "''Neutron Binding Energy Measurements for a Direct Test of E=mc²''" (pdf)]) - and with a very good precision.

So, the formula is tested time and time again, it is regularly used by many physicists and engineers, regardless of the political position. That makes more than "liberal claptrap"... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:28, 18 March 2015 (EDT)

== Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, in other words its resistance to acceleration. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object [...][has] nothing to do with gravity. ==

This juxtaposition is very painful: Why should it by problematic that the "intrinsic energy" has nothing to do with gravity, when the first part talks about the object's inertia? Where is the "contrast"? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:34, 18 March 2015 (EDT)

== Taking out redundant sentence ==

I have taken the liberty of restoring (almost exactly) my version of 21:14, 8 June 2015. The previous version had what was essentially the same sentence twice, consecutively. It said:
:However, it is impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of this equation.

:Political pressure, however, has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of this nonsensical equation.
This can't possibly be what you wanted. The version I left in was the second one, with "Political pressure", and "nonsensical". I disagree with "nonsensical", but it's your website. I agree with the near-impossibility of anyone doubting this equation to successfully pursue an academic career in science, though probably for the reasons you think.

But I have taken out the word "since". It makes no sense in the current context; it may have made sense in an earlier context.

Now it's true that the longer intro paragraph was more "full", but that's only because it had the redundant sentence. I think the intro that I have left is full enough. It has "nonsensical", and it has the famous "claptrap" sentence. This must be the intro that you want. OK? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:47, 11 June 2015 (EDT)

:You did more than just that. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 23:47, 11 June 2015 (EDT)

==Change the article==
As it stands, the article itself is confusing. Items of info were placed in a haphazard manner, without regard to structure or flow. Try re-doing it this way, in the following order:
:Do a simple statement to introduce the subject in the first paragraph.
:Describe in detail what it is, and what it supposed to do.
:Describe the history of it, who first postulated it and why; who else seconded it.
:Describe anything that successfully uses it, confirms it, and so on.
:Describe anything the rejects it, criticisms of it, proof that it is wrong, and so on. It could be proof that it is wrong only in specific applications where it was tried and failed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:00, 15 June 2015 (EDT)

== People don't own formulas ==

No, they don't. But since the time of [[Pythagoras]], certain formulas, laws, and theorems are associated with certain people (not always correctly). While [[Einstein]] doesn't own [[E=mc²]], it is ''his'' formula. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 02:59, 6 August 2015 (EDT)

:What about Friedrich Hasenöhrl? Why doesn't he get any credit? It's not like he's lost in the mists of history. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 15:47, 6 August 2015 (EDT)

::Same reason that [[Tartaglia]] isn't credited for ''[[Cardano]]'s method'': history isn't just (and people like easy names). --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 16:08, 6 August 2015 (EDT)

== PBS's absurd statement ==

Would anyone like to defend the absurd statement by PBS that:
{{cquote|it's almost as if the ultimate energy an object will contain should be revealed when you look at its mass times c squared, or its mc².}}
--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 14:01, 8 August 2015 (EDT)

:I agree with you - I don't think that this way of trying to make the formula plausible works.
:BTW: while we are posing and answering questions - what about [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft and Walton]]? I'm still waiting for your answer! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:53, 8 August 2015 (EDT)

The PBS statement quoted above, with it's "ultimate energy" stuff and "will be revealed" stuff, is indeed rather stupid. That whole section needs to be cleaned up. But you need to be aware that this equation, like it or not, claptrap or not, correct or not, experimentally verified or not, theoretically proven or not, looms very large in the public's consciousness. (And I might add, the name of Einstein is widely associated with it, which is the point I made recently that you reverted.)

Most of what the public knows about it is ludicrously oversimplified and just wrong. The popular notion that I find most overwhelmingly stupid is the business about "it unlocks the secret of the atomic bomb". But the other quotes are nearly as bad.

The "Description for the layman" section and the immediately following "Popularization of E=mc²" are really just a synopsis of this foolishness. I think that material needs to be in the article, but put into perspective as oversimplified popularization. I don't agree with the edit comment "this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Phrases like 'universally connected in the public's consciousness' are non-encyclopedic, and speculative at best." The public's consciousness of this equation is an important part of an article about it, unless you are writing a serious scientific journal to be read only by scientists. We need to acknowledge that it's a "meme", and try to put that into perspective.

The "Description for the layman" section gives four popular quotes, out of an article containing ten quotes. Of the ten quotes, only one is actually lucid, straightforward, and factually correct; ane that is the one (not one of the four) by Sheldon Glashow. The others are what one would expect if you ask scientists to explain it for laymen.

Assuming that it's OK with you for the page to acknowledge that it's well known in society at large, I'd like to leave the "Description for the layman" section in, with a prefatory note that it is extremely widely misunderstood, and that attempts to explain it to the general public almost invariably fall flat. Then give four examples as before, but adding Glashow and removing Arkani-Hamed. I'd also like to leave in the reference to the PBS article, but choose a much better quote than that "ultimate energy" nonsense. And the "energy it carried would be proportional to its mass times 100 [that is, v] squared" stuff is just plain wrong. And stupid. And unhelpful.

So can you give me a couple of days to think about this? Unless you want the whole "E=mc^2 in the public's consciousness" material to go away, in which case I won't bother.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 21:42, 8 August 2015 (EDT)

:In response to SamHB, I appreciate your thoughtful remarks, but I didn't put the PBS quotation in the entry. Someone else did (I'm not bothering to check who, and don't want to criticize anyone for it). Other quotations may be better, but it is important first to clearly state what the assumptions are underlying the formula. Does it work backwards by trying to conserve energy within the framework of the Theory of Relativity? If so, then the formula derivation really is circular, and the mass is not really a meaningful rest mass. Instead, the mass is something manipulated to try to conserve energy from different frames of reference.
::I really think it's better to have a synopsis of the "pop-sci" garbage, and a debunking thereof, '''first''', an exposition of what the formula means, its assumptions (they're really simple) '''second''', and how we know it is true '''third'''. I know this is, on the face of it, a distasteful order, but the "pop-sci" stuff has so overwhelmed the public's consciousness that we need to address that first. People will be attracted to the article because the equation is so famous, not because they really want to measure isotopic weights. Technical details at the beginning will turn them off, and they will never get to the debunking that's really important. So, if it's OK with you, I'm going to clean up the "pop-sci" stuff first, and leave it at the front. OK? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 14:12, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

:In response to AugustO, I don't doubt that some experiments may by chance have results consistent with E=mc2, just as a broken clock occasionally has the right time of day. The challenge is to demonstrate the formula across a diversity of experiments and circumstances, which of course has not been successfully done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:13, 8 August 2015 (EDT)

::This seems to work for the [[mass defect]] of all elements - astonishingly accurate for a broken clock! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 10:20, 11 February 2016 (EST)

==<strike>C is a constant, right?</strike>==
Ok, I'm getting dizzy reading through all the attacks on this page. I'll ignore all them for now, and just say that as I understand it, <strike>"c" stands for constant, not the speed of light.</strike> I'm no scientist, so I will not try continue offering suggestions. I'll leave it at this: I don't know if the idea behind it is true, and I don't even know what the formula means. However, I believe it refers the energy contained in matter, since certain matter/energy conversions are possible. Can we try to refine this a bit to state what it is/is not, then state why some might not agree? It's up to all you who have made this page, but it seems to be one thing that everyone uses against CP, and from my limited understanding of the topic, I think I just might see why. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 14:26, 9 February 2016 (EST) 
''EDIT: Okay, my mistake, "c" is the speed of light. Still, though, this is a theory of the energy contained in matter. You burn wood, you get energy. Perhpas this is an accurate represntaion, maybe not, but at least it's not as bad off as I thought.''--[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 14:38, 9 February 2016 (EST)

:Can you be more specific about "all the attacks on this page" and "one thing that everyone uses against CP"? I'm not denying those attacks, but are you referring to all the attacks, from the outside world, against CP's pages on relativity (which you can get quite a lot of by Googling "Conservapedia+relativity")? Or are you referring to all the attacks on relativity by pages here at CP (such as the "liberal claptrap" reference)? Or are you referring to the apparent opposition between the part of this article above the table of contents and the part below?

:AugustO and I wrote essentially all of the material below the table of contents. We put a huge amount of meticulous work into it. I believe it adequately explains things in terms that non-experts can mostly understand. We try to stay away from the kinds of imprecise statements about "energy contained in matter" that one finds elsewhere. Thinking in terms of "this is a theory of the energy contained in matter" is not a clear way of thinking about the equation. Do you find the presentation confusing? Or perhaps you find other articles confusing? Or you find contradictions among the various articles on the subject confusing? I want to make this article give a satisfactory explanation. Please let me know how I can improve it.

:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 16:45, 9 February 2016 (EST)

::I was general by design as to where the attacks are from. Mainly, I see the from outside, on various IQ voids known as liberal blogs like this one [https://cpmonitor.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/cp.jpg]. However, there are some rather opinionated and strong words exchanged in this talk area as well. I guess I don't have any other advice, if this is the way you want to go with it. If I think of anything, I'll let you know.--[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 18:37, 9 February 2016 (EST)

:::Got it. Yes, the criticism and arguing within CP is absolutely dwarfed by the criticism from outside. I referred to that in what I wrote in the Community Portal: [[Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Two_millionth_page_view_for_the_.22Counterexamples_to_Relativity.22_page]]. [[Counterexamples_to_Relativity|That page]] appears to be a lightning rod for criticism and scorn, and the "cpmonitor" web site is just one example. Very few of those two million views are from people who agree with it—my survey of Google references got 8000 hits, of which 98% were negative.

:::The strong words that you see on this and other pages represent an attempt to fix the problem. There is no simple solution.

:::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:16, 10 February 2016 (EST)

::::There is no unified theory of mass and electromagnetism. A century and many billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted looking for one. Yet some people cling to the implausible equation that pretends otherwise. Such false beliefs crowd out the truth, and I doubt there are many people who continue to read the [[Bible]] after falling for the falsehood of E=mc2.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:41, 10 February 2016 (EST)
:::::Almost on cue gravity waves are discovered, a huge step in unifying gravity with the other forces.[http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/gravitational-waves-exist-heres-how-scientists-finally-found-them][http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35524440][https://www.theguardian.com/science/across-the-universe/live/2016/feb/11/gravitational-wave-announcement-latest-physics-einstein-ligo-black-holes-live] As for the implausible equation, can you explain how a bomb weighing 4 tons managed to release the equivalent of 15,000 tons of TNT? The Bible, fine book that it is is not going to help when it comes to modern science. I accept there is some some foreknowledge contained in the Bible but there is certainly no scientific explanation which would help at all in modern study.--[[User:JamieVa|JamieVa]] ([[User talk:JamieVa|talk]]) 11:37, 11 February 2016 (EST)
::::::Let's not reach for unwarranted conclusions. E=mc^2 was formulated in 1905 and experimentally verified around 1930; the gravitational wave announcement was only a few hours ago. These two phenomena are unrelated manifestations of relativity. Today's announcement does not confirm E=mc^2; it was confirmed long ago.
::::::As far as unification of the forces, today's announcement does not bring us any closer to a unification of mass, electromagnetism, or anything else. Unification of gravity with the other forces involves then ongoing research in "quantum gravity", that is, gravitons. As Professor Thorne made clear in today's announcement, the discovery of gravitational waves doesn't say anything about gravitons. Of the three articles cited above, the BBC article suggests that gravitational waves may help in future research into quantum gravity, but that is all.
::::::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 14:49, 11 February 2016 (EST)
:::::::Does wave/particle duality not apply to gravitational waves? This is a genuine question as I don't know but if it does it must mean gravitons are there.--[[User:JamieVa|JamieVa]] ([[User talk:JamieVa|talk]]) 15:03, 11 February 2016 (EST)
== Einstein’s Relativity and Relativism: Why Einstein’s theory of relativity is actually a powerful argument for absolute truth. ==

Please read the article [http://evangelicalfocus.com/blogs/1297/Einsteins_Relativity_and_Relativism Einstein’s Relativity and Relativism: Why Einstein’s theory of relativity is actually a powerful argument for absolute truth.] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:55, 11 February 2016 (EST)

User talk:JamieVa

2016-02-11T19:21:09Z

JamieVa: Created page with "Conservative, I was joking about Andy and reading the Bible, the dry humor you mentioned.--~~~~"

Conservative, I was joking about Andy and reading the Bible, the dry humor you mentioned.--[[User:JamieVa|JamieVa]] ([[User talk:JamieVa|talk]]) 14:21, 11 February 2016 (EST)

Talk:E=mc²

2016-02-11T16:37:01Z

JamieVa: