Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Recursion

2011-08-12T23:27:08Z

JonS:

[http://conservapedia.com/Recursion Recursion]<ref>[http://conservapedia.com/Recursion See http://conservapedia.com/Recursion]</ref><ref>[http://conservapedia.com/Recursion See http://conservapedia.com/Recursion]</ref><ref>[http://conservapedia.com/Recursion See http://conservapedia.com/Recursion]</ref><ref>[http://conservapedia.com/Recursion See http://conservapedia.com/Recursion]</ref><ref>[http://conservapedia.com/Recursion See http://conservapedia.com/Recursion]</ref><ref>[http://conservapedia.com/Recursion See http://conservapedia.com/Recursion]</ref><ref>[http://conservapedia.com/Recursion See http://conservapedia.com/Recursion]</ref> is a technique whereby a [[function]], in order to accomplish a task, calls [http://conservapedia.com/Recursion itself] to accomplish part of the task. [http://conservapedia.com/Recursion Recursion] is notable for having the word "[http://conservapedia.com/Recursion recursion]" in itself.

Every recursive solution involves two major parts or cases, the second part having three components:

* base case(s), in which the problem is simple enough to be solved directly, and
* recursive case(s). A recursive case has three components:
::1. divide the problem into one or more simpler or smaller parts of the problem,
::2. call the function [http://conservapedia.com/Recursion (recursively)] on each part, and
::3. combine the solutions of the parts into a solution for the problem.
::4. If that fails, [http://conservapedia.com/Recursion this] article provides more information on [http://conservapedia.com/Recursion recursion]

These exercises are useful to see examples of recursion:

:1. Write a function to compute the sum of all numbers from 1 to n.
:2. Write a function to compute 2 to the power of a non-negative integer.
:3. Write a function to compute any number to the power of a non-negative integer.
:4. Write an article about [http://conservapedia.com/Recursion recursion]; attempt to reference the article in itself as many times as possible <ref> Like I'm doing now, also see http://conservapedia.com/Recursion</ref>

If you still don't understand, see [http://conservapedia.com/Recursion recursion]

[[Category:Computer Science]]

===References===
<references/>

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-07-31T19:00:50Z

JonS: /* Nay */ spacing fix

<center>'''Uhhh, this really isn't a debate. It's a poll. In response to [[User:Conservative]] pressuring the site owner to abandon established site policies and invoke [[mob rule]], please indicate your votes below.'''</center>
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==Yea==

==Nay==

I vote '''nay'''. RobS is trying to bring accountability to the site. There is something admirable in that, and it's a move in the right direction. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 14:56, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:RobS should keep his rights. If anything, Conservative should lose his. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 15:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-07-31T19:00:12Z

JonS: /* Nay */

<center>'''Uhhh, this really isn't a debate. It's a poll. In response to [[User:Conservative]] pressuring the site owner to abandon established site policies and invoke [[mob rule]], please indicate your votes below.'''</center>
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==Yea==

==Nay==

I vote '''nay'''. RobS is trying to bring accountability to the site. There is something admirable in that, and it's a move in the right direction. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 14:56, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
RobS should keep his rights. If anything, Conservative should lose his. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 15:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Glenn Beck

2010-08-28T23:09:28Z

JonS: Google Deceit

[[Image:Beck Glenn Fox.jpg|right|200px]]
'''Glenn Beck''' is a [[conservative]] and [[libertarian]] talk-radio host and television anchor employed by [[Fox News]].<ref> [http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/tv_fox_beck_cnn/2008/10/16/141295.html Glenn Beck Leaving CNN for Fox News] AP, October 16, 2008</ref> <ref>[http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/06/entertainment/et-foxnews6 Fox News' Glenn Beck strikes ratings gold by challenging Barack Obama] p.3 </ref>
His radio show, The Glenn Beck Program, is syndicated by over 230 radio stations across the [[United States]]. His television show, Glenn Beck, appeared daily on [[CNN]] Headline News, before he switched to FOX, during the 6:00 p.m. hour (EDT).

Beck is the author of five books, including ''The Real America: Messages from the Heart and Heartland'' and three #1 New York Times Bestsellers, ''An Inconvenient Book: Real Solutions to the World's Biggest Problems,'' ''The Christmas Sweater,'' ''Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government,'' and most recently ''Arguing With Idiots.''

Beck is a [[Mormon]], having converted after recovering from [[alcoholism]].<ref>Glenn Beck. (2008). An Unlikely Mormon: The Conversion Story of Glenn Beck [DVD]. Deserest Book.</ref>

== Earnings and Book Deal ==
[http://www.businessinsider.com BusinessInsider.com] estimated Beck will make $18 million in 2009<ref>[http://www.businessinsider.com/the-empire-of-glenn-beck-slideshow-2009-4 Glenn Beck's Cash Machine]</ref> Now with the signing of his new book deal with [[Simon & Schuster]], he will be given a larger share in the profits of each book, as well as increased creative control.<ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124138941245781353.html Wall St. Journal; New Deal Gives Beck Share in Book Profits]</ref>

==Liberal attempts to silence Beck==
Liberal activism groups attempted to silence Beck by pushing his advertisers to abandon his program, after he alleged that [[Barack Obama]] is [[racism|racist]] against white people, and that he [[hate|hates]] white culture. This prompted "RedState" to defend Beck and call for a boycott of the advertisers on his show who were hoodwinked into boycotting it by the liberal elite.

The publicity over the attempts on Beck's popularity achieved a result that the liberals cannot have intended: Beck was featured on the cover of [[Time]] magazine, and in a final insult to liberal pride; he is depicted sticking his tongue out at the reader. Beck, however, was less than pleased with the Time cover: He stated that ''Time'' ought to have featured the large crowds attending the [[September 12 March on Washington]] and not him on its cover.

On August 28th, 2010, Glenn Beck hosted his Restoring Honor to America rally at the [[Lincoln Memorial]], [[Google]] attempted to mislead activists to the memorial by changing its location in ''Google Maps'' to the Roosevelt Memorial days before the rally.

== Known favorite associations ==
Beck frequently has Judge [[Andrew Napolitano]] appear as a guest on his program. Judge Napolitano has even hosted the Glenn Beck show himself when Mr. Beck was on assignment.

== 9/12 Project ==
In 2009, Beck launched the 9/12 project, a project aimed at recovering America's Christian founding values, closely allied with the [[Tea Party Movement]]. On September 12, 2009 (9/12), a massive Taxpayer March on Washington was accomplished, with hundreds of thousands of attendees, and was roundly censored by the [[liberal media]].

===The Project's 9 Principles, 12 Values===

The 9 Principles:
# America Is Good.
# I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
# I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
# The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
# If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
# I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
# I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
# It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
# The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.

The 12 Values:
Honesty, Reverence, Hope, Thrift, Humility, Charity, Sincerity, Moderation, Hard Work, Courage, Personal Responsibility, Gratitude

==See Also==
* [[Restoring Honor Rally]]
* [[Fox News]]
* [http://www.glennbeck.com/home/index.shtml Glenn Beck's personal site]
* [http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Nov09/0,4670,APonTVPostElection,00.html Glenn Beck jumps from CNN to [[Fox News]]]

==External References==
[http://www.the912project.com/ 9/12 Project website]

{{Conservatism}}

==References==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT: Beck, Glenn}}
[[Category: Broadcasters]]
[[Category: Television]]
[[Category: Conservative Commentators]]
[[Category: Media personalities ]]
[[Category: Conservatives]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]

Liberal

2010-08-21T01:25:27Z

JonS: /* See Also */

[[Image:Liberal Brain.jpg|thumb|450px|top|<center>A satirical conception of the liberal brain.</center>]]

A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.<ref>As one liberal website candidly observes, "Obama is a shallow narcissist, not a believer in any cause higher than himself. Every American president has had a healthy ego, but none has ever been as purely motivated by vanity as the childishly self-loving [[Barack Obama]]."[http://www.opednews.com/articles/Barack-Obama-s-ego-driven-by-Christopher-Calder-091210-804.html]</ref> Liberalism began as a movement for individual liberties, but today is increasingly [[statist]] and, as in Europe, [[socialist]]ic.

A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices:

* Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized [[abortion]]
* [[Censorship]] of teacher-lead [[prayer]] in classrooms and school sponsored events
* Support for [[gun control]]
* Child Pornography
* Support of obscenity and pornography as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* [[Income redistribution]], usually through progressive taxation
* Government-rationed medical care, such as [[Universal Health Care]]
* Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled [[public education]]
* The denial of inherent [[gender differences]]
* Insisting that men and women be placed in the same jobs in the [[military]]
* Legalized [[same-sex marriage]]
* Tax and spend
* Trying to impede the freedoms of others
* Implementation of [[affirmative action]]
* [[Political correctness]]
* Support of [[labor union]]s
* Teaching acceptance of promiscuity through sexual "education" rather than teaching [[abstinence]] from sex.<ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* A "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended
* Government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* Abolition of the death penalty
* [[Environmentalism]]<ref>[[Greenpeace]], for example.</ref>
* [[Disarmament treaties]]
* [[Globalism]]
* Opposition to the [[Bible]].
* Opposition to an interventionalist American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF).</ref>
* Opposition to full private property rights<ref>For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref>
* Reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution]]. The theory of [[evolution]] is a key component of [[atheistic]] ideologies in the [[Western World]].
* Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the [[Patriot Act]]
* Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Barack Obama]]).
* Opposition of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]], a major part of the [[War on Terrorism]].
* "The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and political movements in history is a story not told often enough ...."<ref> [http://www.city-journal.org/2009/bc0605bt.html Dupes by Bruce S. Thornton], City Journal - 5 June 2009</ref>

==Liberals and Uncharitableness==
[[Image:228130875 35181424e3.jpg|thumb|right|175px|[[United States|American]] liberals give less to charity than American conservatives.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> In addition, [[per capita]] [[atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] in the United States [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2] ]]
''For more information please see'': [[Liberals and uncharitableness]]

In March of 2008, [[George Will]] wrote at [[RealClearPolitics]] concerning the [[United States]]:
{{cquote|Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at [[Syracuse University]], published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than [[conservative]]s....

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref>}}
[[Atheism|Atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] often reject [[Bible|Biblical]] [[morality]] (and therefore [[conservative Christianity]] ) and hold to [[moral relativism]].<ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152</ref> Therefore, it is not surprising that [[per capita]] atheists and agnostics in [[United States|America]] [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2]

== Liberal politicians and uncharitableness ==
The political magazine the [[American Spectator]] featured an article which focused on [[liberal politicians and uncharitableness]] and the article exposed the hypocrisy of the liberal politicians it featured.<ref>http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c5_1238044128&c=1</ref>

In addition, [[Barack Obama]] has been criticized concerning [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|his charitable giving]].

==Liberals and Superstition==
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|thumb|right|150px|The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. <ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>]]
In September of 2008, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:
{{cquote|The reality is that the [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] campaign, by discouraging [[religion]], won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith — it's what the empirical data tell us.

"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians....

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in [[pseudoscience]], cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>}}

== Liberalism in North America today ==
[[Democrats]] and many media outlets in the [[U.S.]] are often [[liberal]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp|title=Media Bias basics|publisher=Media Research Center}}</ref>
*Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of [[fascism]]. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://fora.tv/2008/01/30/Liberal_Traits_of_Fascism|title=Video discussion about how modern liberalism is actually fascist by author Jonah Goldberg.}}</ref>

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on [[compassion]], [[decency]], and [[social justice]] (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of [[civic virtue]] against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_disgrace_of_liberalism.html]

<blockquote>
''There's another goal, from my point of view, which is to try to lay the groundwork for a radical political force which would conceive of itself as distinctly to the left of moderate, reformist American liberals. And that has two aspects. One is to try to change that liberalism, to transform it by analysis, critique, and activism; the second is to build a radical movement which would be an autonomous force in its own right, which would be distinct from the traditional American liberal consensus. This radical part of the program involves not simply supporting the liberal students against conservative students and conservative professors, but trying to act on them, to push them to the left. It also involves trying to find and support, even trying to help create, networks of radical students in law school and of radical professors around the country — students and teachers who see themselves as wanting to go a lot further than most people want to go.'' <ref> [http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=liberal+teachers&fr=yfp-t-501&fp_ip=MX&u=duncankennedy.net/documents/Liberal%2520Values%2520in%2520Legal%2520Education.pdf&w=liberal+liberals+teachers+teacher&d=BNZFhPReRjC1&icp=1&.intl=us Liberal Values in Legal Education] Duncan Kennedy (professor at Harvard Law School)</ref>
</blockquote>

===Liberal Rankings of Congress Members===

The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of the United States [[Congress]] is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.

==Liberalism in Europe today==

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is a party of the European Parliament that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world,<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref> such as the Liberal Party of Australia.<ref>[http://www.liberal.org.au/]</ref>

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians for promoting lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them "liberals" or [[neoliberal|neoliberals]]. Thus, just as in the US, "liberal" may occasionally be used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called "liberal" in Europe, it has an entirely different meaning than in the US. In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy|social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>

==Historical Liberalism ==
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref>

==Original meaning: Classical Liberalism==
Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and tradition.

See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].

==Alternative meanings of 'liberal'==

One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>
* Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...

==Liberal Organizations ==
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]]
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[ACORN|ACORN - Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now]]
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]
*[[Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism]]
*[[Democratic National Committee]]
*[[Greenpeace]]
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]
*[[National Education Association]]
*[[National Organization of Women]]
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]
*[[Progressives for Obama]]
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]
*[[MoveOn.org]]
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.]]
*[[U.S. Peace Council]]
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==See Also==

* [[Conservapedia:Articles about liberals|Articles about liberals]]
* [[Classical liberal]]
* [[Drinking Liberally]]
* [[Godless liberal]]
* [[Last wordism]]
* [[Essay:Liberal celebrity obsession|Liberal celebrity obsession]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia|Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]
* [[Liberal Christianity]]
* [[Liberal Democrats]]
* [[Liberal Elite]]
* [[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|Liberal Falsehoods]]
* [[Liberal Fascism]]
* [[Liberal friendship]]
* [[Liberal Gloss]]
* [[Liberal grading]]
* [[Liberal hypocrisy]]
* [[Essay:Liberal hysteria|Liberal hysteria]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Intellectualism|Liberal Intellectualism]]
* [[Liberalism and art]]
* [[Liberal labels]]
* [[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right|Liberal Lies About the American Right]]
* [[Liberal logic]]
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|Liberal Mind]]
* [[Liberal Party]]
* [[Liberal supremacist]]
* [[Massachusetts liberal]]
* [[Progressives]]
* [[Scientific Illiteracy and Liberals]]

==Further Information==
* [[Best_New_Conservative_Words#New_Liberal_Terms|New Liberal Terms]]
* [[Conservative Links]]

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Political Ideologies]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category: Liberals]]

Essay: Video Games and Religion

2010-08-17T21:08:59Z

JonS: The insult to faith common in video games.

Throughout the world video games have become an increasingly popular hobby. The main problem with this is the lack of [[faith]] in video games. Many children report a preference of video games than visiting church. <ref>According to a 2007 survey by Gallup.</ref> The negative views of religion in video games is the likely cause of this phenomenon. Faith is often shown in a negative light; as a means of control, inane worship, or of false gods. This essay will examine the different views of religion shown in popular video games.

==Grand Theft Auto==
Grand Theft Auto is perhaps the worst example of faith in video games. The various protagonists of the series are shown as having no conscious. The characters engage in virtually every immoral act: every one of the [[Ten Commandments]] are broken in these games. Furthermore, ''Grand Theft Auto IV'' engages actively in [[deceit]]. Two specific examples are their "satire" of Republican radio host [[Rush Limbaugh]](called We Know the Truth), and an in-game television show "Republican Space Rangers."

WKTT, the parody of Rush Limbaugh, interestingly enough shows just what is wrong with America. The station has various callers telling the host what IS wrong with America, with the host responding to these real-life situations in a typical [[Liberal]] fashion.

Republican Space Rangers openly mocks [[conservative]] values. It features a group of three space rangers, who preach Christian values, as incompetent and aggressive nutjobs.

==Red Dead Redemption==
Set in 1911, this game shows the decline of the Wild West. Interestingly, it has some conservative values. The liberal run federal government is encroaching on the West, a common complaint of the game's characters. The similarities stop there. This game encourages violence against clergy<ref>The in game missions ''I Know You'' requires the protagonists to rob a nun.</ref>, the promotion of alcohol, and a significantly downplayed role of Christianity in the West.

==The Sims 3==
This game is a family simulator. However, this game has no morals implemented into the characters("Sims"). Sims may engage in immoral sexual activities. In fact, this game allows [[gay marriage]]. Furthermore, this game does not have a single church for Sims to attend.

==Total War Series==
These games are downright insulting to Christianity. They portray religion as nothing more than a political tool to keep the masses happy<ref> Religion is only used to increase public order, it plays no role in a country's policy, and characters do not have their religious views affect them as they would in real life.</ref>. ''Medieval II: Total War'' even allows the player to call a Crusade on other Christian nations! Even worse, it portrays the Islamic factions as peaceful countries (as opposed to their rather aggressive real-life counterparts) being invaded by aggressive Christians.

==Civilization Series==
The Civilization Series allows the player to control a civilization from 4000 BC until 2100 AD. Religion first played a factor in Civilization IV. The makers of the game portray all religions as equal, with no benefits of Christianity on a nation over an Islamic Theocracy.

Furthermore, this game makes an allusion to Communism being better than Capitalism. The economic civics gives the "State Property" option a low upkeep and an efficient economy. While the "Free Market" option taking medium upkeep and a slow growth economy.

==References==
<references><references/>

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2010-08-16T22:19:51Z

JonS: /* Counterexample 9 (Jesus action-at-a-distance) */

'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

'''Raising arguments which have been discussed before wastes the time of valuable editors and repeatedly doing so violates 90/10.'''

----

== Point 4 ==

Andy, can you clarify #4 for me? I'm not sure I understand it. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:50, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:Sure, I welcome discussion of these important points. As I've said, I have an open mind about this and if something is true, then I accept it. But if something is false, I'll criticize it.

:The theory of relativity has taught for decades that as the velocity of a mass increases, then its (scalar) relativistic mass increases per the Lorentzian transformation. Now apply a force ORTHOGONAL to the velocity. Does that force encounter the increased mass, as relativity says, or encounter the rest mass, as logic would dictate?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:02, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Ah, I see what you mean. May I suggest a re-wording? "The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass." I think that might be a little clearer than it is currently stated. Your thoughts? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:06, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::Please do. Your edits are always welcome, and you've suggested an improvement here. Thank you for making this change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:20, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Why would logic dictate that? Mass is a scalar, and a force from any direction should encounter the same increased mass, not different masses from different directions.

::I suppose that under Newtonian mechanics, a moving object has a velocity of 0 within the plane perpendicular to its line of motion, and any forces operating in that plane will act on the object as if it is at rest. But that's not what ''logic'' dictates, that's what the ''previous theory'' dictates.

::Essentially your counterexample to relativity is that it makes a prediction that contradicts Newton's laws. This is neithe r a contradiction nor a logical problem, and it is should be edited out.[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

:::No, it's a logical problem. If you're suggesting that one force can affect the inertial in an entirely independent, orthogonal direction, that's illogical. One thing cannot affect something else that is entirely independent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:40, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::: Why is that illogical? What logical principle does it violate?

:::: See, in relativity, orthogonal doesn't ''mean'' independent. In relativity, velocity vectors ''do not add.'' In relativity, the effect of a new force is not independent of the object's existing momentum. And there is nothing illogical about that; it's just a new theory that contradicts the intuition from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

::::: Ng, something cannot be independent (orthogonal) and yet dependent at the same time. Unfortunately, you're arguing with your own theory at this point. Even most relativity promoters have abandoned the position you take here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:37, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::::::It seems that his point is that something can be orthogonal and dependent. I agree: The cross-product of two vectors is orthogonal to both and yet obviously dependent on both. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 21:41, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::::::: OK, good point, an orthogonal vector can be a function of other orthogonal vectors. But that's a bit different from what we're discussing. Here it's an orthogonal force that is not dependent on anything else, and yet Ng says it encounters relativistic mass due to a different orthogonal force.

::::::: I think relativists have abandoned Ng's position, so he's really arguing with his own side at this point. As a result, I urge him to reconsider his views with an open mind once he confirms that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: First of all, relativity has not "abandoned" the prediction we're talking about. The velocity addition formulas for both parallel and perpendicular velocities have not changed, and they still predict that an orthogonal force will have a harder time accelerating a fast-moving object. Physicists may have changed their informal interpretation of this formula, but not the formula itself, nor its predictions.

:::::: Note also that relativity's prediction can't be all that illogical, because this is what we ''actually observe happening to particles at high speeds.'' If you think that fast-moving particles commit some terrible offense against basic logic, take it up with God.

:::::: There is a very simple way to settle this matter: write an encyclopedia article where the material is properly sourced. If this is indeed some counterexample or logical flaw in relativity, then one can easily find a book or paper exposing that flaw, and cite it.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Sun Dec 13 17:55:04 EST 2009

:::::OK, I think I see part of the problem you people are having. The word "independent" has two different meanings. Being ''linearly'' independent is a concept from pure mathematics. Being ''causally'' independent is an unrelated metaphysical concept. Whether a force pushing on something causes it to move, and by how much, is completely, umm, independent of whether the vectors involved are linearly independent (orthogonal). Please try to be very careful about the meanings of the terms. [[User:SaraT|SaraT]] 17:00, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: I don't think that's the source of our confusion. I think the main problem is that, according to Newtonian mechanics and thus according to our mechanical intuition, orthogonal things tend to operate independently. Not only that, but a force exerted on an object is usually independent of the object's momentum.

:::::: In relativity, none of these things are true, due to the fact that velocities no longer add like vectors (and thus acceleration no longer incurs a cumulative change in velocity in the usual way.) This is seen as some sort of logical flaw or paradox simply because it contradicts the deeply ingrained intuition that came from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Sun Dec 13 18:10:46 EST 2009

::::::: Theories that don't produce anything useful are often a waste of time, or simply false. I realize that [[liberals]] tend to downplay accountability -- a [[Best New Conservative Words|conservative insight]], but theories should be accountable by what value they yield, particularly when taxpayer dollars are spent (wasted) on the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:55, 7 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::: I call gps a pretty darned useful invention but it doesn't work if you don't take into account relativistic effects. I think that not knowing where relativity is used speaks volumes as to how close minded those trying to disprove relativity, which is different from relativism. (a point completely overlooked by the page) [[User:Gaurdro|Gaurdro]] 12:31, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

[[User:MLS|MLS]] 16:07, 15 August 2010 (EDT) I would argue that the nuclear bomb and atomic energy in general are pretty useful inventions. These came about once it was understood that energy and matter were manifestations of the same thing and could be interchanged. E=mc2 is not just a fancy mathematical equation but a new & different way of understanding the physical universe. It took scientists about 3 years (1942 - 1945) between concept and execution (poor word choice) to develop a weapon based on this understanding that ended WW II. MLS 15 August 2010.

== Counterexample 4 (limiting behavior) ==

For the fourth "counterexample," the author points out that the momentum <math>p=mv\gamma</math> does not approach the momentum of light as <math>m\rightarrow 0</math> and <math>v\rightarrow c</math>

Aside from the mathematical sloppiness of taking two independent variables to a limit at the same time, at unspecified rates, these sorts of "discontinuities" can be found in just about any scientific theory. In Newtonian mechanics, for example, take the orbit of a planet as the planet's mass goes to 0. For any nonzero mass the orbit is an ellipse; at m=0 it is suddenly a straight line. Is this a "counterexample" to Newton's laws?

Or in electronics, I=V/R. The limiting case is no voltage, no resistance, no current; but if someone foolishly took V/R as both V and R go to zero, he would get a nonsensical answer. Let them both go at the same rate and you get I=1. Is this a "counterexample" to basic electronics?

Or more to the point, momentum in Newtonian mechanics is <math>p=mv</math>, and this also fails to give the momentum of a photon at m=0, v=c. Again, is that a "counterexample" to <math>p=mv</math>? Will we see this entry in a corresponding page of "Counterexamples to Newton's laws?"

But none of these are counterexamples or "discontinuities": they are just a misinterpretation of the formulas. You don't get the momentum of a photon by taking the momentum formula for a mass and setting m=0 and v=c. That's just not what the formula means, or what they are for. This item should also be removed.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Tue Dec 15 10:16:21 EST 2009

I agree that this point is invalid. I have personally checked that if you take a massive particle, and make its rest mass tend to zero and its speed tend to c ''while keeping its energy constant'', its four-momentum approaches that of a photon. No discontinuity at all. Since this point has been raised 8 months ago and no opposition has been heard, I will delete point 4 from the list. If anyone is interested to see the details of my calculations, let me know and I'll put them in my userspace. [[User:Toph|Toph]] 09:38, 14 August 2010 (EDT)

:The "keeping its energy constant" is a new condition that has no clear relevance to the discontinuity. Please explain further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:54, 14 August 2010 (EDT)

== Counterexample 9 (Jesus action-at-a-distance) ==

The quoted verse doesn't strongly suggest "action-at-a-distance" in the relativistic sense. Light could travel the distances mentioned in the passage in a fraction of a second, which is well within the precision given in the verse (an hour). The verse and relativity are not in contradiction here. This should be removed.

:I have an open mind about it. In the the healing of the centurion's servant, if the Greek is translated as same "moment" then relativity is impossible, but if translated as the same "hour" then there is no conflict with relativity.

:But the healing of the centurion's servant is probably not the only place where there is [[action at a distance]] in the [[Bible]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:52, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::Any distance on the earth is less than 20,000km. A force acting with the speed of light takes less than 1/15,000 ≈ 0.0000667 seconds for this distance.

::I don't think how eyewitnesses could spot such a short time...

::So, there may probably be no other places where [[action at a distance]] is described in the [[Bible]].

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:17, 5 January 2010 (EST)

:::You make an interesting point, Frank. But according to this site, it takes 1/7.4 seconds for light to circle the globe, which is much longer than your figure.[http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_times_does_light_go_around_the_Earth_in_one_second] More generally and more importantly, there is the issue of how this action in the Bible ''isn't'' light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::::Indeed, an error in my calculation: 20,000,000m / 300,000,000 m/sec = 1/15 seconds.
::::Fast enough, still.
::::Whether the action in the Bible ''isn't'' light doesn't matter: it is indistinguishable from an action happening at the speed of light for the witnesses of the time, so it doesn't say anything about the validity of the theory of relativity...
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 19:46, 5 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Frank you make an interesting point, and I have an open mind about it. But I'm not entirely convinced. When the woman cured herself of bleeding and Jesus felt power leaving him, that sounds more like heat than light. And for heat to travel virtually instantaneously (or at the speed of light) WOULD violate the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::::::Yes, it would. And it would also violate classical physics, the laws of thermodynamics etc.

::::::But of course a miracle is going to violate the laws of physics. I don't see how this can be cited to discredit one physical theory over another.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

I have to respectfully disagree with you on that point, Andy - I'm not sure this action could comment on relativity any more than the sun stopping for Joshua could comment on the Copernican model of the solar system. If God wanted heat/light to travel at some finite speed except in certain instances, how is that different from the sun and moon moving in the sky, except in certain instances? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:32, 5 January 2010 (EST)

: I have an open mind about this. You make good points, Jacob. But your analogy is not perfect because:

*the Joshua account might be understood as the ''perception'' of the army that they sun did not set until they completed their job, but the healing in the [[New Testament]] cannot be explained as mere perception
*if the Joshua account is taken absolutely literally, Newtonian mechanics does not say it is impossible, while relativity does say [[action-at-a-distance]] is impossible

I look forward to our translation work on the Joshua passage (and New Testament passages) to see if that brings forth insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)
:Your second point is a good one, and I suppose my example wasn't very good. But on a different note, what makes you say that the Joshua account might be understood as only a perception of the army? I think I'm going to go translate that chapeter, I'll be interested to see what Hebrew words are used for that bit. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:49, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::Shall we look at it next? Joshua 10:11-14, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:18, 5 January 2010 (EST)

IMO, the discussion is a little bit bizarre: Following [[David Hume]]'s definition of a [[miracle]] as a "a violation of the laws of nature", for evaluating the ''laws of natures'', miracles can't be taken into account.

As I said earlier: we shouldn't try to restrict God with the laws of our logic - or even physics.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Frank, perhaps what you mean is that you don't want the logic of the Bible to be used to evaluate claims by scientists. If so, I completely disagree. And so would [[Isaac Newton]] and most great scientists.

:As our [[Conservative Bible Translation]] project is revealing, Jesus said his works were not miracles, but signs. So any definition of miracle by Hume (who, by the way, leaned toward atheistic rather than Christianity) is not terribly helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:00, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::So, what's the definition of a ''sign'', then? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:06, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::The same as its name suggests: a disclosure of reality, rather than a violation of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:35, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::*I took Hume's definition as I found it on conservapedia's page on [[miracle]]s.
::::*The page on [[sign]]s doesn't describe Jesu works - perhaps you can fix this
::::*If you don't like Hume, what's about [[Thomas Aquinas]]:

:::::''Now, there are various degrees and orders of these miracles. Indeed, the highest rank among miracles is held by those events in which something is done by God which nature never could do. For example, that two bodies should be coincident; that the sun reverse its course, or stand still; that the sea open up and offer a way through which people may pass. And even among these an order may be observed. For the greater the things that God does are, and the more they are removed from the capacity of nature, the greater the miracle is. Thus, it is more miraculous for the sun to reverse its course than for the sea to be divided.

:::::''Then, the second degree among miracles is held by those events in which God does something which nature can do, but not in this order. It is a work of nature for an animal to live, to see, and to walk; but for it to live after death, to see after becoming blind, to walk after paralysis of the limbs, this nature cannot do—but God at times does such works miraculously. Even among this degree of miracles a gradation is evident, according as what is done is more removed from the capacity of nature.

:::::''Now, the third degree of miracles occurs when God does what is usually done by the working of nature, but without the operation of the principles of nature. For example, a person may be cured by divine power from a fever which could be cured naturally, and it may rain independently of the working of the principles of nature.

::::*Acts 2:43 ''Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles'' (KJB) So, we have ''miraculous signs'' and ''wonders''

::::*John 2:11 ''This was the first of the miracles Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and by doing showed his glory, and so his disciples believed in him. '' (CBP) ''Changing water into wine'' is something nature never could do: it's an outright miracle, miraculous sign, whatever...

::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:00, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::That's great recitation, Frank, but how about simply applying logic yourself? You're a bright guy, why simply hunt and repeat quotes from others? On this site we encourage ''thinking'' in a logical way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:21, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::I'm trying to use the fact that I'm standing on the shoulder of giants... [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:23, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::How about using "the fact" of simple logic and the power of your ''own'' mind?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::::To make it as clear as possible in my own words:
::::::::*I won't restrict God by laws which men made or observed. Can I understand God's ways? Can I expect God to act the way I think to be logical? That would be [[hubris]].
::::::::*Testing scientific hypotheses using God's miracles or signs seems to be odd!
::::::::But which part of Thomas Aquinas's definition of miraculous events didn't you like? Granted, he had a slightly other view of the ''capacity of nature'' than we have today, but his line of reasoning was as valid in the 15th century as it is today! I hoped that his definition would be more ''helpful'' than that of David Hume.

::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:41, 6 January 2010 (EST)

A miraculous healing seems to violate the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] - whether it happens on a distance or not. Does this mean that [[John 4:46-54]] is a counterexample to the laws of thermodynamics, too?
[[User:PhilG|PhilG]] 09:58, 2 February 2010 (EST)

: How so? Do you think eating an apple to feel better, or taking an aspirin to alleviate a headache, also violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:02, 2 February 2010 (EST)

:: No. Eating an Apple helps you by giving your body some of the chemical components that constitute the apple. Components which also happen to help you fight off viruses and the like. The same is true for the aspirin. Both are well defined chemical processes that involve no increase or decrease in the amount of matter or energy in the system. Healing (such as Jesus mending the ear of the soldier), would involve the rapid solidification of matter that was not there before (ie. the new ear). This is a clear violation of the second law of thermodynamics. The point is,if you're going to use miracles or signs to disprove a physical theory, you have to apply the argument to universally. But you don't because attacking the Second Law of Thermodynamics would knock the crutch of misinterpreted Newtonian Physics you have been leaning on out from underneath you.
::[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 3:32 9 August 2010 (EST)

Following was taken from Schlafly user page and put here, where it should have been (my apologies)

(This is my first edit ever on a wiki/conseri board, so you'll have to excuse me if I did it incorrectly)

I have a concern with your post of "Counterexamples of Relativity" Your argument labeled 9:

The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54.

It is not a counter example of relativity. The concept that the theory is broken down because Jesus is able to break it does not apply. Jesus worked miracles. So does God. Because of this, they are able to break laws and/or theories of physics. I haven't taken the time to go over the rest of the points in your counterexamples, but that one definitely doesn't work. If you are going to argue against me, then you are arguing against the Bible. Jesus broke several laws of physics. The biggest example is when he walked on water. Physics would state that by buoyancy laws he would not be able to do this. Does this call into question the physics buoyancy? It definitely does not.--mvgilpatrick 10 August 2010 (CDT)

:Relativity says that action-at-a-distance is impossible. That's not true of other examples. No physical law, for example, proves that rising from the dead is impossible.--Andy Schlafly 13:40, 12 August 2010 (EDT)

::Wouldn't the physical law of gravity and buoyancy make walking on water "impossible"? The only way Jesus could have done it would to have either had some sort of special technology that hadn't been invented yet, or, he is God and can break the laws of gravity and therefore physics (you know, do the "impossible"). Why can he break this law, but not break the theory of relativity? Please address this specific example.

::I can add another example. What about the law of mass conservation? Mass can not be created or destroyed. This is a law, and it is taught as a matter of fact that it is impossible to do otherwise. In Matthew 14:13-21, Jesus was able to feed 5,000 people with 5 loaves and 2 fish. He created mass (lots of food) out of very little (small amount of food). He broke another law of physics. He did the impossible. Again I say, is it not possible for him to break the theory of relativity, whilst still leaving it intact?

::Also please note that I am arguing for Jesus being God, not against, so please do not mistake that. --mvgilpatrick 17:50, 12 August 2010 (CDT)

::: No, I don't think all these examples are the same. Physics does ''not'' categorically state that it is impossible for a creature to walk on water. Physics does ''not'' say that replication is impossible. There is no reason to think the multiplication of the loaves generated mass from nothing, rather than using existing mass to replicate. But Relativity does insist that action-at-a-distance is impossible.

::: Nothing described in the Bible violates physics. Newton used the Bible to guide him to the truth for that reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:36, 12 August 2010 (EDT)

::::Wait a second here. Maybe I am misunderstanding something, but doesn't the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy require that any matter or energy come from somewhere? Also, physics does not categorically state that beings can't walk on water, it does categorically state that under Earth's gravity and given the observed buoyancy / surface tension of water, a being walking on water must either be light enough or have a large enough surface area not to float. Sure, Jesus could have taken energy from somewhere to make the extra loaves and fishes. He also could have changed the local buoyancy or surface tension of water around him in order to walk on it. But, if that was the case, isn't it just as likely that the healing was done with a speed of light delay?--[[User:Freiberg|Freiberg]] 14:28, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

::::: You are "misunderstanding something" ... because you're not looking at what the [[Bible]] says. Which, of course, is the effect that the falsehoods of Relativity have on lots of people who thereafter read anything and everything except the Bible itself. The Bible says the healing was instantaneous. Indeed, that's a key point of the miracle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:39, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::: But it ''doesn't'' say that it was instantaneous. According to your own translation, "So he asked them the exact hour when he began to feel better, and they told him, 'His fever broke yesterday, at about one pm.'". According to the Douay-Rheims, "He asked therefore of them the hour wherein he grew better. And they said to him: 'Yesterday, at the seventh hour, the fever left him.'" Neither indicates an instant healing, as a half hour is ''way'' too long to tell the difference between an instant healing and a healing with a speed-of-light delay.--[[User:Freiberg|Freiberg]] 15:03, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Subsequently the phrase is "exact hour" (which should probably be translated as "exact time" or "exact moment" per the comment section). So thanks for your point because it illustrates the weakness in translation. The instantaneous healing is central to the purpose of the event.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:25, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: The phrase "exact hour" was in the question, but the word "about" was in the answer, negating the "exact hour" phrase. Besides, wasn't the central purpose of the event to demonstrate how faith can save you? Being instantaneous hardly seems to be required for that, especially when the difference was unmeasurable with the technology of the day, and irrelevant (Jesus said that the girl would be healed, and she was). And yes, I know I'm approaching 90/10 with this edit.--[[User:Freiberg|Freiberg]] 15:35, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::::: Freiberg, it is a is a translation error that has led to your problem, as Mr. Schlafly pointed out. Furthermore, the story does not only demonstrate that faith can heal you, but demonstrates that faith can heal you instantaneously. Faith doesn't take 10 years, 5 years, or 1/1000000th of a second to heal someone; the cure can be instantaneous, as demonstrated in this story. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 18:19, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

== lack of a single useful device ==

At conservapedia's article on the [[Global Positioning System]], one can read:

''These receivers rely on precisely timing signals sent from GPS satellites, with corrections for atmospheric attenuation and relativistic effects.''

GPS seems to be a useful device!

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:53, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Great catch of a misleading statement, Frank! I've corrected it.

:Our [[theory of relativity]] entry explains how it did not aid the development of [[GPS]]. The repeated attempt by relativists to falsely claim credit for [[GPS]] ''reinforces'' the lack of any legitimate contributions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::Well, you are consistent! Just another question: What's about [[particle accelerator]]s? Generally, the theory of relativity is used to explain why it takes more energy to accelerate an electron from 200,000,000 m/sec to 200,002,000 m/sec than from 2,000 m/sec to 4,000 m/sec.

::Have you thought about an explanation for this phenomenon?

::Accelerators have applications beyond basic research!

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:02, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::Frank, I have an open mind about this, but I'm not aware of a single benefit from what you describe, nor do you identify one. Do you have an open mind about this?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::*Synchrotron radiation is [http://www.physik.uni-kiel.de/kfs/Anwendung/medicine.php used in medicine]
::::*So, may I ask again: what your explanation for the phenomenon? I suppose you are aware of the phenomenon I described above?
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 15:47, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Frank, inventors and doctors and engineers don't typically even bother learning relativity. Should I repeat that? Complain to engineering departments and medical schools if you think that should change. Nothing useful has even been designed or built using relativity. If you want to look and look and look for a counterexample then you'll be wasting your time. I'm not going to waste mine. This is my final reply on this topic for now. Do something logical, such as editing the Bible, and after benefiting from that experience we can revisit this issue in a month or so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:52, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::Why does it matter whether the users of the invention learn relativity? Most users of microwaves never learn Maxwell's equations either. That doesn't mean that the laws are irrelevant to the gadget's operation.

::::::Likewise, the engineers who correct the clocks of GPS satellites may not know or care that relativistic effects are behind the clock skew. But that dodges the point that relativistic effects are real, observable, and must be corrected for in several useful inventions.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

:::::::Here's a good source: [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf | US Navy]. As for engineers not bothering to learn relativity, I think that's a mite off the mark. I'm an engineer and I had to take a class dealing with the basics of SR, and I'm just an electrical engineer. Aerospace engineers certainly deal with relativity a great deal, as do nuclear engineers. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 00:26, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::::Bah... My engineering professor worked at a synchrotron at Brookhaven National Laboratory. He was in charge of a beam line for the Naval Research Laboratory. They are actually very interesting devices in that they really help with all fields of science and even fields outside of it. My one friend conducted some research with a synchrotron when doing research with fuel cells. My engineering professor studied magnetic materials with a synchrotron. Every once in a while you also find stories like this http://news.discovery.com/human/brain-human-ancestor-skull.html which actually wouldn't have been possible without the synchrotron. I'm only just scratching the surface of how useful they are. Would you like some more information? [[User:AdamYak|AdamYak]] 14:35, 10 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::::Yes, I would like more support for your claim. Relativity is not even part of most engineering curricula.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:17, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

Are not the atomic bomb and nuclear power examples of inventions based on the equivalence of matter and energy? MLS 9 Aug 10

== GPS revisited ==

The same Tom von Flandern who is quoted in the article on the [[theory of relativity]] saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein", wrote in an article in 1998:

''So we can state that the clock rate effect predicted by GR is confirmed to within no worse than ±200 / 45,900 or about 0.7%, and that predicted by SR is confirmed to within ±200 / 7,200 or about 3%. This is a very conservative estimate. In an actual study, most of that maximum 200 ns/day variance would almost certainly be accounted for by differences between planned and achieved orbits, and the predictions of relativity would be confirmed with much better precision.''

As for how the satellites take into account the relativistic effects, here is his explanation of the so-called ''factory offset'' of the atomic clocks for the satellites:

''GPS atomic clocks in orbit would run at rates quite different from ground clocks if allowed to do so, and this would complicate usage of the system. So the counter of hyperfine cesium transitions (or the corresponding phenomenon in the case of rubidium atomic clocks) is reset on the ground before launch so that, once in orbit, the clocks will tick off whole seconds at the same average rate as ground clocks. GPS clocks are therefore seen to run slow compared to ground clocks before launch, but run at the same rate as ground clocks after launch when at the correct orbital altitude.''

Seems to me that relativistic effects have to be taken into account.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:13, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Frank, your intuition ("seems to me") is wrong here, and the entry explains it clearly. GPS is a work of engineering and any timing discrepancies between the satellite and ground are obviously better handled directly by synchronization rather than asking a physicist what he thinks of relativity. Engineers don't even bother taking general relativity courses, let alone try to build a satellite system using them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::The Time Service Department – a department of the U. S. Navy - states: “The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require – transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”

::Sorry, Frank. {{unsigned|PhyllisS}}

:::As far as I can see there is no reason to feel sorry for FrankC: Your article only covers the idea of using the [[Lorentz transformation instead]] of the [[Galileo transformation]] when calculating the position of an object: one could say that it is about the relativistic effects caused by the movement of the GPS receiver, not of the GPS satellites. That's why it's talking about ''fast moving air-planes and satellites''.
:::FrankC (and others) have shown that there are relativistic effects on the satellites which are taken account of:
::::[http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/gpssps1.pdf Global Positioning System Standard Positioning Service Signal Specification], 2nd edition, June 1995:

::::p. 13: ''To compensate for relativistic effects, the output frequency of the satellite's frequency standard -- as it would appear to an observer located at the satellite -- is 10.23 MHz offset by a Df/f = -4.4647 x 10-18 or a Df = -4.567 x 10-3 Hz.''

::::p. 39: ''The coefficients transmitted in subframe 1 describe the offset apparent to the control segment two-frequency receivers for the interval of time in which the parameters are transmitted. This estimated correction accounts for the deterministic satellite clock error characteristics of bias, drift and aging, as well as for the satellite implementation characteristics of group delay bias and mean differential group delay. Since these coefficients do not include corrections for relativistic effects, the user's equipment must determine the requisite relativistic correction. Accordingly, the offset given below includes a term to perform this function.''
::: (From [[Talk:Global Positioning System]])
::: [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 12:44, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: I would like to second the points made by [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] in that there is far too much evidence and calculations that indicate just how vital GR is to accurate calculations. The effects of gravitational and time dilation predicted by general relativity are not negligible over the course of one day. The article linked to above by [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] is a fantastic review of some of the mathematics behind the (verifiable) predictions made by the theory of general relativity. - 14th August 2010 [[User:NotesTH|NotesTH]]

== Several Clarification/Corrections ==

I am new to Conservapedia, so I don't fully understand exactly how this site is structured; in particular who has the ability to edit protected pages. This page is apparently protected, but in need of dire work even on the formatting/punctuation/style side of things. I hope someone with the required access to protected pages can incorporate some of these changes. In any event, here are some things that need to be clarified or corrected:

1. It is unclear what #6 is referring to by "overall space". Is this a reference to the flatness problem in cosmology? If so, that should be made explicit, and the most commonly accepted solution (inflation) should be mentioned for completeness. If not, the curvature of space locally is clearly demonstrated by the observed phenomenon of gravitational lensing.

2. #7 is just a feature of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum field theory. In this sense, general relativity is of course wrong (just as Newtonian mechanics is, for example), because it doesn't apply accurately below distance scales where quantum effects emerge.

3. #8 is not a problem because quantum nonlocality doesn't allow for information transfer. Hence special relativity is not violated.

4. #10 is not a counterexample because gravitons are not predicted by general relativity. They are expected to exist and be predicted by a successful ''quantum'' theory of gravity, but general relativity is not such a theory.

5. #11 is not a counterexample to the theory at all. It may be an argument for why the theory should not be studied, but that doesn't mean it is ''false'', and thus is not a counterexample.

6. #13 is presumably a reference to the horizon problem of cosmology. This should be stated, and, as for the flatness problem, the theory of cosmological inflation should be mentioned. (I realize inflation has not been empirically verified, but since the majority of cosmologists believe it is the correct explanation, it deserves a mention in an encyclopedia article.)

7. #14 is again the problem of the incompatibility of general relativity and quantum field theory (namely that QFT is not background-invariant). This is not a problem with general relativity, other than in the sense that it is only an approximation (like, say, Maxwellian electrodynamics are just an approximation to quantum electrodynamics).

8. #15, aside from the obvious grammatical error (''violated'' instead of the correct ''violate''), is again not a counterexample to general relativity. General relativity predicts wormholes ''only'' on the assumption that so-called "exotic matter" exists. This is matter that has net negative mass/energy, and so is predicted not to exist for precisely the reasons listed here (time travel and the like). But this is not a counterexample to general relativity itself, merely the observation that a mathematically possible solution does not have a physical manifestation.

9. #16 is again a quantum gravity issue. It is wrong to call black holes "highly ordered (and thus low entropy)", though. The fact is that science does not yet know how to count black hole microstates, so we don't know whether they are highly ordered or extremely disordered. But the best explanation seems to be that general relativity and the Second Law together suggest that black holes should have extremely ''high'' entropy, not low entropy. But again, this is not a counterexample to general relativity per se, since it makes no predictions about what black hole entropy should be.
::I believe a blackhole's entropy is determined by the surface area of its event horizon. In this sense, it doesn't have low entropy at all.

10. #18 appears to be a restatement of #11, and is thus both redundant, and not a counterexample for the reasons listed discussion #11.

I apologize for the length of this list of edits, but something really must be done to improve the quality of this article. I hope that someone with the appropriate access sees fit to make the necessary changes soon.
[[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:12, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:REPLY BELOW:

::1. It is unclear what #6 is referring to by "overall space". Is this a reference to the flatness problem in cosmology? If so, that should be made explicit, and the most commonly accepted solution (inflation) should be mentioned for completeness. If not, the curvature of space locally is clearly demonstrated by the observed phenomenon of gravitational lensing.

::: I'll clarify the obvious. It's still a counterexample. Science is not done by consensus, and inflation does not explain the overall flatness of space if relativity were true.

::::You needn't be so condescending. I wasn't saying that it isn't a problem with general relativity, I was just saying that since this is an encyclopedia, relevant information should be included. Since a proposed solution exists, it should be mentioned, and perhaps debunked if it is flawed. So you could mention inflation, and then say why it fails to solve the flatness problem. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::The theory of inflation does nothing "to solve the flatness problem" with respect its role as a counterexample to relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::Could you clarify this point? Perhaps you could state exactly what you believe the flatness problem is and how it is a counterexample to GR, just to be sure we aren't talking past each other, as I fear we may have been so far. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:55, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::2. 7: is just a feature of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum field theory. In this sense, general relativity is of course wrong (just as Newtonian mechanics is, for example), because it doesn't apply accurately below distance scales where quantum effects emerge.

:::So at what distances do you declare general relativity to be false? Is there a discontinuity at that distance? Such an approach is absurd.

::::I mean, technically it is false at ''all'' length scales, just like any classical (non-quantum) theory (Newtonian mechanics, Maxwellian electromagnetism, classical statistical mechanics, etc.). But there exists a range of length scales at which it is extremely accurate, and those are the only ones to which it makes claims having any epistemological value. There is no discontinuity, it just gets progressively worse as quantum effects become more and more apparent, which occurs at smaller and smaller length scales. Quantum effects definitely need to be taken into account around the level of a nanometer or so in most systems of interest, so I would say this is about the regime where GR needs to stop being used. But of course, it depends on the system in question. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Not "technically it is false," but "it is false." So teach it that way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::See KrisJ's discussion below. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::3. 8 is not a problem because quantum nonlocality doesn't allow for information transfer. Hence special relativity is not violated.

:::Your statement is a non sequitur, and may not be true. Special relativity does deny non-locality.

::::It's not a non sequitur; the problem as I thought it was stated on the page is that special relativity does not allow information transfer faster than the speed of light. Since quantum entanglement cannot actually transfer information, this does not violate that provision of special relativity. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Special relativity does not define "information" nor was it developed in that context.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::It is true that SR does not define information, but it does define causality (only events within each other's lightcones can be causally connected). Physical transfer of information (as defined by Shannon, and encoded in physical systems in Minkowski spacetime) between points in spacetime can only occur if those points are causally connected. (This SR fact is what the horizon problem, which is cited as another GR counterexample, relies on.) [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

:::Will respond to your other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

::::I appreciate your attention to my concerns, and I hope I have adequately outlined them. Also, I hope I would not be asking too much to request formatting consistency (like adding periods at the ends of nos. 7, 8, and 9). It would make it look more professional, like other articles I've seen on Conservapedia. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Yill, your grand total of contributions to this site has been 3 edits to this page, all easily refutable. Frankly, I don't think greater efforts at "formatting consistency" are justified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:01, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::Your not going to be able to attract many users if you disparage newcomers with respect to how few edits they've made. I would like to be a positive contributor to this site, but I have to start somewhere. I would appreciate encouragement and constructive criticism, not condescension and personal attacks. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Yill, good grammar requires "you're", not "your", in your statement above. All your edits have been 100% talk, in violation of our [[90/10 rule]], and honestly I see no insights in your talk. I suggest you try contributing substantively to [[Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)]]; it is on a much higher educational level and you'll benefit enormously from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: You're right, I had a typo there; I apologize for the error. And I am well aware of the 90/10 rule, but seeing as the page I'm working on is protected, I'm not actually able to make any edits. If it were unblocked or I were given the ability to edit it, I would be more than happy to stop posting on this talk page and instead edit the article itself. And frankly I don't particularly see how it's relevant whether you personally happen to see any insights in my talk; my understanding is that Conservapedia is shaped and edited by its users, with appropriate oversight from administrators to ensure accuracy and prevent the chaos of Wikipedia. If need be, I'll appeal to those administrators to get the article fixed, since none seem to have come forward to help. I would love it if you would be willing to work with me to improve this article, but as it stands you seem to have little interest in doing so, having made no further contributions to the substance of the discussion. If you change your mind, I would be happy to work with you on this endeavor.

::::::::As for your suggested article for me to work on, I don't really understand what you mean by it being on a "much higher educational level." However, as I have no expertise in Biblical Greek, I don't think I'd be able to make any meaningful contributions to the translation. I'll let the experts in that subject deal with that article. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:37, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::Yill, I recommended the Bible because, as Isaac Newton pointed out, working on translating the Bible increases the quality of one's work in other areas, including science. Sure, I could drop everything else I'm doing and spend all day correcting you about this entry, but if you just picked up a Bible and improved your own work, then I could learn from you instead. I'll correct your misunderstandings below but doubt I will spend much more time responding to you if you're not willing to put in open-minded effort on your own.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

Yill, you raise excellent points, most of which have not been raised before. We should sharpen those points, here on this page, and then address them on the actual article page. This will take a fair amount of discussion. I could start by bringing up the discussion of point 7, inaccuracy of relativity at the quantum mechanical scale. One question that was raised was "Is there a discontinuity at that [microscopic boundary] distance? Such an approach is absurd.". No. The way quantum mechanics and classical theories interact at the (microscopic) scales where this happens is well known. It is, of course, generally known as the Bohr correspondence principle, described in any textbook on quantum mechanics, and known in more detail as Ehrenfest's theorem, described in more advanced textbooks. (Very briefly, the quantum mechanical realm eases into the classical realm according to the Ehrenfest theorem.) We should make some citations to those, and put in a careful explanation that, under QM, '''all''' classical theories are incorrect, and QM is the correct theory for everything, from atoms to planets. Classical theories are just extremely good approximations outside of the quantum-mechanical realm. And, of course, we do not know how that quantum-mechanical realm operated immediately after the big bang (that's what inflation theory is about), but that doesn't affect what we ''do'' know about general relativity in the macroscopic realm.

The item about point 10 is excellent. Gravitons arose ''after GR'', from attempts to unify the theories. They have nothing to do with the macroscopic aspects of GR, which is what GR is actually all about.

[[User:KrisJ|KrisJ]] 10:04, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

: Teach that relativity is incorrect, if you concede the point. There are relativists who claim their theory is the most precisely verified theory of all.

::Those relativists claim that with respect to the macroscopic realm, as KrisJ referred to above. We are discussing how it breaks down at the microscopic level, when QM starts to play a role. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

: Gravitons are based on GR, and they are non-existent. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:37, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::No, for gravitons to be a counterexample to GR, they must be predicted by it. But they are not, just as photons are not predicted by Maxwellian electrodynamics. They are the "quantum" of the gravitational field, as photons are for the electromagnetic field, and are quantum ''by definition''. GR is ''not'' a quantum theory; it manifestly does not predict them. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

:KrisJ, I appreciate your assistance with this project. I absolutely agree with your suggestions about 7 and 10, and hopefully we can find an editor with the ability to edit protected pages to help us implement them. If you know of any that could help us, you should ask if they would be willing. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

I guess I was wrong about not being able to edit this article. I'm going to delete #10, as per above, and make some formatting changes. I may also make some other clarifying edits. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:45, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

I also deleted the references to relativity being useful, since those have nothing to do with its epistemological validity. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:52, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

== Curvature of Space ==

Re [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&curid=97238&diff=766130&oldid=742826 this] edit: I don't disagree, but the example is a bad one. Based on local observations, one would assume that the Earth itself is flat, but it clearly isn't. My own point of view is that since the Universe can never be proved to be one thing or another, it is part of God's own ineffable being - it is almost folly to inquire further. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:24, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

: No, one would not assume the Earth is flat based on local observations, as a ship can be observed to "rise" over the horizon. I don't agree with the "nature is God" view either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:34, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
::Funny coincidence(?) that a defender of relativity invokes pantheism, since it was Einstein's (and Spinoza's) "god." [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:50, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

:I actually think the edit has merit, as long as the word "initial" is inserted before curvature, since the problem is that any initial curvature should be vastly amplified over time as the universe undergoes its usual expansion. And it is in fact the global curvature that is the issue here; ''any'' manifold we use to model the universe is by definition locally flat (since this is a fundamental property of manifolds). The ship and horizon observation is not a local observation, since it is fundamentally predicated on the global curvature of the Earth. "Local" means that it can be done at arbitrarily small distance scales, which that observation cannot. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:06, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

General relativity predicts that space-''time'' should be curved and not just spatial sections of the 4D spacetime manifold. And space-time is indeed observed to be curved (because the universe is expanding and is hence described by a curved FRW metric). This is true even if space alone is flat, as it is observed to be. That space is observed to be flat doesn't contradict relativity - it is a question of initial conditions of the universe and has a neat solution in inflationary cosmology. So Point no. 6 is absolutely unnecessary. Of course, most of the other points are too. But I just want to see how Andy will respond to this and edit the article so that it indeed can be said to belong to a "trustworthy encyclopedia".

[[User:Saywhat|Saywhat]] 08:19, 13 August 2010 (EDT)

: Your "of course" convinces no one. Why would you start with point 6 if you "of course" had answers for points 1-5?

: Relativity does imply that space as well as space-time are curved. The observation of a flat universe does contradict what would be expected if Relativity were true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 13 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: A trivial solution to Einsteins field equations for a vacuum can result in Minkowski spacetime. This is a 4D metric describing a pseudo-Riemannian manifold with no spatial curvature (i.e. flat). A requirement of GR is that in locally inertial frames (i.e. small enough regions of spacetime) we recover Minkowski spacetime. It's just that in GR the requirement of a locally Minkwoski spacetime does not always extend to a global case with curvature effects breaking down the notion of inertial frames for all observers. This means that a flat spacetime is a valid prediction arising from General Relativity. The presence of matter will, generically, curve spacetime but certain models such as the FLRW models used in cosmology permit solutions that predict a spatially flat Universe under a given condition. It should also be noted that the FLRW models are not static and do change with time.

::::The observation of a flat Universe (spatial curvature parameter, K = 0 in the FLRW metric) is not in violation of GR and is a valid solution to Einsteins field equations (see e.g. Friedmanns Equations) and a generic prediction of models for inflationary cosmology whereby a rapid expansion in the early Universe drives the Universe towards a spatially flat solution, certainly within the observable Universe. Predictions from GR are still obeyed contrary to the comment "flat universe does contradict what would be expected if Relativity were true".

:::: I do not feel that the point in discussion is in any way a counterpoint to relativity. If other objections arise then perhaps this point would need to be further clarified so that any issues may be appropriately discussed? 15th August 2010

== Reversion explained ==

Reversion was necessary for two reasons: first, to restore material that was improperly censored, and second, to revert an imprecise label put on one of the counterexamples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:53, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:I don't want to get into an edit war here, so I won't undo your reversion for now. But I fail to understand your reasoning, so perhaps you could clarify a bit instead of making the one sentence assertions that have made up your discourse so far. There is no censorship here, merely deletion of objectively incorrect statements. Perhaps you could actually bother to respond to my points above, rather than just reverting my edits without justification. In the meantime, I will replace the periods I added at the end of several of the counterexamples for formatting consistency; hopefully you don't consider ''that'' to be "censorship" as well. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 20:48, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

::You deleted valid information. Gravitons are predicted by an attempt to reconcile GR with quantum mechanics. Without GR gravitons would not be expected; with GR people do expect to find them. The wholesale deletion of reference to this is unwarranted, and simply conceals a real flaw in GR.

:::First of all, I want to thank you for actually explaining your claims. Now we can actually have the real discussion KrisJ suggested above. You are perfectly correct in stating the gravitons are predicted by an attempt to reconcile GR with QM; that is precisely the point I was trying to make. But by your logic we could rightly conclude that the flaw is with QM rather than GR--without QM gravitons would not be expected either. On what basis do you claim that the non-observance of gravitons is a counterexample to GR rather than a counterexample to QM? (Also, I should note that just because gravitons have not yet been observed, that doesn't mean they won't be. For example, the non-observation of the Z boson did not constitute a counterexample to the electroweak theory between 1979 and 1983.) [[User:Yill|Yill]] 22:55, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

::::Gravitons were historically proposed in trying to reconcile GR with QM. Other theories of gravity may not require gravitons at all. Does string theory? Gravitons are thereby attributable to GR, not to the more developed and better verified QM. ''Simply look at the name "gravitons" itself''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:23, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::Actually, any quantum theory of gravity, whether it reduces to GR at large scales or not, requires gravitons ''by definition''. Do you even understand what a graviton ''is''? ''The quantum of a gravitational field.'' Just as any quantum theory of electromagnetism ''must'' include the photon in its particle spectrum, any quantum theory of gravity ''must'' include the graviton in its particle spectrum. And yes, string theory requires them; the entire reason string theory started being developed as a theory of everything is that gravitons (i.e. massless spin-2 bosons) naturally appear as part of its particle spectrum! [[User:Yill|Yill]] 14:57, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Yill, do you know what [[action-at-a-distance]] is? It doesn't require the fictional gravitons. Newtonian mechanics doesn't require such imaginary particles.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:00, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::::Do you know what ''quantum'' means? Please acknowledge that you do, and that you know Newtonian mechanics is not a quantum theory, and therefore that ''your response does not address my concern.'' [[User:Yill|Yill]] 00:19, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

::The "flatness problem" refers primarily to curvature expected from inflation, not GR itself. It is misleading to call the counterexample the "flatness problem," and then pretend it has a solution. The counterexample described is not resolved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:12, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:::The flatness problem refers to the fact that, in an ''inflation-free'' universe, the FRW metric with matter and radiation equation-of-state parameters predicts that any initial nonzero curvature will increase vastly in magnitude, leaving a highly curved universe at present. Inflation is proposed as a ''solution'' to the flatness problem; it is not the cause of it. The process of inflation drastically flattens any initial curvature in the universe so dramatically that even after the curvature increase undergone under normal evolution, the universe still appears nearly perfectly flat. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 22:55, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
:::Wait, I just realized that I think we may be talking past one another here. I interpreted the counterexample listed on the page to be the flatness problem, but based on your response I guess that it is not. (Obviously the flatness problem is not a counterexample to GR itself, just to the use of the FRW metric for modeling the universe.) This counterexample seems to be more fundamental, namely the claim that space is nowhere curved, as GR says it must be by matter and energy. Is that correct? [[User:Yill|Yill]] 23:25, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

::::A ''type'' of inflation is proposed to try to explain the unexpected flatness. But there's no way around the basic problem: GR says that space is curved by matter, and an overall flatness is impossible under such a model. Yet an overall flatness is what is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:23, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::I still don't understand what you're saying. The ''overall'' visible universe ''is'' flat, at scales large enough that it can accurately be modeled as homogeneous and isotropic. (These scales are beyond the sizes of galactic clusters.) But on much smaller scales, where these assumptions obviously break down, matter does indeed curve spacetime; the phenomenon of gravitational lensing is precisely such an example. If you are at all confused by these different notions, I would recommend taking a look at a modern textbook on the subject; Barbara Ryden's ''Introduction to Cosmology'' is a good place to start. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 14:57, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

::::::Dark matter supposedly permeates the universe, and there's no way it would be flat if GR were true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:48, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::::Okay, now ''that'' is a total non sequitur. Again, instead of making blanket assertions, perhaps you should learn why, given that they believe dark matter permeates the universe ''and'' that it is flat on large scales, cosmologists still think GR works. Let me enlighten you. If the universe were evenly filled with a uniformly dense substance, the curvature would be flat. Yet there were would be matter in it! And that's it. On large enough scales, that's how the universe appears. Hence there is no contradiction. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 00:19, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: An additional clarification to the previous discussions: According to Einsteins equations (neglecting the cosmological constant for now):

<math> G_{ab} = R_{ab} - \frac{1}{2} g_{ab} R = 8 \pi G T_{ab} </math>

in which: <math> R_{ab} </math> is representative of the curvature of spacetime (Ricci tensor) and <math> T_{ab} </math> is representative of the matter/energy content of the given model (Stress-Energy tensor). So Einsteins equations state that the presence of matter gives rise to curvature effects in spacetime. In FLRW cosmology the existence of a spatially flat solution is possible if the total density ~ critical density required for a flat Universe. The fact that the Universe is non-static and we currently include a dark energy component does not mean that a Universe that is currently observed to be spatially flat is in conflict with predictions of General Relativity. The flatness problem is more of an initial value problem/fine tuning problem than that of a breakdown in GR.

== Proposed page move ==

Can someone rename the article so the R is lowercase in the title? Thanks, [[User:GregoryZ|GregoryZ]] 22:21, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

:Why? The term refers to a specific theory, and the many counterexamples to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:31, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

::My simple rationale is "relativity" is not a proper noun. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity Wikipedia uses the lowecase] and so does [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relativity Wester's], so why not here? --[[User:GregoryZ|GregoryZ]] 22:36, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

:::It's not a traditional proper noun, you're right, but it does satisfy all the conditions underlying why proper nouns are capitalized. It is a unique term-of-art, having a specific meaning other than the general meaning of the word. As used in physics, "Relativity" is different from the generic "relativity".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

::::However, it is my belief, "relativity" in this case should not be treated differently. Look at the Wikipedia article, it uses "relativity" in that sense. Also, the [[theory of relativity|CP article on the subject]] uses the lowercase as well, so I still see no point in capitalizing it here. --[[User:GregoryZ|GregoryZ]] 23:07, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

::::: The word "relativity" dates from the early 1800s. That's not what is being discussed here. If preceded with "theory of" then there is no need to capitalize; if stand-alone, however, it does add clarification to capitalize as is done for other specific concepts that differ from the generic names.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

== Curl of the gravitational field ==

Sorry to get over-technical, but the fundamental law of "fictitious forces" (including gravity) is that the force field (divided by the mass of the test object) is

<math>G^i = - \Gamma^i_{00}</math>

Its curl is

<math>(\nabla \times G)^i = \mathcal{E}^{ijk} g_{km} G^m_{;j}</math>
where the semicolon indicates the covariant gradient.

When you work this out, it involves derivatives of the <math>\Gamma\,</math> quantities. In general relativity, the results are zero by symmetries of Riemann's tensor.

[[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 21:33, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

: Perhaps so, but the "twin paradox" in Relativity states that the age of each twin is dependent on his path of travel. For a conservative field, all physical parameters are path independent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Simeon, your mathematical work is rigorous and correct. However, the twin paradox example is interesting to study here. I am aware that the twin paradox is solved by the non-inertial turn-around of the ship when it is going back home. However, in this solution, it is still noted that there is an age difference between the twins. [http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm Wikipedia affirms this] and so do [http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm other sites]. Such an age difference in twins shows that there is some sort of path dependence. I understand that traveling at near-c speeds in space is not the same thing as moving from point A to B in a gravitational field, but the concept does seem to be a bit similar. Could you maybe explain this for us a bit? Thanks. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 00:52, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

OK, I think I understand. I assumed that the "conservative field" / "curl is zero" stuff referred to the gravitational force field. If it refers to the passage of time, that's different. It isn't true that "all physical parameters are path independent". An extremely important one that isn't path independent is the arc length of the path or arc. You can draw a short straight line from A to B, or a long loopy line that starts at A, wanders around, and eventually gets to B. Why is this relevant to the twin paradox? Because, in relativity, an observer's own elapsed time ("local time") is really just the arc length of his "world line" in Minkowski space. Minkowski was an extremely smart guy, by the way. The twin that stays home takes a direct route from point A (their birth) to point B (the moment they compare ages and see that one has gray hair and wrinkled skin.) The other twin takes a very roundabout route, getting in a rocket and going to Alpha Centauri and back. Their path lengths are their local times, which are different. (Why is the length of the roundabout path actually shorter, so that that twin ages less? Because, in Minkowski space, using the "timelike convention" that all the best people use :-), motion in space subtracts from the elapsed time. That's just the way it works.)

Now I assume that there is no dispute about the facts of relativistic time dilation. In addition to being predicted exactly by the Lorentz transform, it has been observed in practice in cosmic ray muon decays, as well as countless observations in particle accelerators. The "twin paradox" is just an extreme consequence of this. It has of course never been observed in that form, just as we don't know whether Schrodinger's cat is alive.

The "twin paradox" is a consequence of special relativity, not general, and hence does not relate to gravity. I hate to be the umpteenth person to tell you that general relativity is too hard to explain, but it's kind of true. I barely understand the most rudimentary basics. (When Eddington made his comment about only 3 people in the world who understand gen. rel., I wasn't the third! :-) But I can say that you don't need to worry about general relativity to understand the "twin paradox". You can finesse the Minkowski-space curvature of the path during the turnaround at Alpha Centauri, and just say that the twin went there and came back. So was something physically different, that the twins could observe? You bet. The "younger" twin will remember having experienced 6 months of horrendous acceleration in the ionic-drive rocket, followed by a year of horrendous turnaround, and another 6 months of horrendous deceleration at the end. She will have soft, smooth skin, but at a great cost. :-)

Sorry to be so long-winded. In quick summary, the thing that's different about the paths is their length, and that is exactly the local elapsed time. [[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 00:07, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

: Simeon, time dilation occurs under the Theory of General Relativity also, so your analysis above is not persuasive in resolving this example of a non-conservative effect. Moreover, your repeated claims about how supposedly only geniuses can understand this are getting tiresome. That approach is a recipe for mistaken reliance on unjustified authority.

: If you don't feel this is understandable, then simply say so and stop there; please do not imply that people should just accept what someone of undisclosed political views claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:58, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

I give up.
*The only scientists I mentioned were Minkowski and Eddington, and the latter just as a joke. I never said anything about their, or anyone else's, politics.
*Time dilation does indeed occur under both general and special relativity. The point I was trying to make is that general relativity is simply not needed to understand the twin paradox. It only takes special relativity, which is much better understood. I'm sorry to hear that, by not analyzing the twin paradox in terms of general relativity, my persuasiveness suffered.
*I apologize if I "talked down" to you and Phyllis with my comments about GR being too complicated. I assume that both of you have heard, many times, that GR is exceedingly complicated. I was simply trying to soften the blow by pointing out that you ''don't need'' GR. And cracking that joke about how Eddington could not have been referring to me.
*In fact, I know a fair amount about GR. I ''could'' analyze the twin paradox in terms of the gravitation of Earth and Alpha Centauri. But there is simply no need to.
*This "non-conservative effect" business simply makes no sense. If the integration of a vector field along different paths gets different final results, then that field is non-conservative. You seem to be saying that the ''passage of time'' is some kind of vector field, and that the final results of "integrations" (the two different values of local time at the end of the experiment) are supposed to be the same, and that the difference shows that this "vector field" is not conservative, and that that is a counterexample to relativity. The passage of time is not a vector field. The different values of time, as seen by different observers, is not a ''counterexample'' to relativity, it is ''one of the principal effects'' of relativity. It's really what the word "relativity" means when discussing the scientific Theory of Relativity.
*If you really think that the non-globality and non-absoluteness of time is a counterexample to relativity, then so be it.

[[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 23:13, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

: Simeon, if you "give up," then that is your own choice. You have not disproved the counterexample. Instead, you first described the twin paradox as being only about special relativity, and when I pointed out that it exists under general relativity too, you then agree yet do not fully address the substantive issue presented by the paradox. For example, the amount of acceleration undertaken by the twin in his journey will affect his age independent of his time spent away. His subsequent age is ''not'' path independent even in time-space coordinates.

: It's easy to search for "general relativity" and "conservative field" on the internet and see how little has been written about this. That is telling in itself. I'm happy to continue to discuss this here with you or anyone else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

:: Could you clarify what the ages (and path dependence thereof) in the twin paradox have to do with conservative fields? --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 14:04, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

::: Age is scalar physical attribute. It should not be path dependent in a [[conservative field]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:31, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: Yes, but which [[conservative field]] in particular are you talking about here (that implies age is not path dependent)? --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 14:37, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

::::: Gravity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:53, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Well, in Newtonian mechanics, the gravitational field is indeed conservative -- it's the negative gradient of the gravitational potential! But what this means is that gravitational potential energy is path-independent: it doesn't say anything about path-independence any other quantities, and in particular it's not the reason for the path-independence of age. --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 15:00, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::: You take a narrow view of the significance of a "conservative field." Independent physical attributes should remain path-independent as well for the field to be conservative. In Newtonian mechanics and most other physical force fields, they do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:41, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: By a conservative field, I mean a vector field on space for which there exists a scalar function V with the gradient of V given by that vector field. This doesn't imply the path-independence of any physical quantities other than V itself. If you this view as too narrow, can you tell me what you take to be the definition of a conservative field? --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 15:57, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::::: Your definition is too narrow when discussing the theory of relativity, which describes the framework in which the force operates. To be meaningful, the definition must be broader. It must ensure the path independence of the scalar, as well as other scalars independent of that scalar.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:12, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::: Can you tell me what the correct definition is, then? I have pretty good background in this stuff, no need to dumb it down, just be precise. Certainly no field at all is going to conserve every scalar function, so I'd like to know which ones you want. --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 18:20, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::::::: Kyle, I have an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open mind]] about this, and don't see a precise definition anywhere that would be meaningful with respect to the theory of relativity. It's striking how relativists avoid this issue, and even stop discussing it when it is brought up.

::::::::::: I can propose a definition that you may be able to improve. How about: a conservative theory of motion is one whereby scalar values of a particle are independent of its path of motion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:36, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

That's an interesting proposal, and I too have an open mind about this. Can you give an example of such a ''conservative theory of motion''? One such would greatly help in devising the correct definition. --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 19:29, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:Newtonian mechanics would be an obvious example. By the way, how do you explain the general lack of discussion and papers about whether the theory of relativity is conservative, including the abrupt departure of User:Simeon from this discussion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:58, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:: Some scalar values in Newtonian mechanics are conserved because there exist associated conservative fields (or more generally [[Noether's Theorem|symmetries of the Lagrangian]]). What is an example of a scalar value in the Newtonian mechanics that is not of this type, which makes this a conservative theory of motion while relativity is not?
::I don't know why relativity's defenders won't confront this. Maybe that could be the topic of the debate page -- I'm interested using this discussion to sharpen counterexample 21. --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 23:55, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

::: This is a really interesting discussion. I think I made a gross mistake in my first post. The theory of relativity urges us to think of the three space coordinates (x, y, and z) and the time coordinate (t) as four coordinates of space-time - that is, that space and time are pretty much the same. I extrapolated from this that since there can be a (conservative) gravitational field in space coordinates, there can also be some sort of conservative field depending on the time coordinate. I then extrapolated this notion to special relativity, and the twin paradox; I postulated that maybe time dilation effects were the work of a non-conservative field that was dependent on the t-coordinate. Now I see that this was all somewhat foolish. However, I wanted to ask you all: can you have a conservative or non-conservative field with respect to time? If not, I think time should '''not''' be considered as almost the same thing as x, y, z space. I feel that the ability for a dimension to have a field (conservative or not) is integral to its being considered a space-like dimension.

::: Aschlafly, the fact that the twin paradox exists in general relativity is '''irrelevant'''. Yes, sure, the twin paradox occurs within space where general relativity is working, but there are no effects acting on the twins that influences the twin paradox in any way. Likewise, User:Simeon 's departure is also '''irrelevant'''.

::: What about black holes, though? Surely their gravitational fields aren't conservative, since once an object passes the event horizon, you can't retrieve it. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 01:24, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

Phyllis:

You seem to be very curious about this topic. I'm going to try to give an intuitive, but nevertheless scientifically correct, explanation of what is going on with relativity, the "twin paradox", and vector fields, potential functions, and path integrals. This explanation will probably seem long and tedious, for which I apologize in advance. I also apologize if it seems that I am being too "folksy", or talking down to you. Please bear with me, and please pay close attention.

We have a parking lot, and two twins, who are fitness enthusiasts and always wear pedometers wherever they go. There are two spots, "X" and "Y", painted on the parking lot. Both people stand on spot "X", set their pedometers to zero, and start walking. Twin A simply walks directly to spot Y. Twin B, being more into fitness, walks all over the place, eventually arriving at B.

Now there are quite a number of things we can say. First, the temperatures vary all over the place. They are a ''scalar field''. That means that they are associated with ''location on the parking lot'', not with any particular observer. They are objective measurements that everyone agrees on, because they are aspects of space itself. Our fitness enthusiasts are also amateur meteorologists, and carry thermometers around with them.

::Twin A: "When I was at the green Toyota, I noticed that the temperature was 67 degrees Fahrenheit."
::Twin B: "By coincidence, I also wandered past the green Toyota, and got the same reading."

By the way, since temperature is a scalar field, it has a gradient, which is a vector field. That field is conservative, according to the theorem of mathematical physics that says that curl grad Φ = 0 always. This gradient is a ''vector field''. Like the scalar of temperature, it is a property of the ''space (parking lot) itself''. If the twins had been measuring this gradient (perhaps they carry around fancy "differential thermometers"), they would have gotten the same vector at the green Toyota.

There is also a theorem of mathematical physics, sort of the opposite of the theorem above, that says that, if a vector field V has a curl of zero:
*You can make a scalar field <math>\Phi\,</math> (a property of the space itself, not tied to any particular observer) that it is the gradient of. That scalar field is called the "potential" for the (conservative) vector field. (By the way, this is very closely related to "exact differential equations" that you wrote about! Do you see the connection?)
*If you integrate that vector field along any path between two points A and B (that is, you calculate
:::<math>\int_A^B \vec{V} \cdot dl</math>
for that path, where "dl" is the "line element" along the path), you will get <math>\Phi(B)-\Phi(A)\,</math>.
*Since <math>\Phi(B)-\Phi(A)\,</math> is a property of the scalar field itself (and the points A and B), it follows that that path integral is the same for all paths. And if the path ends on the same point it started on, the integral is zero.

::Twin A: "I was measuring the gradient of the temperature as I walked, and calculating its path integral as I went. I got an answer of 4 degrees."
::Twin B: "I was doing the same. My integral was much harder to calculate, because I was going all over the place. But I also got 4 degrees. Hey, wait a minute! The temperature at the start point was 68 degrees, and at the end point it was 72 degrees. That explains it."

Now someone at the edge of the parking lot was running a Van deGraff generator, so there were electric fields all over the place. The twins are also physics students, and carry electroscopes wherever they go. They measured the electric field, and calculated its path integrals. The electric field is conservative (in the absence of varying magnetic fields), so they got the same integral. That integral was 600 volts (it's only static electricity, so it isn't dangerous). Since the electric field is conservative, there is, by the previous theorem, a potential function. That function was 600 volts higher at point B than at point A.

Now here's the kicker:

::Twin A: "I walked directly from A to B. My pedometer says 150 feet."
::Twin B: "I took a long route all over the place. I walked half a mile."

The pedometer readings ''are not a scalar field''. They are not a property of the space itself. They are properties of the observers. Even though they, in some sense, measure an aspect of the parking lot (how many molecules of asphalt one passes), they are artifacts of the twins' actions.

The twins could have been integrating their motion vectors; that's sort of what pedometers do. But those vectors are not a vector field on the space itself. It makes no sense to ask whether that "vector field" is conservative, because it isn't a vector field. A vector (or scalar, or tensor) field has to be a property ''of the space itself''. These "pedometer vectors" are just things that the twins make up as they walk.

Now for the "twin paradox". The parking lot is replaced by "Minkowski space", also called "4-dimensional space-time". "Points" in this space are now "events", complete with a time. Events A and B are now the act of the twins saying goodbye as one of them got into the rocket, and the act of them re-uniting after B returns. Twin A took a direct route (called her "world line") from A to B. She used a coordinate system in which the spatial coordinates of A and B were the same (Cape Canaveral, latitude yada yada, etc.) and the time coordinate differed by 30 years (2010 to 2040.) B went to Alpha Centauri and back. When she returned, they were both using the same coordinate system (location is Cape Canaveral, latitude yada yada, time is 2040.) But she looks at her watch, and only 5 years have elapsed! What the watch shows is ''not a scalar field on spacetime''. It was ''not the path integral of a vector field on spacetime''. What she integrated was the ticking of her watch, nothing more.

The path that A took is called a geodesic. It is the Minkowski-space equivalent of a "straight line". But, because of the peculiarities of relativity, it shows the ''longest'' elapsed time (30 years) of all paths, rather than the shortest. By going to Alpha Centauri, twin B took a shorter path, in terms of the way path length is measured in Minkowski space.

Very interesting fact: The path length in Minkowski space, that is, the sum of the tiny distances as measured by the Lorentz/Minkowski metric, ''is the same as the local time''. That is (assuming you are using the "spacelike convention"), everyone's wristwatch measures path length along their own world line. The twins simply followed paths of different lengths. That's all there is to the "twin paradox". (That is, that's all there is to it, if you analyze it correctly, as I have described above. Most introductory treatments of relativity don't do it this way. They just throw the Lorentz transform at you.)

Now there are a few points about the "twin paradox" that people find confusing.

First, aren't the laws of physics supposed to be the same for everyone? What made twin B's watch run slower? Well, she ''knew'' she was traveling at high speed. She brought an accelerometer with her in the rocket. Just as twin B in the parking lot knew she was walking all over the place, turning around and such, twin B in space knew that her world-line was turning, and therefore wasn't a straight line (geodesic). How did she know? It takes force to make you deviate from a geodesic (this is really pretty much the same as Newton's laws of motion), and she felt the force.

Second, how can we analyze the curvature of B's world line? Here's where general relativity has to come in. As soon as world lines start to curve, you have to measure their curvature, that is "geodesic curvature". You get into complicated issues of curved coordinate systems (you're in one now; it's what you perceive as "gravity"!), and curved spacetime, and so on. And you get into the <math>\Gamma\,</math> symbols, which measure the deviation from a geodesic, and hence the "fictitious forces" that you feel. This is why general relativity is related to the "twin paradox", in that the space ship followed a curved trajectory and experienced acceleration. But, to analyze the plain facts of the "twin paradox", all you really need to know is that twin B followed a crooked line. Place your ruler on a diagonal on the graph of Minkowski space, draw the line out to Alpha Centauri. Turn the ruler, draw the returning line. Ignore the impossibly sharp corners. Use special relativity to analyze the Lorentz transform for each section of B's world line.

Oh, and to try to answer some of your specific questions, the gravitational field, under either Newtonian or relativistic mechanics, is a conservative field. Its curl is zero. If it weren't, conservation of energy would be violated, and we could make a perpetual motion machine by having a planet run around in circles picking up energy. The "curl=0" aspect of gravity under general relativity is more complicated, because true vector fields have to be on Minkowski space, but it still conserves energy. When Mercury orbits the Sun, its perihelion precesses because of relativistic effects, but its energy is conserved.

I'll try to think some more about your black hole question and get back to you.

[[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 00:00, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

:Simeon, thanks so much for your long explanation! All of that made sense to me, and cleared up the issue of field as property of space vs. path specific to person vs. curved spacetime. Also, yes, I noticed the similarity between exact differential equations and deriving potential functions from vector fields - the former I studied in Differential Equations and the latter I studied in Multivariable Calculus.

:So, if I understand you properly, gravity both (a) curves spacetime and (b) creates a conservative field. (I derived (a) from your point: "You get into complicated issues of curved coordinate systems (you're in one now; it's what you perceive as "gravity"!)", and (b) from your point: "the gravitational field, under either Newtonian or relativistic mechanics, is a conservative field. Its curl is zero.") However, you're saying that if you are in an accelerating reference frame (such as a quickly-spinning merry-go-round) only (a) occurs; there is no field. Is this correct? If so, why is there this discrepancy between the two? [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 22:54, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

Yes, gravity curves spacetime. It looks as though you're ready to go to the next level. It has to do with curved ''coordinate systems'' vs. curved ''spacetime''. This is why GR is so complicated. But here goes.

First, we have to recognize that, at some level, we could say that energy is *not* conserved. Spacecraft use "slingshot maneuvers" around one planet to gain extra energy on their way to another planet. I assume you've heard of this. Cassini used three such maneuvers, twice around Venus and once around Earth. So what was going on? If you look at a coordinate system centered on Venus, you would see Cassini come in and go out again, with complete conservation of energy. But, in a coordinate system fixed around the solar system, Venus was moving, so Cassini came in at low speed and went out at high speed. We "stole" some energy out of Venus's orbit. So, to be ''really'' correct, we have to say that gravity is a conservative field in the absence of '''moving''' gravitating bodies.

But, in the larger sense, energy is conserved. Always. Newtonian or relativistic. (But in relativity, the mass figures into the equation. Let's not worry about that just now.)

Now we get to the really cool stuff. Your comment above suggests that you are ready for it.

You will feel a "fictitious force" whenever you are in a "curved spacetime coordinate system". A curved coordinate system would include things like polar coordinates on the plane, or spherical coordinates in 3 dimensions. But this is 4-dimensional spacetime. So I'd like you to take my word for this. On a rotating merry-go-round, your 4-dimensional spacetime coordinate system is curved. (This doesn't require relativity, special or general, to formulate this.) The 3-dimensional slice of it is flat, but, when you bring in time, and the spatial coordinates are accelerating, the overall coordinate system is curved. This creates fictitious forces. In the case of the merry-go-round, the forces are the centrifugal force and the Coriolis force. There are also the fictitious "acceleration G forces" in a rocket. But '''the spacetime itself isn't curved'''. It's like polar coordinates on the plane. Yes, the coordinate system is curved, but the plane isn't. There are Cartesian coordinates on the plane also. Similarly, an observer on the ground is in a flat coordinate system, and doesn't see any fictitious forces. He just sees the mechanism of the ride pushing you inward as you go around. Your recoil against that acceleration is what you perceive as the centrifugal force.

So the moral of the story would seem to be: you can choose a flat coordinate system that exposes the fictitious force for what it is. It's a perception from the curved spacetime coordinate system that the observer is operating in.

But how about gravity? In the case of gravity, '''spacetime itself is curved'''. If spacetime (properly called a "manifold") is curved, every coordinate system is curved, and the fictitious force which is gravity is inescapable.

So your statement "gravity curves spacetime", is exactly correct, but you have to distinguish "curving spacetime" and "curving some particular coordinate system". The actual curvature involves things called "Riemann's tensor" and "Ricci's tensor".

The number of people that understand this is way more than the 3 that Arthur Eddington claimed (it was more than 3 but probably less than 10 at the time), but it's still a pretty complicated subject.

[[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 00:03, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

:Simeon: Ah, that does make a lot of sense now. Thanks so much for explaining this to me. Hmm, that really is an elegant concept -- wow. Cool! [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 13:50, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

== Misleading Reference ==

The counterexample #18 has as an reference:

''Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”''

That's wrong: From the very beginning of the program, some relativistic effects were taken into account. As Conservapedia states at its article on [[GPS]] the Naval Research Lab in Washington published its report on the ''Initial Results of the NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 Satellite'' in 1978 and listed the following GPS objectives that have been achieved to date:
#launch insertion into GPS constellation position
#demonstrated orbit stability and controllability
#first cesium frequency standard in space
#'''verification of relativity theory'''
But not only did the initial experiments bolster the theory, some relativistic effects have to addressed in general use - in the official specification for the GPS project , i.e., the [http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/gpssps1.pdf Global Positioning System Standard Positioning Service Signal Specification], 2nd edition, June 1995, you find the following:

p. 13: ''To compensate for relativistic effects, the output frequency of the satellite's frequency standard -- as it would appear to an observer located at the satellite -- is 10.23 MHz offset by a Df/f = -4.4647 x 10-18 or a Df = -4.567 x 10-3 Hz.''

p. 39: ''The coefficients transmitted in subframe 1 describe the offset apparent to the control segment two-frequency receivers for the interval of time in which the parameters are transmitted. This estimated correction accounts for the deterministic satellite clock error characteristics of bias, drift and aging, as well as for the satellite implementation characteristics of group delay bias and mean differential group delay. Since these coefficients do not include corrections for relativistic effects, the user's equipment must determine the requisite relativistic correction. Accordingly, the offset given below includes a term to perform this function.''

It's true that not '''all''' effects are covered yet: as [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Relativity#GPS_revisited|I stated above]], the quoted article of the ''The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy'' addresses effects caused by the fast movement of some of the GPS-receivers - something which will doubtless be included as the number of fast receivers grows.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:03, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

== Ehrenfest's Paradox ==

This has been resolved and should be considered an apparent paradox. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox here]. [[User:Meatstick|Meatstick]] 11:07, 10 August 2010 (EDT)

== Momentum issues ==

It should be explained why numbers 4 and 20 are counterexamples. It isn't adequately explained why these would even present issues with the theory. Actually they look like explanations of part of the theory. [[User:Meatstick|Meatstick]] 11:12, 10 August 2010 (EDT)

: Number 4: for mass that is infinitesimally small, its momentum goes to infinity under Relativity as its speed approaches the speed of light. But this is absurd because if the mass is precisely zero rather than infinitesimally close to zero, its momentum is finite at the speed of light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:05, 10 August 2010 (EDT)

:: Are you sure that this is true? What are you fixing? One formula for relativistic momentum is <math>dp=\gamma v\left( dm \right)</math>. This remains a differential quantity in <math>m</math> as velocity becomes infinite: <math>\frac{dp}{dm}=\gamma v</math>. Fixing energy gives the correct momentum result in the limit as velocity becomes infinite. Maybe the misunderstanding results from taking two limits at once -- the prefactor that depends on velocity becomes infinite while the rest-mass dependence remains linear. [[User:TylerGD|TylerGD]] 13:28, 10 August 2010 (EDT)

::: Energy does not remain fixed as velocity increases to the speed of light. You seem to be avoiding the central point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:11, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

== Wormholes ==

There seems to be some confusion on the difference between predicting and allowing. General relativity allows wormholes under some conditions. But a lack of observed wormholes or even a lack of wormholes would not be inconsistent with the theory. [[User:TylerGD|TylerGD]] 16:27, 10 August 2010 (EDT)

== Inability of theory to lead to other insights? ==

Although this can hardly be considered true, would it be a counterexample to relativity if it were? Couldn't this be a failure of scientists or a testament to the finality of a theory? [[User:TylerGD|TylerGD]] 16:28, 10 August 2010 (EDT)

: No, because the theory has been around for more than a century.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:18, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

:: Why could this not be a failure of scientists? Anyway, what about the Dirac description of the electron? You can only claim that the theory failed to lead to other insights if you ignore the other insights. [[User:TylerGD|TylerGD]] 10:24, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

::: Relativity has been better funded than most theories, so it is a defect in the theory that it has yielded so little for the effort expended.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:12, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: The theory of GR has led to many insights regarding astrophysical phenomena. In particular GR plays an important role in discussing: Neutron Stars, Black Holes, Large-Scale structure, Cosmological Perturbation Theory, Stellar Evolution, Gravitation Waves, Gravitational Lensing, etc. Many concepts in modern astrophysics have been motivated using insight from GR. Additionally many developments in Quantum Field Theory (as used in Condensed Matter and Particle Physics - e.g. predictions of verifiable decay rates, cross-sections and so on), Relativistic Quantum Mechanics and Particle Physics take special relativity as an absolutely fundamental starting point. Many modern day particle accelerators require special relativistic corrections in order to work properly. - 15th August 2010 [[User:NotesTH|NotesTH]]

::::: NotesTH, you list some unproven dead ends like never-observed "Gravitation Waves," but fail to identify any verified insight. Indeed, the length of your list highlights its lack of a quality insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:38, 15 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Gravitational waves have not been directly observed, no, but there is significant indirect evidence. Most commonly cited is the [http://www.conservapedia.com/PSR_B1913_16 | Hulse-Taylor binary]. In the linked article it is claimed that a "0.2%" demonstrates the failing of relativity. On the contrary, the fact that a theoretical model for a binary star system could predict a gravitational wave emission that matches observations so extremely closely is extraordinary. The supposed correction term for "galactic acceleration" exists because the initial model is not perfect and nor was it ever meant to be. A 0.2% error is a fantastically small difference and demonstrates that GR provides an extremely accurate and verified prediction for the observed decay of a binary system due to emission of gravitational waves. The authors of the quoted paper state "Accuracy of the test for gravitational radiation damping is now dominated by the uncertainty in the galactic acceleration term. Work now underway should lead to improved accuracy of the pulsar proper motion, and the Sun’s galactocentric distance may be better known in the future. However, we see little prospect for a significant improvement in knowledge of the pulsar distance. Consequently, it seems unlikely that this test of relativistic gravity will be improved significantly in the foreseeable future" - that's simply a statement to the effect that there were some unknown parameters not included in the initial model but nowhere near enough to even remotely claim that the model is being tweaked to fit the theory, not for a 0.2% difference. In addition check out [http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/3308446.html?page=1&c=y | article on pulsar tests of GR] [http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/3310106.html?page=1&c=y | it's follow up article] and the following review of pulsars and GR: [http://relativity.livingreviews.org/ | Testing GR with Pulsar Timing]. I feel that these articles further demonstrate that this is not an isolated case.

:::::: You also seem to have neglected the other points. Rather than trying to talk about everything, it would take far too long in one sitting, I'll focus on the particle side of things. I've already stated that modern particle accelerators take into account relativistic effects - e.g. particle energies (using the relativistic energy equation: <math> E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 </math>, synchotron radiation [http://www.lhc-closer.es/php/index.php?i=1&s=4&p=12&e=0 | Synchotron at the LHC], particle lifetimes and so on. All of these require calculations from relativity that have been experimentally measured and verified. For instance all the predicted particle lifetimes and decay rates would require quantum field theories (which require relativity as a relativistic quantum theory) to predict the expected values which can then be matched to observations. We find that they are an extremely good fit to observations. Another example of such a calculation would be in predicting the [http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9810512 | magnetic moments] of particles - theory matches observations extraordinarily well.

:::::: As another point, just for a further example (could keep going...) we could look at neutron stars or pulsars as objects that are intrinsically relativistic. We can use observations of millisecond pulsars and, for example, compare models of synchrotron radiation (relativistic) to the observations. We find that the relativistic predictions are again in good agreement. Relativity has led to the development of many astrophysical phenomena which are intrinsically relativistic. Without the framework and foundations of relativity such insight would be impossible. The fundamental concepts introduced by relativity are absolutely essential in many, many branches of modern day science with many of the intrinsic relativistic effects being tested to a vast degree. No one claims that GR is the complete theory, it's treated as an effective field theory valid in some low energy limit, but the revolutionary concepts introduced by relativity have led to irrefutable developments in many areas of science. - 15th August 2010 [User:NotesTH | NotesTH]

== "from the muons' point of view, the Earth would have to be rushing in all directions to meet them"? ==

This would only be true if the muons shared a reference frame. Which they don't. [[User:TylerGD|TylerGD]] 10:25, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

: Good point, so that edit was removed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 12 August 2010 (EDT)

== Number 29: the fasted-frame contradiction ==

Clocks tick fastest in their rest frame. This is unique to the particular clock, but not among all clocks. No contradiction exists here. [[User:TylerGD|TylerGD]] 10:29, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

: OK, so that edit was also removed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 12 August 2010 (EDT)

== Continuation of "Curl of the gravitational field" ==

Phyllis (and any other interested parties, of course): You might want to take a look at the [[General theory of relativity]] page. I think you will be able to follow much of it. In particular, the "Coordinate Systems and Spacetime Diagrams" section is along the lines of what I discussed above. A better name for it might be "how the curvature of spacetime creates gravity". The "Quantitative Introduction to General Relativity" is a link to a separate page, that might be better named "how matter makes spacetime curve. The second of those is pretty daunting. The first was clearly never finished. A finished version seems to be on Wikiversity.

Good luck. [[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 23:54, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

== Reversion of my edit ==

I changed

''Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”''

to

''Only some, but not all effects of relativity are addressed by the [[Global Positioning System]]: not yet incorporated are the effects for fast moving receivers of the signal (e.g., satellites), therefore the Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”''

Andrew Schlafly changed it back, ignoring my edit comment: ''(changing misleading reference - as explained [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Relativity#Misleading_Reference|here]] and [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Relativity#GPS_revisited|here]])''

'''The current statement of Andrew Schlafly is wrong in at least two ways, as explained several times:'''

*the [[GPS]] addresses effects of Relativity: From the very beginning, its builders had the Theory of Relativity in mind. [http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA058591] and [http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/gpssps1.pdf]
*the paper quoted above addresses ''yet another'' effect.

Perpetuating a wrong statement doesn't seem to be very insightful.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:13, 13 August 2010 (EDT)

:You don't have to beat us over the head with it, Ron. We already knows that perpetuating wrong statements isn't insightful. We agree with that part of your remarks.

:The question is whether relativistic effects are (A) big enough to matter or (B) actually being calculated and compensated for by any major GPS.

:Now, it's interesting that the first builders considered relativity, but what our readers want to know is whether they decided that it made a big enough difference. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:52, 13 August 2010 (EDT)

::*''don't be rude'' sorry, but please don't mistake my exasperation for rudeness!
::*''The question is whether relativistic effects are (A) big enough to matter or (B) actually being calculated and compensated for by any major GPS. '' The answer to (A) as well to (B) is a very emphatic '''yes'''. It was given repeatedly and can be found in the source linked above - or in the section of this very talk page to which I linked in my edit-comment (conveniently repeated a couple of lines above, too). But to spare you the work of actually scrolling backwards, here it is again:

::::[http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/gpssps1.pdf Global Positioning System Standard Positioning Service Signal Specification], 2nd edition, June 1995:

::::p. 13: ''To compensate for relativistic effects, the output frequency of the satellite's frequency standard -- as it would appear to an observer located at the satellite -- is 10.23 MHz offset by a Df/f = -4.4647 x 10-18 or a Df = -4.567 x 10-3 Hz.''

::::p. 39: ''The coefficients transmitted in subframe 1 describe the offset apparent to the control segment two-frequency receivers for the interval of time in which the parameters are transmitted. This estimated correction accounts for the deterministic satellite clock error characteristics of bias, drift and aging, as well as for the satellite implementation characteristics of group delay bias and mean differential group delay. Since these coefficients do not include corrections for relativistic effects, the user's equipment must determine the requisite relativistic correction. Accordingly, the offset given below includes a term to perform this function.''

::*This ''Global Positioning System Standard Positioning Service Signal Specification'' is quoted on the talk-page of the article for the [[GPS]], too. It is the relevant document for everyone - engineer of physicist - who wants to work with the signals of the GPS.

::*This quote alone shows that the statement ''Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity.'' is wrong. Plain and simple.

::*Effects on the GPS became a textbook example for relativity, see e.g., [http://www.colorado.edu/physics/Web/directory/faculty/ashby_n.html Neil Ashby], who writes in [http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=title.html Relativity in the Global Positioning System]:
::::''There is an interesting story about this frequency offset. At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977), which contained the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty as to its magnitude as well as its sign. Indeed, there were some who doubted that relativistic effects were truths that would need to be incorporated! A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit was that predicted by general relativity, then the synthesizer could be turned on, bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary for operation. After the Cesium clock was turned on in NTS-2, it was operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on the synthesizer. The frequency measured during that interval was +442.5 parts in 1012 compared to clocks on the ground, while general relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 1012. The difference was well within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then gave about a 1% verification of the combined second-order Doppler and gravitational frequency shift effects for a clock at 4.2 earth radii. ''
::*But you don't have to take this secondary source at face value, you can go to the primary source: [http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA058591 Initial Results of the NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 Satellite], Naval Research Lab Washington, D.C., 25 May 1978 (Full text: [http://www.leapsecond.com/history/1978-PTTI-v9-NTS-2.pdf pdf]). '''Ever since 1978, relativistic effects are observed and compensated in various ways.''' Or as the abstract states it:
::::''NTS-2 was successfully launched on 23 June 1977 into a near 12-hour circular orbit. Precise frequency and timing signals are derived from the two cesium frequency standards. '''This paper discusses the launch and preliminary results which include verification of the relativistic clock effect.''' ''

::*PhyllisS introduced the following quote above:
::::''The Time Service Department – a department of the U. S. Navy - states: “The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require – transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”''
:::This is taken from a text of ''Henry F. Fliegel'' and ''Raymond S. DiEsposti''from December 1996 who are talking about ''another'' relativistic effect than the ones already implemented. Please keep in mind that the Specification above is from June 1995! Only someone who didn't read the text - or didn't understand it - could abuse this quote to invoke the impression that no effects of relativity were implemented in the GPS.

::*Of course, the information above may be ignored - as it was previously: ''tl;dr''. But actively ignoring facts which contravene a statement just to repeat the statement is a behavior which can only be described in a rude way.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:34, 14 August 2010 (EDT)

: Ron, the collection of statements above could be construed as easily as ''disproving'' relativity rather than proving it. Decades after GPS was launched, observers still struggle to match the data to the theoretical predictions. If some relativistic calculations are included in the synchronization but others are not, then the theory is ''disproved'', not proved by the data.

: As the [[Theory of Relativity]] page itself explains, the engineers ignored the complex predictions of relativity. And for obvious reasons: it's easier to synchronize the clocks directly based on communications!

: Note the complete absence of any identification of a particular physicist or mathematician who supposedly provided the theoretical predictions of Relativity for the engineers. ''That is because there were no such theoretical predictions of Relativity used in the design!''

: You might as well claim that clocks in a sporting game are synchronized based on relativity. That would lack credibility for the same reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:28, 14 August 2010 (EDT)

:: ''Ron, the collection of statements above could be construed as easily as ''disproving'' relativity rather than proving it. Decades after GPS was launched, observers still struggle to match the data to the theoretical predictions. If some relativistic calculations are included in the synchronization but others are not, then the theory is ''disproved'', not proved by the data.'' Effects come in various sizes. When calculating the trajectory of the projectile of a handgun, you don't include the [[Coriolis effect]]. When the bullets get faster and the range gets bigger, you have to. Does this mean that because only some classical effects are included in the first case, it has disproved classical mechanics? Frankly, that's just absurd.

:: ''As the [[Theory of Relativity]] page itself explains, the engineers ignored the complex predictions of relativity. And for obvious reasons: it's easier to synchronize the clocks directly based on communications!'' At the article of the [[Theory of Relativity]], a quote is used to bolster this claim: the same quote I've shown to be inappropriate as it is talking about other effects. From Ashby's [http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=title.html Relativity in the Global Positioning System] : '''It has become common practice not to apply such offsets to Rubidium clocks as these are subject to unpredictable frequency jumps during launch. Instead, after such clocks are placed in orbit their frequencies are measured and the actual frequency corrections needed are incorporated in the clock correction polynomial that accompanies the navigation message.''' So, yes, the clocks aren't tempered with any longer - but the relativistic correction are incorporated nontheless.

:: '' Note the complete absence of any identification of a particular physicist or mathematician who supposedly provided the theoretical predictions of Relativity for the engineers. ''That is because there were no such theoretical predictions of Relativity used in the design!'' '' No, that's because the any decent physicists can answer the questions ''what's the expected relative and gravitationl time dilation at the satellite''. Einstein, Poincare and some others get the credit for coming up with the necessary formulas, but those who merely apply these formulas aren't mentioned...

:: ''You might as well claim that clocks in a sporting game are synchronized based on relativity. That would lack credibility for the same reason. '' The clocks of a sporting game aren't accurate enough to be influenced by non-classical effects. The clocks of the [[GPS]] are - and the effects are much greater in the height and at that velocity of a satellite.

::Sorry to keep you waiting for this answer: my ISP at home (109.90.0.0/16) is still range-blocked (block ID is #63109), so I can contribute to Conservapedia only irregularly. But I don't think that this bothers you, as you may not like my comments anyhow.

::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:26, 15 August 2010 (EDT)

:::Ron, your edits are mostly talk, and the talk is superficial. I pointed out that no individual has ever been credited, identified or even alluded to for providing the Relativity work that was supposedly included in the GPS design. Obviously that was because there was no such inclusion of Relativity work. But you just duck that compelling point and fail to address it in a meaningful way.

:::The argument that GPS includes some (but not all) relativistic adjustments is even weaker, because that implies that GPS disproves rather than proves Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:36, 15 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: I agree with RonLar. The GPS clocks are accurate enough for relativity to matter. It is well-known that the system uses relativistic corrections. Otherwise, it would disprove relativity, and where is the paper proving that? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:17, 15 August 2010 (EDT)

::::: Journals won't publish any data contrary to Relativity; accepted papers have even been forced to withdraw for this reason. For example, where are the data on the advance of the perihelion of Mercury (which now disproves Relativity) or the binary pulsar (which now disproves Relativity despite the Nobel Prize being given for it years ago).

::::: The claim that GPS system "uses relativistic corrections" is meaningless. If some but not all relativistic corrections are used, as discussed above, then this disproves rather than proves Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:46, 15 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::: If the GPS system uses some but not all relativistic corrections, the article is faulty and should be corrected. I don't know about that astronomical data, but if you have some reliable source saying that it was censored somehow, then I suggest posting it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:48, 15 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::: If you think Relativity was part of the GPS design, then who did the Relativity calculations? Who was responsible for that work? Not only has no one been credited or identified for doing this work, there is not even any suggestion that anyone did such work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 15 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: Beats me, I thought GPS was a classified military project. Who did the Newtonian calculations? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:36, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::::::''I pointed out that no individual has ever been credited, identified or even alluded to for providing the Relativity work that was supposedly included in the GPS design.'' R. Schlafly answered this one very well. May I add that we don't know who actually calculated the trajectories for the [[Apollo project]]. Does this mean that the [[Moon landing]] was a hoax? That's absurd.

::::::::::''If some but not all relativistic corrections are used, as discussed above, then this disproves rather than proves Relativity.'' Again, does the omission of the [[Coriolis effect]]s - or even tidal forces - when calculating the trajectory of a bullet disprove [[classical mechanics]]? Effects come in various degrees, more about that in the next section.

::::::::::''Ron, your edits are mostly talk, and the talk is superficial. '' I wouldn't have to do so much talking if you actually read the papers you are quoting from. Even someone who thinks that he can formulate [[Einstein's postulates]] better than Wolfgang Pauli did (''[[Talk:World_History_Lecture_Eleven#Postulates_of_Special_Relativity|I have explained why Pauli's description is inadequate]]'') should sometimes stop and listen to those who at least recomputed the relevant calculations.

::::::::::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:41, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::::::: GPS was declassified nearly 30 years ago. It's well-publicized who did the work on the [[Manhattan Project]], but are you claiming that no one knows who supposedly did the Relativity work on GPS because it is top secret???? Please.

::::::::::: RonLar, your comments lack logic and suggest to me a lack of an open mind about this topic, and I'm not going to spend forever in talk, talk, talk with you about this. May I ask what your score is on the quiz on [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:09, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

(unindent) Andy and Roger, I appreciate both of your viewpoints, and I'd like to sidetrack this discussion to an important point about peer review and "refereed" journals. It is often argued that since idea X has no papers supporting it, to be found in scientific journals, it therefore is "unscientific", i.e., false (see [[pseudoscience]]). However, we are aware of a significant number of ideas which we know to be true (or at least likely), but which mainstream journals have refused to publish.
*Ideas on global warming which run counter to the [[AGW]] hypothesis, such as [[sunspots and cosmic rays]] affecting cloud formation: several researchers have published reports showing a much stronger correlation between the sunspot cycle and earth atmosphere temperature than that between the carbon dioxide level and temperature, but ''Science'' spiked the most important such paper on the grounds that it would be "of no interest" to their readers!
*Intelligent design: The last time a journal editor managed to get an ID paper through peer review, he was forced to resign. The refrain, "No peer reviewed papers on ID" is the strongest (non-scientific) argument against ID, but it's based on [[circular reasoning]].
Perhaps we need an article on [[Scientific censorship]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:12, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

== Quote mine ==
Andy, you take the sentence ''The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”'' as a corroboration of you statement ''Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity.''

Even if the sentence stood alone, that would be hardly justifiable: ''the effect of relativity [...] are too small to matter [...] '''for users on or near the earth''' '' shows what the authors intention is: they show that the effects of relativity for users in a distance from the Earth's surface (satellites etc.) and at high speed do matter.
If you read the article the sentence is taken from (''GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview'' by Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond S. DiEsposti), you'll find on p. 193:
::''Since GPs receivers work in the time and not in the frequency domain, they handle the velocity, gravity, and acceleration shifts differently than described above. First, each GPS space vehicle (SV) clock is offset from its nominal rate by about -4.45×10-10 (= -38 microseconds per day) to allow for the relativistic offsets between the differences between the SV and the ground. Of this -38 microseconds per day, about -45 are due to the gravitational potential difference between the SV at its mean distance and the earth's surface, and +7 to the mean SV speed, which is about 3.87 km/sec.''

So, the authors of this text are well aware of the relativistic effects on the GPS space vehicles. And these effects are big enough to justify a compensation. So what are the ''effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter''? To repeat it again, these are the additional effects on the receivers of the signal, which may be in higher altitude and moving on a higher speed than it was anticipated in the 1970s.

Including such effects make the GPS more precise, it doesn't disprove the theory of relativity.

You could have guessed as much from the abstract of the article:
::''We give and explain in detail the formulas for the relativistic corrections to be implemented in high-speed aircraft, or when using other satellites in connection with GPS, or when using GPS from another satellite. We explain how to use these formulas in various scenarios, give numerical examples, and itemize the pitfall to be avoided by (for example) receiver manufacturers.

It's an amusing twist that the intended audience for this articles are engineers - people who have no need for the theory of relativity as you have repeatedly made clear.

So, the sentence you took of the article only ''seemingly'' bolstered your position, in fact, when read in context, it ''disproves'' your opinion. That is an example for a [[quote mine]].

I hope that this comment - and my previous ones - which are not superficial at all, but go straight to the source, convince you to unblock my ISP at home (block ID #63109, intended blockee: 109.90.0.0/16). and to give me the possibility to engage in a meaningful discussion.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:41, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

==My Great-grandfather==

This is where I came in ... [[Charles Lane Poor]] was my great-grandfather, and he protested the media love-fest celebrating the theory of relativity on the grounds that it was premature. Based on the accuracy of observations at the time (early 20th century), there just wasn't enough proof that Einstein's idea was correct.

I'd like this article to take the scientific path of (1) explaining the theory in layman's terms, (2) describing predictions that the theory makes, e.g., observed star positions during a [[solar eclipse]], and (3) comparing predicted to actual values. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:45, 13 August 2010 (EDT)

: That's very interesting about your great-grandfather, Ed. As to explaining the theory and discussing claims supporting it, other entries like [[Theory of Relativity]] do that but can always be improved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 14 August 2010 (EDT)

== Countering the counterexamples ==

The content of this page aside, I question whether it serves the interests of CP for it to exist in its current form. CP has been lucky to attract a long string of competent math and physics editors. Yet once again it finds itself in the position of not having any except ASchlafly and Ed Poor. Many of these editors were good-faith contributors who wrote a lot of other science articles and generally improved the site, but were eventually driven out after becoming frustrated with this opposition to relativity (and its cousin, the pervasive skepticism about complex numbers).

:Actually, it was their refusal to write articles on basic topics accessible to our average reader's background that sealed their doom. While Andy is much more tolerant of "advanced" articles on math, etc., I prefer that each article at least '''begin''' with an introduction that even a high school student can understand.

:I even started to suspect that this refusal went beyond mere inability to empathize with our readership, but could be a deliberate flouting of editorial policy.

:Bottom line: it's not the topic, but how it's described. No science topic is out of bounds here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:00, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

Yes, maybe free speech dictates that this page ought to remain. But when the viewpoints of supporters of relativity have been ''without exception'' removed from the page, is there really free speech at all? ASchlafly, you remove these views on the grounds that they are not logical. But their proponents hold them surely as you hold your position, so would it not be reasonable to allow the other side to be posted somewhere, maybe on another page rebutting this one?

Disbelieving the theory of relativity is really not a ''conservative'' position as such, so I think it's a shame that it has caused CP so much harm. Indeed, the only person who seems to be convinced by these "counterexamples" is ASchlafly: the public (liberal and conservative) constantly disputes them on the talk page; the media openly mocks this page and hurts the public perception of CP's credibility; even some CP administrators, surely open-minded conservatives, disagree with these positions. (Maybe some editors have expressed agreement. Such are certainly parodists and should be banned on sight.)

I think it would be advisable to allow some pro-relativity views back on this site, in the interest of free speech, keeping productive editors, and maintaining credibility. --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 11:54, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

: Kyle, your rant is misplaced and does not warrant a detailed response. If you would like to set up a new entry along the lines of what you propose, please do so. It can go point-by-point in trying to rebut the counterexamples. Good luck doing so, because each counterexample has withstood every attempt to criticize it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:58, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

== A reminder ==

We are all scientists here: we all seek the truth.

"When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

-- Isaac Asimov

[[User:Freiberg|Freiberg]] 15:42, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

Video game industry

2010-08-16T21:33:26Z

JonS:

The '''video game industry''' has over $20 billion in annual sales.<ref>http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_100114.html</ref> Video game sales surpassed [[Hollywood]] revenue in the year 2007.<ref name="Video">http://seekingalpha.com/article/89124-the-video-game-industry-an-18-billion-entertainment-juggernaut</ref>

The biggest one-day opening for movies was ''Spider-Man 3'', which grossed $59 million on its first day. The video game ''Grand Theft Auto IV'',however, opened with $310 million in sales and went on to gross $500 million. <ref name="Video"/>

==Video Games and the Spreading of Liberal Values==
The Video Game Industry has a long history of spreading liberal values to children. The spread of these values has had negative effects on society and children. Video Game Designers seek to promote immoral behavior such as profanity, violence, gambling, alcohol and drug use, theft, premarital sex, extramarital sex, polygamy, and many others.

====Examples====
*Overuse of profanity (Virtually every game rated for 13+ players)
*Having [[Christianity]] used as a means to control the people (''Medieval II: Total War'')
*Meticulous designs of blood and gore (Virtually every game rated for 17+ players, but commonly sold to children younger than 13.)
*Regurgitating disproved liberal myths to the player (''Grand Theft Auto IV'')
*Sanitized versions of other religions, but open hostility to Christianity (''God of War'')
*Welcoming to more violence, such as providing bonus points for extra murders (''Grand Theft Auto IV'')
*Incidents of "unintentional" programming errors resulting in fully nude characters
*Fornication (''The Sims 3'')
*Typical Liberal use of [[deceit]] (''God of War'')
*Young characters exposed to violence, used to make young children think it is okay. (''Red Dead Redemption'')
*Over reliance on violence than story (''Gears of War'')
*Unending waves of incompetent police forces (''Grand Theft Auto IV'')
*Subtle overtones of pro-Islamic messages (''Starcraft II'')
*[[Liberal bullying]] (''Bully'')
*Yiddish used as a "terrorist" language (''Mercenaries II'')
*Deceit is shown as a common and acceptable tactic (''Red Dead Redemption'')
*Overtones of [[Hollywood Values]] (''Grand Theft Auto: The Ballad of Gay Tony'')
*Godless protagonists, religions antagonists. (''Sins of a Solar Empire'')
*Young Earth Creationism mocked (''Starcraft II'')
*Overtones of [[Professor Values]] (''Bully'')
*Underwear worn as everyday clothing (''The Sims 3'')

{{Liberalism}}
== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:video Games]]

Atheist bullying

2010-08-14T22:30:38Z

JonS: /* YouTube cyberbullying */

'''Atheist bullying''' is a problem in many [[public schools]], where student populations are becoming increasingly atheist or non-religious and are less likely to keep their lack of faith out of school discourse. [[Atheist]] students are commonly engaging in persecution of [[Christian]] students, encouraged by the out-spoken nature of the growing number of adherents of [[New Atheism]], such as [[Richard Dawkins]].

In serious cases, atheist bullying has lead to Christian students being pulled out of public schools to undergo [[home-schooling]] or private tuition, as their academic life has become intolerable.

Many school shootings are thought to be related to atheist bullying. The most infamous, the [[Columbine]] shooting, was perpetrated by out-spoken atheists.

It is feared that the rising number of militant atheist students will lead to more frequent - and deadly - school shootings in the future.

== YouTube cyberbullying ==

There is a widespread problem with atheist cyberbullying on [[YouTube]] toward [[Christian]] and [[creationism|creationist]] YouTube channels. [[CreationWiki]] has developed a web page entitled [http://creationwiki.org/Anticreationist_youtube_debate_tactics Anticreationist youtube debate tactics] designed to show creationists how to thwart atheist/evolutionist cyberbullies. Also, one popular Christian YouTube channel, [[shockofgod]], was shut down several times by atheist cyberbullying through false reports.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kax-zAJxi-U</ref> These false reports are not isolated incidents, many atheists will try this deceitful tactic to block out [[Creation Science]].

==See Also==
*[[Atheism]]
*[[Public Schools]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kax-zAJxi-U The man that proved the Bible has power]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{Nb Atheism}}

Scientific Illiteracy and Liberals

2010-08-14T22:08:55Z

JonS: Created page with 'There seems to be a high rate of scientific illiteracy among liberals.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359</ref> This phenomenon will become ev…'

There seems to be a high rate of scientific illiteracy among [[liberals]].<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359</ref> This phenomenon will become evident whenever one speaks to a liberal.

==Examples==
* Use of ad hom attacks to hide their scientific illiteracy {"You clearly don't understand how science works.").
* Gratuitous amounts of spewing [[pseudoscience]]
* Fictitious, disproved claims.
* The denial of [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]
* When asked about the [[scientific method]], they cannot state the steps.

==reflist==
<references><references/>

Atheistic Style

2010-08-14T21:51:26Z

JonS:

There is a style common to many [[atheists]], including:

# a refusal to recognize how [[democracy]], first practiced in pre-[[Christ]] [[Greece]], relies on [[Christianity]], and how no [[atheistic]] culture has ever managed to sustain a lasting [[democracy]]
# a refusal to credit the role played by [[faith]] in great contributions of many people, such as [[Isaac Newton]]
# a general disbelief of unseen and unquantifiable concepts, such as [[love]], intrinsic beauty and fidelity
# a belief that [[atheist]]s are somehow smarter than those having [[faith]], downplaying contributions by [[Christians]]
# a belief that humans are smarter today than 100, 1,000 or 6,000 years ago
# a view that most of science is known and understood, in contrast to [[Isaac Newton]]'s view that little is understood
# a focus on [[materialism]], and a devotion to [[relativism]] in many forms
# a generally pessimistic, worthless and depressing view of life
# among scientists, an unshakable faith in never-detected [[graviton]]s, [[dark matter]], [[black holes]], [[super strings]] and life in outer space
# belief in the [[Nobel Prize]], universities, newspapers and magazines as oracles of truths
# over reliance on [[hearsay]], a perception (often wrong) of what most people think, and a dependence on often outdated texts.
# an insistence on censoring prayer from the classroom<ref>http://www.atheists.org/press_releases/atheists_support_student_protest_of_&%238220%3Bgod_pledge&%238221%3B</ref>
# A rejection of the teleological view of history that Mankind is increasingly moving towards an absolute perfect state thanks to Christianity.
# A denial of the personal experience one feels with [[God]].
# Closed-mindedness towards the benefits of [[Christianity]] and [[Conservativism]].

==See also==
*[[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?]]

== References ==
<references/>

*[[Liberal style]]
{{Nb Atheism}}

Essay:Traditional Marriage

2010-07-26T21:03:25Z

JonS: Chapter 22 of Deuteronomy does not deal with marriage.

The advantages of [[marriage]] between a man and woman include:

* the combined experience to raise both boys and girls
* enjoyment and interests in complementary aspects of childrearing
* having a partner with different, and complimentary, outlook and concerns
* in the absence of sexually transmitted diseases or infertility, the ability to have children from birth
* having a partner with different domestic interests and abilities
* the combined experience to deal with others
* an institution that has thrived for millennia
* less domestic violence due to very different physical strengths and different reactions to problems
* less tendency for partners to compete, and more tendency for positive reinforcement
[[Category:Essays]]

Liberal Obsession

2010-07-26T20:29:25Z

JonS: /* Examples */

A '''liberal obsession''' is an idea or an ideal which [[liberal]]s obsess over. These obsessions can range from political, to environmental, or even personal. They are almost always groundless, irrational and contradictory to facts and evidence. These obsessions can lead, if enough pressure is applied, to [[liberal creep]] as [[liberals]] push their false ideals even further.

==Examples==

*Obsession over celebrities or [[Hollywood values|Hollywood]]
*Obsession on censorship of [[school prayer]]
*Obsession on censorship of [[Christianity]]
*Obsession on censorship of [[Intelligent Design]] and [[Creation Science]]
*Obsessing over [[Affirmative Action]]
*Obsessing over [[Global Warming]]
*Obsession on smearing [[conservatives]]
*Obsession over [[gun control]]
*Obsession over [[political correctness]]
*Obsession over rights for [[terrorists]]
*Obsession over the [[homosexual agenda]]
*Obsession over the plight of Palestinians
*Obsession over [[George W. Bush]]
*Obsession over [[Conservapedia]]
*Obsession over supporting the fraud [[Richard Dawkins]]
*Obsession over [[Fox News]]
*Obsession over [[Sarah Palin]]
*Obsession over [[Barack Obama]]

==See Also==
* [[Liberals]]
* [[Deceit]]

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Liberals]]

User:JonS

2010-06-27T21:15:38Z

JonS: Created page with 'Hi, I'm JonS. I'm not too wiki-savvy.'

Hi, I'm JonS. I'm not too wiki-savvy.

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2010-06-27T21:13:51Z

JonS: /* Adding Obama Portmanteaus */ new section

[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]

==How are these words conservative?==
exactly how is a word liberal or conservative? as far as i know, words are abstract concepts incapable of political ideaology. Would someone please explain the rational behind this to me

:A word that expresses a conservative concept is conservative. If we had a list of mathematical words, would you raise the same objection?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 27 February 2010 (EST)

With all due respect Andy, I have to disagree. I'm a moderate liberal, but I'm also an Eagle Scout and am currently in the process of writing a book the portrays the elite in a pretty negative way. Both my parents are bleeding heart liberals, but they worked for everything they have and are pretty much the defenition of the American dream.
Also, as a suggestion, you may want to clarify that some of the words are used BY conservatives to describe liberals. A person reading through the list may get the impression that some of the things listed are conservative traits--[[User:DerikJ|DerikJ]] 10:18, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:But... sorry, I may be a bit slow and English is not my mother tongue, but I don't get it. I understand how word expressing conservative values ("free market", "missile defense") are in the list; also, words used by everyone but coined by influent conservatives are in the list. But how are words like "myopic", "biased", "demagogue" or "incoherent" conservative words? They are generic words. Sure, they are used by conservatives to describe liberals, or liberal policies, but they are also used by liberals to describe conservatives, or conservative policies. I mean, if tomorrow John McCain says that Obama is an awful president, "awful" does not magically become a conservative word overnight. What I am saying is that only words used EXCLUSIVELY, or MOSTLY by conservatives to criticize liberals should be in the list; "anti-Christian" and "leftist" are fine examples. But words that can, and are, used both ways, like "myopic" or "incoherent" should be ignored in my opinion. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 10:41, 27 February 2010 (EST)

::You've agreed that some words belong on the list, but quibbled about ... less than 1 or 2% of them. No one would expect unanimous agreement about the listing of every single example. But as to the examples you've disputed, if I did a search on Supreme Court opinions and found that conservative Justices used those words more often than liberal Justices do, then you would you concede that they belong on the list?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:13, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:::Well, it depends on the manner in which the search is conducted and the sample examined, and it also depends on the results. Also, do Supreme Court Justices fairly reflect the trend of the whole population? ... anyway, if you proved that, say, 85-90% of conservatives use "biased", and only 10-15% of liberals do it, then I'd concede that they are conservative words. If 52% of conservatives use "biased" compared to 48% of liberals, I wouldn't.
:::I may be wrong, as I don't live in the US and I don't know how life is there, but in my mind, "myopic", "biased", "demagogue" or "incoherent" are generic words which can be used by either side to criticize the other. By the same standards, you could include "good" (definition: a word commonly used to describe conservative values and policies) and "bad" (a word commonly used by conservatives to describe liberal values and policies), but it wouldn't mean that they are "conservative words".
:::By the way, I only contested about 1% of the list because I only made an example and I did not go through it methodically. I would like more information about the following words, if any can provide it, accompanied by an explaination as to why they are considered "conservative words". Please note that I'm not yet contesting any of them, but merely requesting more information for now.

::: biased
::: conservation of charge (I only know it as a term describing a non-controversial scientific phenomenon. If it has a political nuance I ignore, let me know)
::: constant
::: correlate (by the way, "correlation" is listed by etymological dictionaries to date from 1561 AD)
::: counterexample
::: crackpot
::: cross-examination
::: decrypt
::: demagogue
::: despotism
::: double standard
::: editorialize
::: efficiency
::: hallmark
::: human rights
::: incoherent
::: individualism (just a quick note. I happen to know this because a part of my university thesis was about it. Individualism now is generally a positive word, but it was, if I remember correctly, first used by either Saint-Simonian or Fourierites - early socialists - and it had a negative connotation. I seem to remember that the word was born in France and then spread to the UK to the Owenites.)
::: myopic
::: optimism
::: ostensibly
::: productive
::: provocateur (if I remember correctly, it was a word used by work unions in the early 20th century to describe police or Pinkerton agents who infiltrated the labor force and committed something illegal, to give the police a pretext to intervene.)
::: self-defense
::: vandalism
::: veracity
::: volunteer
::: worldview

::: As regards the "Orwellian" words (newspeak, Big Brother, etc.) keep in mind that they are, yes, used to criticize Stalinism, but also that they were invented by Orwell, who was a democratic socialist.

:::Also, please note (this is unrelated to the rest of my post) that "wannabe" is usually spelt with only one "e", and "one-size-fits-all" is missing from the left column. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 14:10, 27 February 2010 (EST)

::::Maquissar, you seem to agree that if conservatives use a word significantly more often than liberals do, then it's a conservative word. And you seem to agree that such words exist. Your only objection, then, seems to be specific words included in the list. You've identified 27 out of over 200.

::::Let's look at some of your examples. "Volunteer", you suggest, may not be a conservative word. But which political side supports volunteering as a solution to problems? Conservatives. Which state has "volunteer" in its state slogan? A conservative one (Tennessee). Which political side opposed communism, the antithesis of volunteering? Conservatives.

::::Slightly above that you suggest that "self-defense" may not be a conservative word. But which side promotes real self-defense in being able to own guns? Conservatives. Which side pushes gun control to deprive people of self-defense? Liberals.

::::I doubt anyone objective would deny that "volunteer" and "self-defense" are conservative words. Ditto for others on your list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:38, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:::::It seems like your argument for "volunteer" and "self-defense" is that correlation implies causation, and conservatism therefore causes those behaviours. I'm sure you're probably right that conservatives engage in them more than liberals, but that doesn't make them "conservative actions." I know lots of conservatives that don't volunteer their time anywhere, and I know many liberals (myself included) that do. The act itself isn't political. We do it because we care about others, just as you do. It's silly to imply that liberals don't care for those less fortunate, and in the same breath mock liberal politicians for overspending to try and help those same individuals. It's a poor attempt to shift the argument from what it really is (a debate about the practical solutions to real problems) to a slander of a straw man enemy. If you're going to embrace the positive traits that correlate with conservatism, you're forced to accept the negative ones as well, such as closed-mindedness, fear of loss and death, and avoidance of complexity (references upon request).[[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 14:23, 8 March 2010 (EST)

::::::"Insufficient", conservatives support charity and volunteering as solutions to problems; liberals support the opposite: tax and spend. As to "self-defense", conservatives support self-defense rather than gun control; liberals support gun control rather than self-defense. Whatever you may claim as anecdotal evidence, conservatives are more charitable than liberals. Take a look at Canada as it has become more liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:43, 8 March 2010 (EST)

:::::''But as to the examples you've disputed, if I did a search on Supreme Court opinions and found that conservative Justices used those words more often than liberal Justices do, then you would you concede that they belong on the list?''
:::::Just curious: Has this test be done for any of the words? [[User:PhilG|PhilG]] 11:23, 2 March 2010 (EST)

:::::: Yes, and some results are noted in the table. Of course, some of the words are self-evidently conservative (e.g., "conservative" or "self-defense"), and other words are unlikely to ever appear in a Supreme Court opinion (e.g., "action-at-a-distance").--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:50, 2 March 2010 (EST)

:::::::Thank you! I found the examples - and did a quick check myself, using [http://www.findlaw.com/CaseCode/supreme.html findlaw]. It's quite cumbersome to check a word and - in a second step - find out who of the judges used it. It would be nice to have the opinions in txt-format, sorted by political affiliation: then, one could even search for new words! [[User:PhilG|PhilG]] 13:15, 10 March 2010 (EST)

== Dramacast? ==

Under your words not yet recognized, you include the word "dramacast" to decribe what happens when "mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline."

I've never come across the word "dramacast," and a google search brings up no hits. However, doesn't "infotainment" mean the same thing? Has that made it into the dictionary yet? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:25, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

: Good point. The "dramacast" addition was not by me, and you can insert a better substitute such as "infotainment" or perhaps "docudrama". Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:47, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

::Just did. Infotainment seems closer to the concept than "docudrama," which always seems to indicate something longer. It might be good as its own separate entry. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:32, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

== Closed Shop ==
You might like to include Closed shop. -[[User:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

: Superb suggestion. Will add now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:55, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

From the 19th century, I suggest 'scrooge' - a miser who, despite wealth, does not give to charity or allow wealth to circulate and benefit the wider economy. Clearly this orginates from ''A Christmas Carol'', which was written in that century.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:45, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Superb suggestion. Please add with a precise date, if you have one. I'm also working on a few possibilities for 1700s and 1800s to perfect the geometric fit, but yours is better than mine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:15, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

::It looks like the novella was published in 1843 [http://www.stormfax.com/dickens.htm] but I don't have a citation for the first general use of 'scrooge' to describe any miser. I know the book was an immediate success when it was published, so it can't have been long after. Perhaps you have a bigger dictionary than I do?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 19:42, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== Question ==

Just out of curiosity, what exactly makes a word conservative or liberal? For example, liberals often practice double standard far more than conservatives, so wouldn't that make it a liberal word? Same with hysteria, since most media hype is in liberal news sources like MSNBC and CNN. [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 18:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia, home of Patriots. Take hysteria, studies will prove people without God are less grounded, more frequent to have off-the-wall behavior patterns, gradually regressing in communication with others. My conclusion is a sane person (grounded in the Lord, conservative by default) would have created the diagnosis, hence crafted the word hysteria. That is just one example, my 2 cents anyway, comprehend?

:If you do Merriam-Webster dictionary search, you are likely to find the dates and further research the origin, its like word salad.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:23, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
::So it's less words that apply to conservatives and more words coined by the conservatives themselves? [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 19:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Conservative terms are crafted, coined (growth rate) faster than liberal words. This shows that generations have been conservative while liberal crafted words have spurts of growth. Example, 1960 ideas such as freedom of mind drug talk, explore feminism, tune-in drop-out of society became associated with that generation in disproportane numbers. We may be now in such a new phase of liberalism; tax, big government, empathy legislation, gay rights, environmentalism- which will give way to the next sustained period of conservatism.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:30, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

Please can't anyone answer the first question and clarify how and exactly who decides whether words and terms are labelled as either conservative or liberal? Is it based on general opinion or is there some sort of general consensus? Are there any neutral terms? I think it would be interesting to open a dialogue on the subject.

Also, many words have Greek and Latin roots. Does this factor in to weather they are identified as Conservative or Liberal? (unsigned)

:"Whether", not "weather". I agree a dialog (American spelling) would be interesting on this. When a word captures a conservative insight, then it's a conservative word.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:43, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

Could I suggest Astroturfing as a conservative word? It was coined around 1998 as a response to false grassroot movements by Microsoft, but can refer to political movements as well. I consider it conservative because it is a good word for pinpointing deceit. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astroturfing] [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 21:22, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Haven't heard of that term in politics, so I'm not sure it qualifies yet. The word has to catch on a bit to earn its way in this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:41, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== No capitalism? ==

I was rather shocked to notice that capitalism (circa 1850) isn't included as a new conservative word. Was this intentional? I would also suggest constructionist (circa 1835) as another conservative word of value.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:58, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

== A few more suggestions (one from 1700's) ==

According to Random House, "republican" has its origin around 1685...close, but not quite in the time period you're looking for. "Evangelism" is 1620-1630, and "missionary" is 1635-1645.

Aha! What about "states' rights," circa 1790? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:11, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

: "Republican" is a good suggestion, but the term is associated more with the Republican Party than with conservatism. There are arguments that conservatism is populist in nature. "Isms" are usually derogatory; missionary requires more discussion.

:"States rights" adds nothing conservative to "federalism", a 1789 term that we already include. Liberals invokes "states rights" often also.

:I'll add all four terms as difficult to classify, pending further discussion. Thanks but we're still looking for a a 1700s term to perfect the geometric fit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

::Seeking data (a "1700s term") to support a linguistic theory (the "geometric fit" or "Law") to the exclusion of relevant data is irresponsible. The fundamental problem with this whole effort is that it has no clearly-designed methodology. Even the terms "liberal words" and "conservative words" are not sufficiently clear at an operational level. There is no sampling method. People just think of words and add them. They usually supply very weak or entirely inappropriate reasons for including a word. There is no stated rationale supporting the "Merriam-Webster" dictionary (which one of their line of dictionaries? online?) over the Oxford English Dictionary, which is far superior in its coverage of etymology and word introduction. There are no serious criteria about how to categorize words in one category or another. No attention to "sense" as it relates to the same word ("designer" can refer to God or to Versace) is visible in the portions of this discussion I have read. Part of the problem, too, is perspective. Liberals and conservatives may both "rightly" claim a term or it could be pointed out that a term is value-neutral. Definitions change over time as well, which complicates all of this even further. To scientifically compare these two categories of words would take an enormous amount of work and involve an actual methodology. I think it could be a very interesting study, if done well. Otherwise it is useless and would have the potential of making the proponents of the results look like they are creating self-serving propaganda. Perhaps I have missed a formal statement of the methodology, but what I have seen here implies a total lack of methodological rigor. At best, and this is perhaps the reason for this effort, the discussion is laying the groundwork for a formal study; but, I haven't seen any evidence supporting this. In the meantime, it is dishonest to draw conclusions about these words and ridiculous to use these conclusions to support a "Law." I would urge the "movers" of this discussion to write a disclaimer to the effect that all of this is preliminary work and that conclusions can't yet be drawn until a formal methodology has been applied. Otherwise it is an embarrassment to Conservapedia and those of us who care to contribute. Poor methodology is neither conservative nor liberal -- it is just a waste of everybody's time and reputation. --[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 10:55, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::The only "embarrassment" is yours, CPlantin. Your rant above is close-minded. There's no denying that new conservative words/insights are created/discovered. There's no denying that such words can be counted. It's clear you don't like the results, but the problem is with your attitude. I urge you to open your mind and set it free. You'll be amazed by how much better your life becomes as a result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: My critique is not closed minded -- it's just based on standard research methods. I do not deny that new conservative words are created/discovered and there are surely ways to count them, just as there are ways to count liberal ones. This project may even be under-counting conservative terms because the methodology is so flawed. Unfortunately there will be no way of knowing until a thorough study is actually carried out, here or elsewhere. I don't like or dislike any "results" at this point because they are based on faulty methods and can't be considered results. I am secure with my knowledge of linguistic and social-scientific research methodologies, based on decades of experience, and do not believe that having high standards amounts to having a problematic "attitude." My words may have seemed like a "rant" but I said it all because if anyone here at Conservapedia ever intends to do anything with any results, the methodology has to be sound for any of it to be taken seriously. Now is the time to establish the methodology -- before the project moves ahead any more. It is a fascinating topic, but deserves serious treatment -- and certainly needs much more time than I have for it. If contributors to this study want help with methodology, perhaps a call for a trained researcher would be advisable. Otherwise, the study as it seems to be developing will harm the reputation of Conservapedia. Lastly, I find your condescension to be insulting. Sound research does indeed open one's mind and does indeed set one's mind free. Sound research is part of having an open mind. Sloppy research designed to promote pre-conceived results is 1) not at all associated with having an open mind, 2) scholarly suicide, and 3) even worse, dishonest. --[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 19:20, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::No one ever built a monument to a critic. Rather than provide any corrections or methods of your own, you've baselessly attacked the project without citing any actual problematic examples. Why should anyone waste time reading your criticisms, then again responding to them? [[User:LarsJ|LarsJ]] 20:52, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::I agree with CPlantin's criticisms of the project, and I will set in to offer some methods of my own. First, a clear definition of a "conservative term" and a "liberal term" should be agreed on ahead of time. There's not even a ghost of a skeleton of a criterion for what qualifies as one or the other. The definition used will depend on what exactly the project is trying to show. Right now there are a mixture of terms used by liberals and conservatives for liberals and conservatives in both lists. Without a clear definition of what is to be counted, it's difficult to count. It's not clear, for instance, why "Segway" or "goth" are new words created by liberals to attack us. They're a brand of motor scooter and the name of a teen subculture.
::::::Secondly, there needs to be a way to go through terms used at different times by different people. Having random contributors put in ideas as they think of them doesn't produce anything remotely like a representative sample. I honestly have no idea how to do this, especially with no resources, which is perhaps why studies of this nature are not typically undertaken.
::::::I want to reiterate that I'm saying this because I want CP to be good and I want it to be trustworthy, and the methodology used here is wrong and worthless on every conceivable level. They hypothesis may be correct for some value of "conservative terms", but the work being done here does nothing at all to support it. I work in the social sciences. The methodology here isn't merely a little shaky; it is, to be straightforward (a conservative term), junk science (another conservative term), and I hesitate to even elevate it to that status. In particular, picking out a curve ahead of time and then looking for data to fit it strikes my actual-research-doing self as positively ghastly, brutally deceitful, the opposite of what CP should stand for. [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 17:44, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Your "know nothing" approach is a common style of reasoning of [[liberals]]. This is not a single, specific, meritorious (a new conservative word?) in your long-winded rant. You don't like this project probably because it is so effective. You don't deny that new conservative words are being created at a rate of many per century, yet you object to counting them. That's liberal style of reasoning: a bundle of self-contradictions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:51, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

::::::::I respectfully object to being referred to as a liberal; I am very much not one. I also object to my suggestion to lift the project to the level of something resembling true research as a long-winded rant. I don't object to the project because "it is so effective." I object to the project (in its current formulation) because it is so humiliatingly ineffective. I do not object to counting new conservative words as they appeared over time and formulating conclusions based on them; I object to compiling a list of words for which there are no well-defined criteria for inclusion more or less at random and pretending like it means anything. I know that the people contributing to this project are smart and are working hard on it, but it's effort sadly wasted with such sad methodology. I want CP to stand for truth and for sound reasoning, but as things are being conducted right now, were several high-level admins not involved I would assume the whole thing was a hoax. Respectfully, [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 19:09, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

== A few more possibilities from the 1700's ==

economics (1785)
division of labor (1770)
patriotism (1720)--I know "isms" are often pejorative, but surely this one isn't (regardless of how some people might try to malign it?)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:00, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

:patriotism has been on the list. Division of labor is good. Economics can be liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

== Further suggestions ==

Two suggestions from Gulliver's Travels, which was published in 1726 and immediately became popular:
* Lilliputian - small-minded or trivial, used to satirise people who are preoccupied with petty squabbles.
* Yahoo - a person who embodies all the worst human characteristics because of a lack of moral or civilising influences.

--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:08, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions! I think Lilliputian is the better of the two. "Yahoo" does not seem to have retained its original meaning, perhaps due to yahoo.com's use of the term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:11, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: I agree that Lilliputian is more relevant today. It strikes me as an excellent way to describe many people's obsessions with gossip, people's personal lives, celebrities, entertainment etc while they ignore far more important concerns. It's actually amazing how much of what Swift wrote is even more relevant today than it was when he wrote it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:51, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

::: According to M-W, ''yahoo'' as a noun dates to Swift's book in 1726; ''yahoo'' as an interjection (synonym for "yippee") dates to 1870. But I disagree with both as conservative terms: ''Gulliver'' is extremely rooted in the attitudes of the [[Enlightenment]] and the glorification of Reason above all else - hardly conservative IMO. (Yes, I know that the Enlightenment produced some conservative ideas also.) [[User:Carillonneur|Carillonneur]] 12:34, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:Carillonner has a point. Swift is regarded as one of the greatest satirists of all time - I am personally a fan of him. You shouldn't adopt his words unless you have read the book from which they come, and understand exactly what they intend to mean. The entire country of Lilliput was a criticism of the trivialities that dominated british and european politics - much of which is lost on a modern reader, unfamiliar with the subject. That the people were tiny was but incidential to the real significence of them, the way in which they would turn the tiniest event or question into a source of great conflict or debate while entirely ignoring far more serious issues, culminating in a war fought over which way up an egg should be placed in an eggcup before breaking it open. If you're looking for a section good for criticising liberals with, I suggest the third country visited by Gulliver: Laputa. The floating island satirises scientific and artistic accomplishment performed for it's own sake without thought to practical benefits, and a community of academics who posess vast knowledge of subjects entirely useless to anyone else. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 12:45, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the insights above. Looks like we'll hold off on both terms, then. That means we're still looking for one more word from the 1700s to perfect the geometric increase in generation of insightful conservative terms for the list. Suggestions are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:21, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Suricou is right about the original context of the satire, but I would contend that 'Lilliputian' applies equally well to any small-minded, petty obsession of the kind that Conservatives strive to rise above, so I'd still consider it a conservative term.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:04, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== More 1700's possibilities ==

Businessman (~1710)

Checks and balances (~1780)

Separation of powers (1748)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:55, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: The latter two are good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:02, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Self-respect (1765)

: Don't think "self-respect" is conservative. It may be liberal. "Self-worship" is a big defect with the liberal approach.

: Looks like "separation of powers" is the term to perfect the fit to the geometric increase, unless someone objects.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:38, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== Liberal word from 1830 ==

'''Reactionary''' - liberal smear-word for conservative ideas.--[[User:Woloct|Woloct]] 21:05, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

==A different take on the Geometric Growth issue==

It might be geometric growth, it might be geometric decay too. If say every year one new conservative word is coined, but every hundred years half of the existing conservative words fall out of use, then the words from the 1600's would be half as prevalent as conservative words than the words from the 1700's. Also, why is transistor a conservative word? It doesn;t seem like it is any more politically important than automobile, or cucumber, or steak. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 23:28, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

: But there is no "decay" in the conservative examples provided. Your point would apply to the liberal terms, which do quickly fall out of use. The conservative insights grow in usage and value.

: The transistor is "more politically important" than a steak. The transistor played a central role in national defense systems, such as the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], a program proposed by conservatives and which helped bring the downfall of communism in the [[USSR]]. Moreover, the transistor epitomizes Yankee ingenuity, which is a conservative value.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:04, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::If my proposal were correct would you expect the decayed examples to be in the list? I would think that would throw off the numbers and we wouldn't see the exponential growth in the numbers. As someone working in the cattle industry I would contest the notion that steak isn't politically important. It is a food source for conservatives by conservatives. It seems like the SDI is built on a whole lot of other technological innovations as well that aren't on the list. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 12:34, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::There is exponential growth of conservative words that continue to be useful. The liberal words do fizzle quickly, but the conservative words do not. If you have counterexamples, let's see them. If you say the counterexamples have vanished and cannot be found, then your proposal is [[non-falsifiable]] and thus unscientific.

:::"Transistor" is on the list for several reasons, as I explained here and in the entry. If you can find other examples used for SDI that are comparable, then let's discuss them too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::My point was that it might be decay too, of course we cannot test it unless we find a comparable list from 100 years ago. However, it seems contradictory when you say that we can't test, but our words are increasing and their words are decaying. It seems like both sets would be simultaneously growing and decaying. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 15:38, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Conservative words don't disappear as you suggest. You have access to older works on the internet. I've provided 150 new conservative words that have lasted. Can you identify even 1 that has disappeared?

:::::It doesn't seem to me "like both sets [conservative and liberal] would be simultaneously growing and decaying" the same way. In fact, I'd be shocked if these very different categories behaved identically. One is almost certainly growing and lasting more than the other, and the evidence is that the conservative words are winning this struggle. Difficult for liberals to accept, I'm sure, but the facts don't care if they are accepted or not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:15, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Let me jump in here just to ask, Andy, do you have a dictionary-type definition of "conservative word"? It is impossible to test for geometric growth (or whatever we call it!) if we don't know how to identify a [[conservative]] word. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:20, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::I propose as a working definition that a "conservative word" is one that succinctly expresses a conservative insight that is or was denied, downplayed or otherwise not recognized before its articulation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Good. I think some of the words in the primary list might be better in the downgraded list though. They seem to define "conservative insight" too broadly. For example, "insightful." How exactly is that "conservative"?

:::::::Also, in deciding a conservative word should we consider who coined it? Example, Lenin coined "fellow traveler", but nowadays it can be used in a conservative sense, though it was coined by a communist. What do you think there? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 16:56, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: Good points, but I think these particular terms are defensible. "Insightful" is a word about getting at the truth, something that conservatives actively seek while many liberals prefer [[deceit]] or self-worship instead.

:::::::: As to "fellow traveler," this is one of a few terms coined by one side but which become more useful and popular to the other side. Other examples include "Big Bang" and "politically correct." So while it is enlightening to know who and why a term was coined, there are limits to relying entirely on that source for its usage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:04, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question 2 words ==

I doubt that "intercontinental" and "silver spoon" are conservative words. "Silver spoon" is [[materialistic]] and seems more useful for class warfare. Intercontinental seems straightforward with little more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:Well then we should remove them. Some people have just added words without discussing it, and list is rather long anyway. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:11, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

::I think those two could be profitably removed (with the count decreased accordingly). But on a wiki it's usually fine to make edits without prior discussion. It's just as easy to discuss afterward and correct as it is to discuss beforehand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Should they be fully removed or put in "downgraded" terms? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:22, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Your call. Honestly, I don't see an argument that either one is conservative, so it's fine with me if they are simply removed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:50, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-locality? ==

The description is as follows "1920s action at a distance at the atomic level; even though proven, it is still opposed by those who belief<nowiki>[sic]</nowiki> in relativity and still not recognized by Merriam-Webster" If its not recognized why is it not in the non-recognized list? We also have both productive and productivity, and sustainable and sustainability are split between the liberal and conservative lists. I think we should trim the fat, but didn't want to act before speaking because of how many admin reverts there are in the history. unfortunately I do not have any words to replace tem with, sorry. --[[User:CJHallock|CJHallock]] 12:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

: I corrected the typo and trimmed "sustainable", but "non-locality" is widely used and accepted, except by those who instead insist on relativity (which perhaps includes you?). The description in this entry is informative and I hope you take it with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==liberal words==
Now I've looked at the list of liberal words and I beleive that these are not liberal:

Hypothesis.

Creationism (Used by everyone. The [[creation science]] movement began as "scientific ''creationism''.)

Racism (Liberals misuse this term to criticize people who do not support, say, Obama. But that is a misuse, we should not let their misuse define the word itself.) [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:Good points about "hypothesis" and "racism", but I think "creationism" was originally and still is used by liberals. As an "-ism" it has a pejorative connotation, and many liberals rely on that connotation in trying to smear others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::Sort of like how creationists like to call evolution "evolutionism" I guess. More importantly, should we remove hypothesis and racism? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 14:10, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Removal sounds good. Please proceed as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:25, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Are you implying that all -isms are pejorative? If so, I think you're way off-base. They simply denote a ideology or belief structure. There are a lot of good conservative -isms out there: capitalism, objectivism (as in Ayn Rand), mercantilism (per-capitalist conservative ideology), heroism, and even baptism (belief structure that holds that anointing with water cleanses sins and lies on the path to salvation).

: Your "baptism" example is striking, but I don't think its etymology is from adding "ism" to a concept. Rather, it is from a middle English word (baptisme). Your other "isms" may not have been complementary when first developed, but I'd like to learn more about that. Do you know?

: In modern times, most "isms" are pejorative in origin. Some can be flipped over time to favorable usage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:30, 15 January 2010 (EST)

As for baptism, the best evidence I can find of this is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, “The word Baptism is derived from the Greek word, bapto, or baptizo, to wash or to immerse. It signifies, therefore, that washing is of the essential idea of the sacrament.” Perhaps supports my idea but admittedly not at all conclusive. As for some of these other isms, I was not able to find the particular circumstances regarding whether or not they were developed with a positive or negative connotation, but it really shouldn’t matter how the word was used a hundred years ago, but how the conservative movement today uses these words to promote its ideas. If “some can be flipped over time to favorable usage,” then these words should certainly be included on this list. Words are reclaimed all the time. Case in point, the term “Jesus freak” was at one time a pejorative, but many young Christians embraced the term. Furthermore, Mr. Schafly, I’d be very curious to see any evidence that most “isms” are pejorative. It seems a little arbitrary to give such a blanket statement for all isms without some hard evidence, especially when the word conservatism is used throughout the intro paragraphs of the article.

== John Bunyan ==

I notice we're looking for a term from the seventeenth century. Perhaps a word from Pilgrim's Progress (1678) might be suitable? I suggest "worldly-wiseman", or "slough of despond", which has been used subsequently to describe any instance of the malaise that results from a lack of faith.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:43, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:We should include something from that immensely influential book, but I don't think the specific terms you identify are unique or popular enough.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:26, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== A sense of "loyal"? ==

Another possibility for 17th century: "loyal" with the meaning "1. True to obligations of duty, love, etc.; faithful to plighted troth", which dates to Othello in 1604 (OED). The earlier meanings are from the 16th century and deal with loyalty to a nation or sovereign, but it seems to me that this represents a quite distinct conservative insight. Perhaps add both uses?

:Fascinating suggestion! But the earlier uses go back to 1531 and are not that different. The OED may be acting partial to Shakespeare in giving credit.

:Also note that 1604 is before the writing of the [[King James Bible]], further disqualifying this suggestion. I think we could go with something like 1610, because by then the [[King James Bible]] was virtually complete albeit not yet published, but 1604 is really too early for this list.

:Do have any more suggestions? I learned from this one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:17, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:: Maybe "theism" (1678 -- curiously invented after "atheism" which is already a liberal word here!) or "pander" (1616) to describe liberal behavior? I'm just looking through a list of 17th century words for these; I'll keep looking to fill in the hole if you don't think they qualify! Learning lots of strange words along the way... --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 17:37, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::: Fascinating! I think "pander" comes closest to qualifying, but hopefully we can do better still.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:38, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: OK, one more try and I'll get back to actual editing! How about "liberate", 1623? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:54, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Designer? ==

Apparently, the word "designer" originated between 1640 and 1650. While it may not have been an important conservative word at the time, I would argue that it has become one since in pointing out the evidence that the universe is designed. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:27, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

(Incidentally, I'm learning some really surprising things while looking for words! Apparently, the word "Biblical" didn't come into use until 1780-1790! I was amazed to discover that!) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:41, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Slipshod ==

Hi there, new to the site so I'd like to start out small... how about adding slipshod? It was coined in 1580 and means "shabby, careless, slovenly". A perfect word to describe those who don't help themselves! --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 20:46, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
truth

:Your suggestion sounds good to me too (also new around here!), but I think the list is supposed to start in 1612 now, the year after the publication of the KJV. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:57, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::Ah, I seem to have missed that sentence. I see no reason to limit conservative insight to after 1612, but I won't argue the point --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 21:13, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Final word for 1600s ==

My interest was peaked when I read that this list was only one word away from being in a perfect geometric series. So i went to an online etymology dictionary and picked a few that may fit the bill:

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sumptuary Sumptuary] (c. 1600): The dictionary.com version of this definition seems biased in some aspect, so, in general, it means "to rule one's life based on religious or moral judgements."

* Independent (1611): I was kind of surprised when I found out this wasn't on the list...perhaps there's a reason for that? (Yes, I did see the year, but perhaps since 1611 was the year the KJV was published, maybe...)

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patronymic Patronymic] (1612): I've always seen it as a conservative value for a woman to take on the name of her husband. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

* Accurate (1612): Maybe if we wanted to be a little facetious...or are we serious?

[http://www.etymonline.com/ Here's the dictionary I've been using.] Just type in a year and it'll give many results. Hope this helps...Pick a good one!-[[User:Zerlock|Zerlock]] 21:24, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions. "Patronymic" is new to me, but I have to agree with your analysis! But all your examples seem slightly shy of the high standard in the entry. I hope we can do better for the final word. Hey, when was "last word" first used?! That's not conservative ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question about Methodology ==

This article makes the assertion that by analyzing "liberal" terms versus "conservative" terms, one can conclude that conservatism is on the rise. Let me emphasize that I do not dispute this notion. I do feel, however, that as it is written now the assertion has not been rigorously proven. I have the following concerns:

1. What is the definition of a "Conservative Word"? What is the definition of a "Liberal Word"? It is important to explicitly define those two terms if we are going to claim that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words". For example, is a "Conservative Word" a word that was coined by a conservative, or is it one that has been used to describe conservative ideology, or is it one used to disparage conservatives by non-conservatives? Is a word conservative if it was originally meant to be conservative or if it was not originally intended to have an ideology but later acquired one?

2. There are certain words like "insightful" that do not seem to be related to any ideology. Why are such words classified as "conservative"? Likewise, what does cryptography have to do with conservatism? One more example: the "Big Bang" is simply the currently accepted scientific theory about how the universe began. How can a scientific theory have an ideology?

3. How can we be sure that we have counted every word in each category? Is it possible that we spent more time searching for words in one of the two categories, and as a result that category has more words than the other?

4. It is claimed that conservative words are of higher quality than liberal ones. What metric is used to assess the "quality" of a word?

I am not sure if the above questions are answerable. If they are, however, then we come to the most important point:

5. After clarifying the first three points, let's say we determine that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words" (or the other way around). Is it possible to conclude that an ideology is on the rise simply by looking at the rate of change of words associated with that ideology.

One more concern:

6. I feel that we are studying this problem deductively when we should be studying it inductively. Specifically, we are trying to prove that conservative words fit into a geometric ratio - we are starting with a conclusion some people wish to find, and then we are searching for evidence to fit it. I am skeptical of this - it would probably be better to collect all the data first and THEN analyze the data for conclusions, a more empirical method that will serve this essay better.

I hope that these four questions provoke a discourse. Over the next day or so, I will attempt to give my own answer to what is a "Conservative Word" and what is a "Liberal Word." Please do not construe this message as an attempt to attack this essay; rather, I wish to help make it more rigorous, something for which we should all strive! I am not saying that I dispute the notion that conservatism is on the rise - I merely doubt that this is an effective way of proving that fact.

If you disagree with any of my points, I am very open to hearing your opinion. My goal is to objectively study the growth rate of ideological words; any advice you can contribute would be immensely appreciated. [[User:Khamilton|Khamilton]] 21:28, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:'''REPLY:'''

:Q1. What is the definition of a "Conservative Word"? What is the definition of a "Liberal Word"? It is important to explicitly define those two terms if we are going to claim that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words". For example, is a "Conservative Word" a word that was coined by a conservative, or is it one that has been used to describe conservative ideology, or is it one used to disparage conservatives by non-conservatives? Is a word conservative if it was originally meant to be conservative or if it was not originally intended to have an ideology but later acquired one?

::ANSWER: The meaning is obvious enough. A conservative word is one that captures and conveys a conservative insight. There is no definitional problem here. There are over 150 examples and the vast majority can hardly be disputed.

:Q2. There are certain words like "insightful" that do not seem to be related to any ideology. Why are such words classified as "conservative"? Likewise, what does cryptography have to do with conservatism? One more example: the "Big Bang" is simply the currently accepted scientific theory about how the universe began. How can a scientific theory have an ideology?

::ANSWER: Science obviously can be ideological. Witness "global warming" and "evolution". As to your other examples, I'll try to explain them better in the comments if desired. I agree that a few are debatable, but the vast majority are not.

:Q3. How can we be sure that we have counted every word in each category? Is it possible that we spent more time searching for words in one of the two categories, and as a result that category has more words than the other?

::ANSWER: If the occurrence were flat or declining, it would be virtually impossible to generate a geometric progression. This geometric progression occurred without expecting it to happen.

:Q4. It is claimed that conservative words are of higher quality than liberal ones. What metric is used to assess the "quality" of a word?

::ANSWER: The same as the quality of a car or laptop or tennis racket: its durability, its effectiveness, and its helpfulness for success.

:Q5. After clarifying the first three points, let's say we determine that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words" (or the other way around). Is it possible to conclude that an ideology is on the rise simply by looking at the rate of change of words associated with that ideology.

::ANSWER: I can't think of a better indicator. Can you?

:Q6. I feel that we are studying this problem deductively when we should be studying it inductively. Specifically, we are trying to prove that conservative words fit into a geometric ratio - we are starting with a conclusion some people wish to find, and then we are searching for evidence to fit it. I am skeptical of this - it would probably be better to collect all the data first and THEN analyze the data for conclusions, a more empirical method that will serve this essay better.

::ANSWER: We did begin without trying to fit the data to any curve. Now the only fit is to perfection. That may distort the level of perfection, but the underlying geometric progression is unmistakable.

::Thanks for your questions. Godspeed and I hope you really do have an open mind about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
:::Q6 seems really important to me, yes you are trying to fit to perfection but there may be something other than perfect geometirc growth going on and you may never be able to find it if you don't let the data flow where it may and then analyze it. While geometric growth is undeniably happening here there may be more to see that we will never find out unless we disconnect ourselves from the data. --14:26, 12 January 2010 (EST)

::::Thomas, please note your name, preferably with the signature button, so we can see who said what. In response to your comment, this project did not start out seeking or expecting a geometric rate of growth, and it welcomes quality additions that may cause it to depart from the geometric rate. Indeed, lately the 20th century words have increased at a rate faster than the geometric rate.

::::As to "Trojan horse", your edit deleted a good explanation of what that is, and inserted a typo (missing space). If you deny that the term means a form of [[liberal deceit]], then please make a stronger case than you have. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:48, 12 January 2010 (EST)

I moved the following from your talk page

:::::You strike me as a widely read individual, so surely you must have read the Odyssey. Benedict Arnold is a case of deceit from within, but not at all a trojan horse. If you look at the Odyssey itself Odysseus represents a conservative of the times, very cautious and shrewd, a faithful and cunning man, was his trojan horse a liberal deceit? The whole idea behind a trojan horse is using a gift to get past the defenses of your enemies. I think my version was more correct and more precise, in short more true. I think that if you think about it for a while you will find your self agreeing. --[[User:ThomasRidgefield|ThomasRidgefield]] 14:59, 12 January 2010 (EST)

::::::I have an open mind about this, and welcome your insights. In fact, all the regular contributors here have an open mind about these issues. But as the [[deceit]] entry amply demonstrates, there is a high correlation between deceit and liberal tactics, and a very low correlation between deceit and conservative approaches. Your edit obscured the correlation to liberal tactics, and removed the explanation that a Trojan horse is a tactic of subversion from within. As to whether Odysseus was a conservative, I can't say I know his position on pro-life and less government!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:18, 12 January 2010 (EST)

== More 1600's possibilities ==

Nucleus: 1695. Leads to the term "nuclear family," certainly an important conservative concept.

Parental: 1615-1625: Liberals still marginalize the important role of parental guidance and influence.

Jurisprudence: 1620-1630: While liberals may seek to use the law to their advantage, I would argue that the study of the science of law (and its proper place) is an inherently conservative concept.

Constitutional: 1675-1685: It certainly would have been difficult to have a Constitutional Convention without the word "constitutional!"

"Responsible" comes in just a few years before the cutoff--1600. Pity.

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:30, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

: Good suggestions. "Parental" and "constitutional" seem best. Let's pick one and achieve the goal. Then we can move on to the next layer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:: I'd vote for "constitutional", since "parenting" is already on the list and has basically the same import. On the other hand, "constitution" is much older, so does this really represent a new conservative insight in the 17th century? I'd think we want each of these words to represent a fresh insight if the argument for conservapedia's law is to hold. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:06, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

::: Excellent points. Let's keep the high quality here and continue looking. Note that the term "jurisprudence" does not connote conservative now, so it won't work either.

::: How about "Hobson's Choice", or "substantiate"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:17, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Either sounds reasonable, though you'd have to explain to me why Hobson's choice is conservative. Alternatively, we could stop looking -- one less in the 17th century means that the growth is even faster than claimed! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:22, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::I think that defeats the purpose Andy's aiming for. He's never claimed that there are exactly double the number of conservative terms each century; just that it's a general trend. The efforts to have a perfect geometric curve here are to clearly illustrate that trend. Remember that this is a resource for students, and thus, clear and precise illustrations of the concepts presented are always desirable. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, Andy.) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:13, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

== Strict Constructionism ==

I see you added textualism and that originalism is already on the list. Years ago when I first heard about conservative interpretations of the constitution the phrase du jour was "strict constructionism," which I think is now out of vogue in favor or originalism and textualism, but is definitely a new conservative principle in the grand scheme of things. [[User:Lmenkes|Lmenkes]] 16:50, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

:You're right. However, I see that "strict constructionism" is in this entry under "Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary." It's been used over 200 years, and the dictionary still doesn't recognize it! Thanks for mentioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:42, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

== Transnationalism ? ==

1. going beyond national boundaries or interests: a transnational economy.
2. comprising persons, sponsors, etc., of different nationalities: a transnational company.
–noun
3. a company, organization, etc., representing two or more nationalities.
Origin:
1920–25; trans- + national

Related forms:
trans⋅na⋅tion⋅al⋅ism, noun
trans⋅na⋅tion⋅al⋅ly, adverb

Transnational jurisprudence assumes America’s political and economic interdependence with other nations operating within the international legal system, as opposed to the conservative, traditionalist(pre-Obama) approach of always rejecting the subjugation of American law to International law. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:07, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

: That would be a great start to the next layer, TK!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:11, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-English Terms? ==

Just to get it out of the way, this is only an idea I'm floating, and I definitely do not think it's a good idea to add non-English words all willy-nilly. However, I do feel that it's worth noting that for a portion of the period covered by this essay, English was not the standard language of academic discourse, as it is in modern times. Part of the reason that it may be more difficult to fill out the earlier part of curve is that in the time period it covers, Latin, then French, were common as the languages of choice. Important conservative ideas, like the five ''solas'', were expressed in Latin, and don't all have English equivalents with the same "hot word" status. This could partially explain why it's sometimes harder to find examples from the older periods. We already have "laissez-faire", but I think this is a good place to look for terms for conservative concepts, provided care is taken to make sure that the terms used are really of the same stature as those that exist. (And don't duplicate existing concepts.) Ideas that grew out of the Reformation, for example, are likely to have Latin names, and ideas born with the great political philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries might have more resonant names in French. Again, this is just an idea of a new space to mine conservative words from; conservative thought has a long history, and some of it isn't in English. :) -- [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 23:55, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

I understand that Conservapedia has a US-centric interest base, but might I suggest 'Eurosceptic' as a conservative term? As far as I am aware, it was coined in the early 1970s when Britain debated joining the EEC. It has since been used to describe a right-wing rejection of the European Union and its socialist 'super-state' mentality. Conservatives in the USA have rightly questioned the growing power of the EU, thereby displaying 'Euroscepticism' themselves. [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 23:17, 5 July 2009 (CDT)

: Superb suggestion, except that "Euroskeptic" and "Euroskepticism" appear to be derogatory ''liberal'' terms. The real conservative term on this issue appears to be "Eurorealist", but I'm not sure when that was coined. Your thoughts?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:55, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

:: When the term first arose, it was applied to the many members of the Labour ''and'' Conservative parties who were highly suspicious of British involvement in Europe. In fact, in the early 1970s there were more liberal opponents to integration than there were conservative opponents. (Ironic, given Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's fanatical devotion to the EU!) While the word is now used in a derogatory sense by liberals, it has been claimed by many conservatives as a badge of pride. 'Eurorealist' is an excellent alternative, but I personally prefer 'Eurosceptic' because it has been adopted by conservatives in many other European nations and integrated into their languages. (The Germans, for instance, use the word 'europaskepsis'.) Not sure where all of this leaves us, but I appreciate the feedback! -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 08:24, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

::: Thanks for your superb insights. Let's go with "Eurosceptic" because it is more common, and I'll mention "Eurorealist" in the comment area. I'll include this now. I've learned immensely from your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:07, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

What about "self-evident" (Locke, 1690), which was already used in the same sense as in the Declaration of Independence? Alternatively, "self-evidence", which is earlier, but still in the 1600s. It seems fair to say that while self-evident truths underlie all of conservative ideology, the very existence of these truths is rejected by the liberal doctrine of relativism.
--[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 12:16, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

Might I also suggest 'proactive/pro-active', signifying an individual who looks to himself for the improvement of his lot rather than to free handouts from society/government. I believe this originated in the field of psychology (therefore 20th century), but I am unsure of the exact date. Also, I was discussing this essay with a friend of mine who serves in the British Royal Air Force and he suggested 'hard-target search', a military term that describes any attempt to intercept and neutralize a heavily armored enemy, be it mobile infantry or stationary fortress structure. He has served since the early 1990s and remembers the term being introduced soon after the Gulf War. Thoughts? -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 12:40, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

:"Proactive" is an excellent suggestion. Fantastic. My dictionary says it dates from 1933. Please add it! I'm less sure about "self-evident". I doubt that is a conservative insight, and am open to discussion about it (which could prove to be fascinating in itself). Thanks for the history of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

::I understand "self-evident" (as in "self-evident truths") to be in opposition to liberal notions of relativism, which I don't think admit the possibility of self-evident truth: liberals believe that all truth must be understood in politically correct "cultural context". If not this, is there some other word that could be an antonym of "relativism" and merit inclusion on the list? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:33, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

:::I tried to add 'proactive', but I don't appear to be authorized to make an edit to the page. Have I misunderstood? (Forgive my ignorance; I am very new to this website.) -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 13:49, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

==Blame America crowd==

How about [[Blame America crowd]]? We probably need an article, and there is no shortage of available material. Google gets 549,000 search results [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=blame+america+crowd&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=]. We could just do a redirect for "hate America crowd" although Google gets 900,000+ results for that. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hate+america+crowd&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=] There's even an Amazon.com title [http://www.amazon.com/Albums-Communists-Hate-America-Crowd/lm/17MFFXQYC45LO#height=204] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:11, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

: Excellent suggestion! Sounds like its date of origin is in this decade. Can you pinpoint a date of origin?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:34, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
::I propose using Micheal Barone [http://www.creators.com/opinion/michael-barone/the-blame-america-first-crowd.html] article here; he quotes [[Jeane Kirkpatrick]] saying "They always blame America first" describing the "San Francisco Democrats" in 1984 (San Fransisco was site of the DNC nominating convention). Barone is authoritive, we can use him as a source to get the ball rolling. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:22, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

==Overall growth of language==
I just did a search on the OED online to see the total number of new words per century. I may have counted wrong, but it appears that the total size of the English language is increasing exponentially also, but faster: about 1-2.6-6.8-17.6. This means that the percentage of conservative words as a proportion of all words is actually decreasing, which would be a problem for [[Conservapedia's Law]]. But I suspect that the proportion of words with any political connotations is falling as well, so it's still possible that conservative words are outstripping liberal ones. I can't think of any way to check this without making an equally thorough list of liberal words. Thoughts?

:Mark, liberal terms are already addressed in the article, although no doubt that section could be improved. I expect you are right in thinking that the vast majority of words generated are neither conservative nor liberal - for example new discoveries in science such as protons and neutrons are inherently apolitical.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:12, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::In furtherance of CPalmer's valid point, most new words are scientific in nature, such as new naming conventions. Our inquiry here concerns ''insightful'' new words that are substantive and valuable in their own right.

::The point here, and with [[Conservapedia's Law]], is about quality as well as quantity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::I see that new liberal terms are addressed, but that list hasn't gotten anywhere near the attention that conservative list has (particularly in the older centuries), and as a result the rate of growth of liberal terms (if not insights) appears in the list to be faster than the rate of conservative ones. I don't think the majority of new words in the OED are scientific (I could be wrong), but this is worth investigating carefully. Do a search for new words for any decade on OED and it appears the scientific ones are a minority.

:::What about adding a quality rating 1-10 to each word on the list of conservative words? It seems like it would be possible to establish reasonable guidelines for doing this (based on, say, frequency of use in important speeches by non-political figures, with some subjective component as well) and it would let us quantify the rate of increase of conservative insight versus that of liberal insight, without relying on a mere word count, which may be deceptive, since all of language increases geometrically. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 11:17, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::Mark, this seems tangential to the basic point. If someone observes that the world records for track events are improving at a rate of ''x'', I don't think it is significant that laziness is increasing at a similar rate. The point is that something of quality is increasing at a certain rate, not that things lacking in significant value are.

::::I do think the bulk of the increase in English words are of a scientific (or technical) nature. Perhaps we could nail that down first if you'd like to pursue this tangent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:25, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::Some of the new words will be borrowings from other languages - similar to the scientific ones except that these are 'cultural discoveries'. Sushi or nachos would be relatively recent examples - again, these aren't political terms.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:49, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::Excellent point again, CPalmer. Again, these vast new English words do not typically represent new insights. The conservative words do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:53, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::::OK, I think you're right that my original statements were not a good argument. Thank you for convincing me. I think the point I'm after is that a geometric growth rate of conservative insights is not surprising at all, since just about everything of this sort grows geometrically. I'd argue, for example, that new ideas in scientific fields grow exponentially, as indicated by an exponential growth of scientific vocabury, and I expect similar results elsewhere. So it seems a leap of faith to claim that geometric growth portends a more conservative future. The argument would be more convincing if more work went into the liberal list as well: I expect that even liberal "insights" (such as they are) grow at a geometric rate. We need to show that it is a _slower_ geometric rate than the conservative ones in order to predict things about the future, and in the current list, the liberal terms are growing at a faster geometric rate than conservative ones, if only because the emphasis has been on the 20th century.

:::::::As a curiosity, here are the new words added to the OED in the latest round of revisions:
anyhoo, barotrauma, batsh**, bell end, Bok globule, c'est la vie,
clonable, clonality, cloner, clonidine, dot-org, down-talk,
facilitatory, First Nation, globalist, globalizing, globaloney,
globetrotting, globigerinid, globularetin, Hiberno-Latin, Indianaite,
Indian plum, Indian rhubarb, Kelvin–Helmholtz, probationally, router,
skinder, snowboard cross, soundclash, thought-controlled,
thought-through, three-way, toasted cheese, twitterpated, unmixed
blessing, warm-down, waterboarding, wire-frame, wire speed, wire
transfer, wire wrap, wire-wrapped

:::::::A few science words and only one foreign word, but I agree that there are few insights among them, so my original argument was flawed. But I think the liberal list needs more attention if the argument for CP's law is to be valid. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 13:32, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: That's fascinating, and illustrates two large categories we had missed: simple variations on existing words (perhaps half of the total) and food-related terms (several). CPalmer's point about foreign-related words proves true also (I see at least 4).

:::::::: It's tough to find quality liberal words, but I welcome any additions to make have to the existing list in the entry here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:08, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: 43 new words total: 21 are variations on existing words, 5-6 are foreign-related, 4 are technical/scientific, 3 are activity or food-related, and about 9 require further classification that may fall into the four prior categories. Zero are insightful or convey new meaning in an intellectual sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

== Sortable ==

I made the tables sortable. I hope the author doesn't mind. I just wanted to make it easier to view the terms in chronological order. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 22:45, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
:I like that. What other tweaks you got?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:52, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
::Not much. The <code>sortable</code> class comes standard with most MediaWiki installations. I know HTML and how to build templates, but Conservapedia isn't really my thing. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 23:08, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
:AWESOME improvement!!!! Thank you!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:53, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
::You're welcome. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 23:08, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

== Rename ==

As this article is no longer an essay, nor simply a list of the "best," I suggest it should be renamed to something like "Conservative vocabulary", "Conservative words," or perhaps "Modern conservative words" (400 years worth isn't really new, but it is modern english) [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:27, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

:Sorry I didn't see this earlier, but I think the terms are a listing of the best. If you can think of any better ones, then let's get them into the list immediately!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 24 November 2009 (EST)
::As I've been lately inspired by Orwell, I'd recommend ''groupthink,'' the propensity for a group to liberals to join a consensus without actually evaluating it. I'm not surprised that doublespeak is already on the list. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:19, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::That's a real good one. I'll add it immediately. Thanks for your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:43, 25 November 2009 (EST)

== Captain of Industry? ==

An 1800s word to complete the geometric fit, perhaps? "A business leader whose means of amassing a personal fortune contributes positively to the country in some way. This may have been through increased productivity, expansion of markets, providing more jobs, or acts of philanthropy." [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:09, 24 November 2009 (EST)

:Fascinating. I hadn't heard the term before. But it also seems archaic, almost like a caricature. It's not in my large M-W Collegiate Dictionary, and the term didn't catch on. So perhaps we can await a better one? Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:22, 24 November 2009 (EST)
::I'm quite surprised you've never heard the term, though it is very much a 19th century/early 20th century term for the Rockefeller/Carnegie type, but has a positive connotation rather than negative, like robber-baron. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:06, 25 November 2009 (EST)

== Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm ==

The following is a link to a dictionary containing 155 right-wing words engineered using a linguistic deep structure algorithm:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=9162

This sublink contains a massive engineered lexicon on abortion:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=7843

An additional link including a memeplex of engineered health care terminology is included here, which will soon be included in the MemeShock 4.0 CorrectSpeak dictionary:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=10281

I have been able to include some of these words thus far in the page, but many more remain. If anyone would like to go through and add additional ones from any of these three links that would be appreciated.

Additionally it would be useful to rework this language into the text of the other pages as much as possible. The language is designed to modify ones thinking to the desired point of view, and the more of it out there the more it will spread to the general populace via those who read it here.

The project is a sort of right-wing social engineering experiment and I'm not sure how such a concept will go over with many conservatives. However if it works it should be able to modify people's thinking to a more conservative point of view, which I think will be in all of our interests.

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:Interesting idea. I'm interested in linguistics and a bit curious about your title... what does this have to do with "deep structure" in the linguistic sense? I've only encountered deep structure from a purely syntactic standpoint, and I'm curious how it figures elsewhere. Are you actually using an algorithm to create these words, and if so, what does it have to do with said deep structure? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 14:49, 30 November 2009 (EST)

:This idea doesn't go over well. Honestly, I thought something was odd about the 21st century words you added Johanan, but we are reluctant to censor here.

:Programs don't generate insights. People do. And I say that as a former full-time programmer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:56, 30 November 2009 (EST)

::"This idea doesn't go over well. Honestly, I thought something was odd about the 21st century words you added Johanan, but we are reluctant to censor here."

::Well I friend requested you on facebook. I could give you the grand tour of MemeShock if you want. Hopefully I can iron out any issues you might have.

::"Programs don't generate insights. People do."

::Well yes that is true. Perhaps "engineering language" was a little misleading. It might be better to think of it as engineering language clusters. Basically what we do is exploit an inherent circularity in language so as to create frameworks of language for particular issues to lock out the possibility to hold the opposing view. The content within those structures isn't engineered with an algorithm or anything though. The language combines though to bring the person thinking in terms of it towards a particular predetermined conclusion.

::Ideally if we could viral the language enough such that people would start talking and thinking in terms of it, it would become impossible to think like a liberal or a leftist -the language needed to do so would simply be pushed out of the public mindset. I hope that explanation is helpful. --[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:::You admit that "engineering language" is misleading, but I'm still trying to comprehend the rest of your title. Could you clarify for me: a) what part of this uses an algorithm b) what any of this has to do with "deep structure" (which I will understand in the Chomskyian sense until told otherwise)? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 00:39, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::::Let's me clear that Johanan Raatz is speaking for his own approach, which we reject here. We support open minds and free speech as the best way to advance knowledge and truth. None of this entry uses an algorithm or "deep structure."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:42, 1 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Yes, of course! Sorry for the confusion -- my query is directed at Jfraatz. I'm hoping he will clarify his grandiose title "Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm", which until he corrects me I am assuming is a more or less meaningless string of words, as there's no indication of where there's an algorithm, and this seems rather far afield of what I know as "deep structure". --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 12:38, 1 December 2009 (EST)
::::::Deep structure is a Chomskyian linguistic concept, as I think you already know. Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm, appears to be a syntactically correct but otherwise meaningless phrase. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:59, 1 December 2009 (EST)

== MemeShock Algorithm ==

*Linking words in a Loop-Back Structure

For Douglas, Andy and Jim:

You misinterpreted what I meant by engineering words with a deep-structure algorithm. What we do is engineer SETS of words and then find ways to link them back to each other in an (indirectly) circular way.

See the language is inherently circular in itself. If you look up a word that word is defined by more words and so on ad infinitum, however at some point with a finite language size the definitions must loop back on themselves. That's where the deep-structure comes in. We've got the "loop back" structure in a box so that we can use it to engineer sets of interweaving terms.

More here:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/edit.php?gid=12621914298#/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=4607

*On Memeshock and Dishonesty

Now a word on my approach. It's not dishonest so much as it is social engineering. We have an adjunct group of MemeShock which does deal with disinformation and such, but MemeShock does language engineering only.

Think of it like this. Many left-wingers do not accept logical argumentation so to counter this we are just engineering the language such that it is idiot-proof. That way that can't reach their irrational conclusions because the means are no longer there. We aren't lying to them with this or anything like that though. It's just a fancied up way to do what we do a lot -frame arguments.

From the looks of it is sort of what this page was about in the first place -was it not? Developing new conservative words to frame the argument?

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]
:No, it certainly was not. This page does not ''generate'' words. It catalogs and analyzes the conservative terminology which has developed through the natural development of English language and culture. What you're describing is distinctly Orwellian, deceitful, and frankly, absurd. Conservapedia is not a place to post crackpot theories and social engineering plans. It is a serious resource for ''actual'' topics. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:15, 2 December 2009 (EST)

::"This page does not ''generate'' words. It catalogs and analyzes the conservative terminology which has developed through the natural development of English language and culture."

::Well I will only post ones which I can link back to articles then.

::"What you're describing is distinctly Orwellian,"

::Well yes.

::"deceitful,

::No we do have a special adjunct group for that, but MemeShock engages in language engineering only.

::"and frankly, absurd."

::Well read the link over. It's not really that fancy, and the logic is straightforward. If words define other words then the language must loop back on itself right? If it loops back on itself it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to figure out how it loops back on itself. (it's just a page long -fairly simple concept)

::"Conservapedia is not a place to post crackpot theories and social engineering plans."

::Crackpot theories no, but now where do you think all of the other words you posted here came into being? Someone somewhere thought of them to better frame the argument. That's all I'm doing here -just more comprehensively. And I'm not posting my social engineering plans here either -that's what my facebook group is for.[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:::Firstly, Douglas is correct: I'm not sure where you got the impression that this page is about developing new words to frame the argument.
:::Secondly, what you describe has absolutely nothing to do with the standard linguistic notion of "deep structure". I'd suggest you choose a new phrase to describe whatever it is you mean. Throwing around "linguistic deep structure" makes it sound like you want the actual meaning -- what precisely do you intend by the term?
:::I read through the link you sent. I admit that it left me a completely baffled: you dwell on some trivial points of logic and make numerous errors throughout. In any case I'm not sure how you want to apply it to determine which concepts require additions to your lexicon ("memeplex"). The first ten or so paragraphs of section 2 seem to boil down to the fact that every statement can be made using only ">" and "~". Duh? Then you start talking about "components" and while I'm not sure precisely what you mean I assume that you want to regard a conjunction or disjunction of two concepts as simply a new concept, perhaps with its own word. Eventually you want to put every statement into some canonical form in terms of these concepts formed as conjunctions and disjunctions. It's quite possible that you can do this, but I honestly have no idea what you're talking about by this point. In any case, what this has to do with memes I don't know.
:::So tell me if I've guessed the gist right: you have a concept A which you want to integrate into a memeplex. To do so, you characterize it by its properties, with a statement of the form "(A>B)v~C" (where, for now, B and C are other properties). OK, maybe we first define it as part of some more complex statement, and then reduce to this form using the preceding "arguments" -- I don't know why you would bother reducing to this canonical form, but whatever. With this done, maybe the memeplex doesn't already have terms for B and C; in this case, add them recursively, by statements of the same form. Keep going in this way until all your terms are defined using only other terms. This has to terminate eventually. Hopefully it terminates while the number of terms added is less than the limit on the size of a memeplex which you mention. How'd I do? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 00:55, 2 December 2009 (EST)

::::Jim's points are excellent, and I look forward to Johanan's response to them. In the meantime, Jim is exactly right: this entry is not about developing new words to frame an argument. Rather, this entry is a recognition and listing of insightful new words. People (with God's help) are the source of insights; computer programs can't do this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:56, 2 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Jim, you got the idea generally correct. Basically you the algorithm is like the framework for a box. You need it in that structure so that people can't think outside of it. Then you find the right walls to put onto the framework. That part (Andy this concerns your critique) is not generated by computer or anything it's just developed the same way people usually develop words.

:::::Now the algorithm is rather simple -actually it's the simplest possible form to have for a non-tautologous language system, but it can be scaled up by recursing the algorithm in on itself. There's a larger algorithm which I won't reveal which does this and creates a 3x3 language "matrix."

:::::I apologize about adding the new words, when that wasn't the aim of the page. I was wondering however if you could revert fegeism -as I had that linked. (I know it was my own article) I was also wondering if I could post other words from articles I had written.

:::::As for your comment on deep-structure -from wikipedia (it's ok on some stuff):

:::::"In linguistics, and especially the study of syntax, the deep structure of a linguistic expression is a theoretical construct that seeks to unify several related structures. For example, the sentences "Pat loves Chris" and "Chris is loved by Pat" mean roughly the same thing and use similar words. Some linguists, in particular Noam Chomsky, have tried to account for this similarity by positing that these two sentences are distinct surface forms that derive from a common deep structure."

:::::The idea here was instead of studying the relationship between words in sets of sentences to do the same for an entire dictionary of definitions. When you do that languages inherently circularity comes out and the overarching "loops" have the structure A>Bv~C. From the links between these words you can derive all manner of sentences, but if you manipulate the links you can parameterize which sentences can be derived and which can not be -something that could become a politically useful tool. [[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

== Some of these words... ==

Just wondering how some of these words, like Phonics and Trivia, are considered Conservative words, or how they can even be grouped as a Conservative or Liberal word.--[[User:ZackQ|ZackQ]] 16:21, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:I am also wondering about how Conservapedia's Law is supposed to work. Most of these words are not obviously Conservative or Liberal, and what group they are placed in is based entirely on opinion. How can you make a law based on opinions?--[[User:ZackQ|ZackQ]] 21:00, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::You might not know that some of these words are conservative because your teachers have hidden their origins from you. Read the essay, and you may be surprised at what you learn. Conservapedia is full of things you might not have heard before - take a look around! There's all kinds of things to learn here! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:14, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Zack, only a tiny percentage of the classifications can be seriously disputed. "Phonics" has long been championed by conservatives, who want a literate population, and opposed by liberals, who want illiterates to vote for them. I know, that observation probably surprises you and you'd never heard that before. But there are over 30 million illiterates produced by the liberal public school system, and they pull the lever for liberal-favored candidates on Election Day. Illiterates also are unable to read the Bible, and it's a no-brainer why liberals want that result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:Andy, it's pretty clear that you have a very warped view of public schools and liberals. If anybody can go through 12 years of public schooling and can not read by the end, that is not the schools fault. You seem to be implying that schools are purposefully raising illiterate people so they vote for liberals and can't read the Bible. If this is actually what you are saying, I doubt that you know anything about public school. As for phonics, it is simply A way for teaching how to read. I wouldn't know if its the best way or not, but schools not teaching it does not mean they promote illiteracy, because that is very far from the truth.--[[User:ZackQ|ZackQ]] 15:48, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:: Zack, you're clueless. If you spent twelve years playing school football and yet had not even developed basic football skills, then the coaches and the training system deserve some blame for that. Yes, there is and should be accountability. And, yes, of course, there is a political benefit to developing over 30 million illiterates, which is what the public schools do. To pretend that has absolutely no political effect is absurd.

::You conclude with [[deliberate ignorance]] about the benefits of phonics in teaching how to read. What's next, you "wouldn't know" if jogging is a good way to prepare for a marathon???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:44, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:::Actually, I think some people really don't realize what a benefit phonics is, because they don't really know about it. Try ''Why Johnny Can't Read'', by Rudolf Flesch (I might have misspelled the name...), or I'm sure there are a number of websites on it. The strongest evidence for phonics' efficacy is simply that, despite 12 years of non-phonics-based public schooling, millions of people can't read. What they do is basically have you memorize each word in the language - and I can understand why people would hate and not understand reading after that! However, in other countries (which do teach phonics) and in America when we still did, nearly everyone could read. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 17:51, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:When I said I wouldn't know, I meant that I have never learned phonics, so naturally I would have no idea if it was the best way to teach reading. Sorry if I came across as ignorant, and I never meant that phonics was a bad way to teach reading. As a junior in public schools, I don't even see how somebody could not be able to read by now, and as far as I know my school does not have any illiterates (with the possible exception of people who have English as a second language, but there's an ESL department for that). Basing it on the education I got, It really wouldn't be the schools fault if somebody was illiterate after so many years of being in school. I am 100% sure that schools are not purposefully making people illiterate so they cant read the bible and vote for liberals, and if you say that they are it just shows that you are, for lack of a better word, stupid.--[[User:ZackQ|ZackQ]] 18:09, 14 December 2009 (EST)

== Muscle cars as models of efficiency? ==

Are we talking about fuel efficiency (MPG), or 0-60/top speed efficiency? I can see a case for the later, but certainly not the former. [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 14:18, 9 January 2010 (EST)

:The latter, though it's fuel efficiency was probably also better than many of the large cars that dominate the road today.

:"Muscle cars" is an provocative addition, and I'll another comment to it to explain why I think it's justified. But further comments are welcome on this!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:53, 9 January 2010 (EST)

== Dime Store ==

This term can have both positive and negative connotations. People criticize the quality of items sold in these stores (now referred to as Dollar Stores), and saying that something is of "dime store quality" is definitely a knock at it. However, the dime stores themselves have been a powerful engine of commerce and entrepreneurship in the USA. F.W. Woolworth introduced many innovations in his 5 & 10 stores, and he was so successful a businessman that when he built the Woolworth Building in lower Manhattan he was able to pay for its construction in cash. Even though his company was killed off by competition in the 80's and 90's, the entreprenurial spirit lives on in the thousands of independently-owned dollar stores across the country. 
People don't go to dime/dollar stores to buy quality goods - they typically buy consumable things that aren't expected to last long, like party goods, decorations and school supplies. The success of these stores shows that they are meeting a public need, so while it's fair to use "dime store quality" to criticize the quality of something, the concept of "dime stores" themselves is something conservatives should be proud of. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 12:06, 16 January 2010 (EST)

:Your analysis is superb. You persuaded me! I'm not sure that your analysis favors a move in category for "dime-store", but feel free to do so as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 16 January 2010 (EST)

::I was leaning towards removing it from the list altogether, which I've done for now. There are may terms which belong on these lists, but some like this one are better left off if it takes too much qualification to use them properly. To restate the point above succinctly, saying that something is "dime store quality" is a common criticism of quality, but if you only paid a buck for it then you have nothing to complain about. Consumers don't go to dime/dollar stores looking for quality - they are part of an important economic market where they are willing to part with a dollar for an item that's worth a dollar, and as long as that's what they get then the free market's working as it should. The place of these stores in today's economy would probably make an interesting discussion in the next edition of your Economics course. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 11:59, 17 January 2010 (EST)

:::Very well put. I agree, and thanks for your insights, which we've all learned from.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 17 January 2010 (EST)

== More possible terms for inclusion ==

*Reaganomics (1980)
*Pay-as-you-go (1830)
*Industrial Revolution (1840)

:Those are all terrific suggestions. I wonder about their political categories. I'd say Reaganomics is liberal, although its meaning may have flipped to a positive connotation as the economy came roaring back to success.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:28, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::Well...hmm. That's a tricky one. It was supposedly coined by Paul Harvey, who certainly wasn't a movement conservative, but was respected by many conservatives. I honestly think it would be conservative at this point, simply because in hindsight it worked. I suppose the test we should use would be this: would liberals pull this word out as an attempt to attack conservative policies, or would they avoid using it, knowing that others would view it favorably? I think it's the latter, really--I don't hear too many liberals today saying "Republican policies will result in Reaganomics all over again!" They know that a lot of people would say "That sounds good to me!" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:53, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:::I'm surprised that Paul Harvey coined the term "Reaganomics", which seems inherently pejorative. The term implies that it is somehow not real economics, but some kind of half-baked version of it. Liberals used the term with a vengeance ... until the economy went on its spectacular boom.

:::I'll take a look to see if conservatives use it now. You're right: I don't think liberals delight in the term anymore!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:57, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::::While the late Paul Harvey used the phrase positively, it was originally coined by Democratic Liberals to ridicule Reagan's policies. That Reagan was the only President with a degree in Economics was outside their understanding! I agree with Ben, it is now a positive term, re-made not through "spin" as liberals do, but through the proof of good results, which conservatives value. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:11, 26 January 2010 (EST)

==Capitalism: Conservative concept, but a Conservative word?==
I'd like to make what may seem a perverse argument: that 'capitalism' is a liberal rather than a Conservative term and that its inclusion in this list should perhaps be reconsidered. The concept represented by the word capitalism is indeed at the core of conservatism: as Mr Schlafly has written, an example of the 'hidden hand', and, in its reliance upon individuual initiative rather than state- or party-controlled planning, a great example, perhaps the summation, of that insightful concept 'the best of the public'. My problem is with the word, which seeks to reduce the economic expression of divinely-inspired human freedom into a mere '-ism', a sectarian political concept, one among many, to be disputed and reviled by lesser ideals. Liberals and socialists are swift to blame 'capitalism' for economic and social problems which are almost inevitably of their own making. 'Capitalism' is a handy way for Liberals to create a false bogy with which to hoodwink people: it can be presented as a malign conspiracy by their enemies to undermine the false promises of socialism; it is an '-ism', something that humanity could do away with and exist just as happily, if not more so. Away with such Liberal tommy-rot! What they call 'capitalism' is freedom, no more and no less; and if one substitutes 'freedom' for 'capitalism' in the Liberal outpourings the falseness of their arguments becomes manifest. The 'capitalist system' - what thinking people call liberty - is the default condition of society: trade and enterprise flourish, and have flourished, in all societies where the smothering hand of socialism is unknown. Freedom - prefixed perhaps by 'economic' if necessary for lucidity, should be the term used. Let ''freedom'' be the antithesis of socialism, and consign 'capitalism' to the dustbin of leftist terminology. [[User:Guyw|Guyw]] 10:58, 15 February 2010 (EST)
:what? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 12:52, 15 February 2010 (EST)

==Placement==
Where does this word belong, to hard to classify? tomfoolery Date: 1812, playful or foolish behavior--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:33, 24 March 2010 (EDT)

:I think it's best put in "too hard to classify," at least for now. Good find!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:36, 24 March 2010 (EDT)

==Mother Nature==
In the New Liberal Terms section, I put the term Mother Nature in the list. Is it right?--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 18:40, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

I won't argue whether or not Mother nature is a liberal term on the grounds that I think the distinction between conservative and liberal words is dubious at best, however it is most certainly not a new word. The idea of mother nature is as old as the ancient greeks or older. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 18:46, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:That's a clever way to dispose of a vexing question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

Well I don't want to waste your time by arguing the point Mr. Schlafly. If you want to put the term back in feel free. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 19:24, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

How is it dubious? Also, I haven’t heard of any writings or speeches where the term Mother Nature was used hundreds of years ago. Show me at least one speech or writing where the term was used. Liberals use it to discredit Father God’s role in creation. They think that it was nature, not God, who made us. To Liberals, nature is their goddess. Funny how Wikipedia’s article on Mother Nature denies the atheistic, evolutionary and environmental implications of the term.--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 19:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

:Look up "Gaia" or "Terra Mater" - "Mother Nature" or "Mother Earth" has been around thousands of years. [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 22:23, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== "Bully pulpit" ==

How about "bully pulpit"? When Teddy Roosevelt coined this, "bully" meant something like "excellent" rather than overbearing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

I guess it's kind of like the word gay. At first gay meant happy and now it means something else.--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 19:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

==Definition==

I think this article needs a clear definition of what is meant by "conservative words." As I was reading it, I found it unclear as to whether it's about words invented by Conservatives or words representing Conservative values. I gather it's the latter, but I had to look in the talk page to find that. Either way, the introduction to the article isn't very clear and I'm reluctant to write a definition since I'm not sure I'm on the same page as the contributors. Would someone care to do that? [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:49, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

== 33 million sites turn up in a Google search for "anti-Christian" - Wrong! ==

For the term "anti-Christian" the article claims "thirty-three million sites turn up in a Google search."

Where did this number come from? Go to Google and type in "anti-Christian" (in quotes) and you get 945,000 hits. Type in "anti-Christian" (NOT in quotes - which is totally sloppy Googling) and you get 7,590,000 hits. Where did the "thirty-three million" come from? [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 22:11, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

: That's an interesting observation, Paul. The number of Google links retrieved for the search "anti-Christian" has fallen substantially. That begs the question of why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:18, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== Adding Obama Portmanteaus ==

I've noticed the list does not have any of the Obama portmanteaus, like [[Obamanation]], [[Obamunism]], etc. Shouldn't these terms be added? They are great for described the unfortunate turn this country is taking. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 17:13, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Open source conservative

2010-06-18T20:24:23Z

JonS: grammar fix

An '''open source conservative''' embraces the [[best of the public]] and openness, while rejecting traditional controls on discourse.

The [[censorability]] of an open source conservative (such as a Tea Partier) is lower than the censorability of a traditional conservative (such as Reagan Republican).

==Examples of Open Source Conservatives==

*[[Sarah Palin]] has made herself a relevant and influential voice for conservatism while eschewing the traditional [[gatekeepers]]. She has made it clear that she has little use for the liberal [[mainstream media]], and has demonstrated that their approval is not needed through her savvy use of online communication.

*The [[Tea Party movement]] rejects the idea that a political movement needs to be governed by a handful of political elites; it is a movement driven by the [[Best of the Public]] which uses the Internet and other modern communication methods to organize and coordinate activities, rather than traditional top-down marching orders.

*''Conservapedia'' embraces the "open source" approach for expanding and understanding [[conservative]] principles.

== Advantages ==

There are several advantages to an "open source" approach with respect to the conservative movement:

*It anticipates and frustrates efforts by the liberal media to demonize, censor and smear conservatives. It is impossible to exclude the public from the public square.

*It is decentralized just as conservative values are.

*It provides a voice to the average citizen in a manner that traditional, centralized methods do not; open-source conservatism means that anyone is free to contribute, and the best contributions will naturally rise to the top, creating a free-market [[meritocracy]] of ideas. (See [[Best of the Public]]).

Talk:Censorability

2010-06-07T19:20:35Z

JonS: /* Basis of determining values */

andy, could we have some sources??? --[[User:Johnb|Johnb]] 19:04, 27 May 2010 (EDT)
:John, censorability is as logical a concept as the idea that 2+2=4. I suppose you also require "sources" for such logical truths as the positive effects of school prayer and of reading the Bible. Open your mind. [[User:EdwardS|EdwardS]] 19:14, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

:: Right. What's next, demanding a source for an arithmetic calculation?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:02, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

:::so, you're refusing to simply cite a source, which I "requested". My mind is open, i just wanted this page to adhere to the Conservapedia Commandments. also, some cites with maths would be nice, because it would give the population links to further information. --[[User:Johnb|Johnb]] 21:22, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

:::: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable," requires the Conservapedia Commandments. Original insights can qualify. Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia welcomes original, logical entries. Conservapedia advances knowledge rather than merely regurgitating and distorting it as liberal sources do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:34, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

::I must say this is powerful stuff providing amazing insights. I have noticed that both [[classroom prayer]] and economic [[allocative efficiency]] are objected to by [[Liberal]]s, and as such they will try and censor them. What I would like to do is quantify the censorability of [[classroom prayer]] and economic [[allocative efficiency]]. I am, however, uncertain as to how I should ascertain the censorability score on the scale of "0" to "1" for the afore mentioned. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 09:55, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

::: The scoring system could be improved. Classroom prayer would have high censorability, I think. Please improve this as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

== Basis of determining values ==

I'm probably just not understanding the concept properly, so an answer to my question may help in improving the article itself. I can see how some concepts or topics are more easily censored than others ''in specific circumstances'', but that's not the same as ''the topic itself'' being susceptible to censorship. 
To clarify what I mean, I was expecting Christianity to be a benchmark example of the "zero" end of this scale. You can suppress the open worship of Christianity in some countries, and we see many examples where the sensible original intent of separating Church and State is taken to ridiculous extremes that go against that original intent. Add to this two thousand years of Christian martyrs who suffered the ultimate form of censorship over their faith, and yet, Christianity itself survives and thrives, the core faith itself having defied censorship even as other religions from 2,000 years ago have faded. 
You can't censor the laws of mathematics because, like the ratio of Pi, they are there for anyone to observe and understand for themselves. Other concepts, like Christianity, ''could'' be censored in theory and replaced by indoctrination in other ways of thinking in restrictive places like North Korea. However, it's the ''powerful nature'' of a concept like Christianity that ultimately defies censorship. Suppress it in one place, and it grows in several others, waiting to be spread back to where it was suppressed. 
As I'm writing this, I thinking that the best way to express this is by defining a corollary property, ''Resilience to Censorship''. Some concepts, like math, are solid like rocks and practically immune to censorship. Others are susceptible to censorship, in the way that plants can be eradicated from a location, but as with plants, are resilient enough to be reseeded and take root if they survive anywhere else. (Look at the area around Mt. Saint Helens or even Chernobyl now). So unless I totally missed the point about censorability, you need to match it up with the corresponding resiliency to truly understand how powerful an idea or concept is. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 10:18, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

: Truth continues regardless of censorship, but some articulations of the truth are more easily censored than others. "Resilience to Censorship" is what is meant by "censorability": zero censorability means 100% resilience. In fact, maybe the scale should be on a percentage basis.

: Christianity is easily censored in institutions of academic learning, hence its poor score. Other concepts, like pro-life, are more difficult to censor even in the most hostile (liberal) environments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:32, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

::I see what you're saying, but I find it hard to accept that the Tea Party, which has been around for less than 24 months, should be regarded as more resilient than Christianity. In 50 or 100 years, I know one will be around and thriving, but the other...? (I'm not close-minded, but you'll have to forgive my pro-Christianity bias, Andy :-) ) --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 10:39, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
:::The Tea Party itself won't be around in fifty years, but the values that underpin it might well be. The French Revolution only lasted a short time, but liberty, fraternity and equality are still going strong.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:07, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

:::In addition to CPalmer's point, the issue is not resilience, but resilience ''to censorship''. Christianity is stronger and with greater history than the [[Tea Party Movement]]. But the Tea Party concept is taught more in liberal history textbooks than Christianity is. And I'm not sure how one could censor the Tea Party Movement, while it is obvious how liberals are censoring Christianity.

:::This entry does not try make subjective claims about which is better, or which is stronger. It focuses on '''censorability''' alone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:49, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

::::By expressing ''censorability'' as percentage it may perhaps be possible to determine the censorability of a concept, movement or ideology '''<math>x</math>''', in a given environment '''E''', over a particular period of time '''t''', using the following formula where '''c''' is the number of occurences of censorship of '''<math>x</math>''' and '''o''' the number of uncensored occurences of '''<math>x</math>'''.

:::::::<math>x</math><math>E(t)={\operatorname{c}100\over\operatorname{c}+o} \!</math>%

::::The higher the percentage the less resiliant the concept, movement or ideology '''<math>x</math>''' is to censorship. So 0% means completely resilant to censorship and 100% means completely vulnerable to censorship. ''Censorability'' thus expresses vulnerability to censorship.

::::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 12:12, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::Your suggestion is excellent and I included a slightly modified notation in the entry itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:20, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

::::I took the liberty of adding brackets and explaining the parameters. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 13:55, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::Thank you. Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:00, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::That equation doesn't make sense. There is no time variable in the function. Placing any time in the equation will not affect the outcome. For example, if the time is 2 years, that will give us <math>E(2)={\operatorname{c}100\over\operatorname{c}+o} \!</math>. But it will turn out the same if we make time 3, 4, 5, or any other amount of years because time is not factored into the equation. I think a better way to express the equation would be <math>E(t,c,o)={\operatorname{ct}\over\operatorname{c}+o} \!</math>% where ''t'' is time in years. Now we can have the function as such:<math>E(1/2,5,10)={\operatorname{(5)(1/2)}\over\operatorname{5}+10} \!</math> Which gives us a censorability of 16.7% or .17 [[User:JonS|JonS]] 19:17, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::::I'm no math major, but I don't know that time needs to be factored in; times censored over opportunities to be censored seems logical to me. Why would you multiply the result of ''that'' equation by time? If something is censored 50% of the time for 5 years ... does that mean that the censorability is 2.50? That's impossible; the percent would be 250%.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:22, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::: I see your point. But the original equation of E(t)=c/c+o, doesn't make sense. In that form it is not dependent on time, yet the E(t) suggests it is. E(c,o)=c/c+0 works to set a simple percent up, but if we want to add time we need to change the equation. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 15:20, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

==100% Censorable?==

Is it possible for something to be 100% censorable? If so, you should include it on the table. You need it for a frame of reference. Maybe it should be something that is self evidently wrong, like atheistic materialism or that theory that claims that life started from bacteria on a meteor that hit earth.--[[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 15:48, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

== Is Christianity truly censorable? ==

I'm concerned by the implications of Christianity having such a high censorability rating. While it is true that Christianity is targeted at an extremely high rate--probably the HIGHEST rate--the Bible teaches that the Word is available to all men, which would imply that Christianity cannot be successfully censored, no matter how frequently opponents try. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:51, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

:It's the rate of attempts and the successful public censorship by lawmakers and regimes around the globe. But like in China, the underground Church thrives. The Soviets made strong attempts at crushing Christianity without success.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:56, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
::Nice insight into the censorship of Christianity. [http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100037664/homosexuality-is-legal-christianity-should-be-too/] --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:20, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

::Many anti-Christians think they can win by censoring Christianity, and in some environments (e.g., liberal college campuses) the censorship does largely prevail. Denial of this phenomenon may delay remedying it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:25, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

== Media ==
Globally, we have media that is state controlled e.g Cuba. In Western countries, biased toward liberalism with the conservative POV distorted or censored altogether. That is changing thanks in part to the internet but the field is still dominated by liberals and they are still censoring. What type of censorship would we classify this as and does it merit a 0.7 rating or higher? --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:17, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

: I'd say that a 0.7 or higher rating is accurate for the liberal media in censoring conservative truths.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:18, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Censorability

2010-06-05T23:17:36Z

JonS: /* Basis of determining values */

andy, could we have some sources??? --[[User:Johnb|Johnb]] 19:04, 27 May 2010 (EDT)
:John, censorability is as logical a concept as the idea that 2+2=4. I suppose you also require "sources" for such logical truths as the positive effects of school prayer and of reading the Bible. Open your mind. [[User:EdwardS|EdwardS]] 19:14, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

:: Right. What's next, demanding a source for an arithmetic calculation?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:02, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

:::so, you're refusing to simply cite a source, which I "requested". My mind is open, i just wanted this page to adhere to the Conservapedia Commandments. also, some cites with maths would be nice, because it would give the population links to further information. --[[User:Johnb|Johnb]] 21:22, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

:::: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable," requires the Conservapedia Commandments. Original insights can qualify. Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia welcomes original, logical entries. Conservapedia advances knowledge rather than merely regurgitating and distorting it as liberal sources do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:34, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

::I must say this is powerful stuff providing amazing insights. I have noticed that both [[classroom prayer]] and economic [[allocative efficiency]] are objected to by [[Liberal]]s, and as such they will try and censor them. What I would like to do is quantify the censorability of [[classroom prayer]] and economic [[allocative efficiency]]. I am, however, uncertain as to how I should ascertain the censorability score on the scale of "0" to "1" for the afore mentioned. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 09:55, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

::: The scoring system could be improved. Classroom prayer would have high censorability, I think. Please improve this as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

== Basis of determining values ==

I'm probably just not understanding the concept properly, so an answer to my question may help in improving the article itself. I can see how some concepts or topics are more easily censored than others ''in specific circumstances'', but that's not the same as ''the topic itself'' being susceptible to censorship. 
To clarify what I mean, I was expecting Christianity to be a benchmark example of the "zero" end of this scale. You can suppress the open worship of Christianity in some countries, and we see many examples where the sensible original intent of separating Church and State is taken to ridiculous extremes that go against that original intent. Add to this two thousand years of Christian martyrs who suffered the ultimate form of censorship over their faith, and yet, Christianity itself survives and thrives, the core faith itself having defied censorship even as other religions from 2,000 years ago have faded. 
You can't censor the laws of mathematics because, like the ratio of Pi, they are there for anyone to observe and understand for themselves. Other concepts, like Christianity, ''could'' be censored in theory and replaced by indoctrination in other ways of thinking in restrictive places like North Korea. However, it's the ''powerful nature'' of a concept like Christianity that ultimately defies censorship. Suppress it in one place, and it grows in several others, waiting to be spread back to where it was suppressed. 
As I'm writing this, I thinking that the best way to express this is by defining a corollary property, ''Resilience to Censorship''. Some concepts, like math, are solid like rocks and practically immune to censorship. Others are susceptible to censorship, in the way that plants can be eradicated from a location, but as with plants, are resilient enough to be reseeded and take root if they survive anywhere else. (Look at the area around Mt. Saint Helens or even Chernobyl now). So unless I totally missed the point about censorability, you need to match it up with the corresponding resiliency to truly understand how powerful an idea or concept is. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 10:18, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

: Truth continues regardless of censorship, but some articulations of the truth are more easily censored than others. "Resilience to Censorship" is what is meant by "censorability": zero censorability means 100% resilience. In fact, maybe the scale should be on a percentage basis.

: Christianity is easily censored in institutions of academic learning, hence its poor score. Other concepts, like pro-life, are more difficult to censor even in the most hostile (liberal) environments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:32, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

::I see what you're saying, but I find it hard to accept that the Tea Party, which has been around for less than 24 months, should be regarded as more resilient than Christianity. In 50 or 100 years, I know one will be around and thriving, but the other...? (I'm not close-minded, but you'll have to forgive my pro-Christianity bias, Andy :-) ) --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 10:39, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
:::The Tea Party itself won't be around in fifty years, but the values that underpin it might well be. The French Revolution only lasted a short time, but liberty, fraternity and equality are still going strong.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:07, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

:::In addition to CPalmer's point, the issue is not resilience, but resilience ''to censorship''. Christianity is stronger and with greater history than the [[Tea Party Movement]]. But the Tea Party concept is taught more in liberal history textbooks than Christianity is. And I'm not sure how one could censor the Tea Party Movement, while it is obvious how liberals are censoring Christianity.

:::This entry does not try make subjective claims about which is better, or which is stronger. It focuses on '''censorability''' alone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:49, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

::::By expressing ''censorability'' as percentage it may perhaps be possible to determine the censorability of a concept, movement or ideology '''<math>x</math>''', in a given environment '''E''', over a particular period of time '''t''', using the following formula where '''c''' is the number of occurences of censorship of '''<math>x</math>''' and '''o''' the number of uncensored occurences of '''<math>x</math>'''.

:::::::<math>x</math><math>E(t)={\operatorname{c}100\over\operatorname{c}+o} \!</math>%

::::The higher the percentage the less resiliant the concept, movement or ideology '''<math>x</math>''' is to censorship. So 0% means completely resilant to censorship and 100% means completely vulnerable to censorship. ''Censorability'' thus expresses vulnerability to censorship.

::::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 12:12, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::Your suggestion is excellent and I included a slightly modified notation in the entry itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:20, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

::::I took the liberty of adding brackets and explaining the parameters. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 13:55, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::Thank you. Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:00, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::That equation doesn't make sense. There is no time variable in the function. Placing any time in the equation will not affect the outcome. For example, if the time is 2 years, that will give us <math>E(2)={\operatorname{c}100\over\operatorname{c}+o} \!</math>. But it will turn out the same if we make time 3, 4, 5, or any other amount of years because time is not factored into the equation. I think a better way to express the equation would be <math>E(t,c,o)={\operatorname{ct}\over\operatorname{c}+o} \!</math>% where ''t'' is time in years. Now we can have the function as such:<math>E(1/2,5,10)={\operatorname{(5)(1/2)}\over\operatorname{5}+10} \!</math> Which gives us a censorability of 16.7% or .17 [[User:JonS|JonS]] 19:17, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

==100% Censorable?==

Is it possible for something to be 100% censorable? If so, you should include it on the table. You need it for a frame of reference. Maybe it should be something that is self evidently wrong, like atheistic materialism or that theory that claims that life started from bacteria on a meteor that hit earth.--[[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 15:48, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

== Is Christianity truly censorable? ==

I'm concerned by the implications of Christianity having such a high censorability rating. While it is true that Christianity is targeted at an extremely high rate--probably the HIGHEST rate--the Bible teaches that the Word is available to all men, which would imply that Christianity cannot be successfully censored, no matter how frequently opponents try. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:51, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

:It's the rate of attempts and the successful public censorship by lawmakers and regimes around the globe. But like in China, the underground Church thrives. The Soviets made strong attempts at crushing Christianity without success.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:56, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
::Nice insight into the censorship of Christianity. [http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100037664/homosexuality-is-legal-christianity-should-be-too/] --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:20, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

::Many anti-Christians think they can win by censoring Christianity, and in some environments (e.g., liberal college campuses) the censorship does largely prevail. Denial of this phenomenon may delay remedying it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:25, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

== Media ==
Globally, we have media that is state controlled e.g Cuba. In Western countries, biased toward liberalism with the conservative POV distorted or censored altogether. That is changing thanks in part to the internet but the field is still dominated by liberals and they are still censoring. What type of censorship would we classify this as and does it merit a 0.7 rating or higher? --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:17, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

: I'd say that a 0.7 or higher rating is accurate for the liberal media in censoring conservative truths.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:18, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

User talk:JonS

2010-05-15T05:22:52Z

JonS: /* footnote help */

{{welcome|sig=<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:38, 14 May 2010 (EDT)}}

== footnote help ==

If you want to know how to put footnotes in a wiki here is how to do it. I unburied this guide and made it more prominent at Conservapedia a few moments ago: [[Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:15, 15 May 2010 (EDT)

Thanks for the help! [[User:JonS|JonS]] 01:22, 15 May 2010 (EDT)

Conservapedia essay: Are Richard Dawkins fans cultic?

2010-05-15T05:21:16Z

JonS: Changed citations to footnotes

[[Richard Dawkins]] is, perhaps, the world's most prominent [[atheist]] and [[evolutionist]]. He has gained a large following of fellow atheists, [[agnostics]], evolutionists, and [[liberals]]. Dawkins is commonly cited by evolutionists and atheists in their flimsy defenses of their liberal falsehoods. While the ardent followers of Dawkins claim to be atheists, they have, ironically enough, deified Richard Dawkins, effectively holding him as a demigod, if not their outright god. Through Dawkins' staunch assault on [[creation]], [[religion]], and [[God]], and his incessant defense of atheism and evolution, Richard Dawkins' fans maintain a cultic obsession with him.

Many close minded atheists have understandably clung to Dawkins in their blasphemies against God and Christianity. Atheists fear the Word of the [[Bible]] regarding blasphemy: {{Bible quote|Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. |book=Matthew|chap=12|verses=31-32|version=KJV}}

The harsh, yet direct words of the Bible strike fear into atheists, and their blasphemes against the [[Holy Spirit]]. Atheists feel as if they cannot be forgiven for what they have thought, or said against God. The feeling of despair the atheists feel is comforted through Dawkins and his reinforcement of their false belief system. He offers an alternative to religion; the atheist does not need to fear about his blasphemy or [[Hell]], and instead dedicates himself to tearing apart [[Christian]] traditions and [[morality]]. Although Dawkins provides comfort to these atheists, he is by no means an effective comfort. This is made obvious through atheistic hyperbole regarding religion; rather than accept the truth of the Bible, atheists proclaim against it the loudest, as if silencing the Word will somehow make it less true. Their bold, yet false, proclamations creates a circular nature of harm in atheists. When an atheist feels as if God is right their watching his actions, they overcompensate through even more vicious assaults on God, with Richard Dawkins commanding them to do so. With the "comfort" Dawkins provides to these poor souls, the atheists inevitably listen to every word Dawkins says, and follow him into believing in evolution.

By the time an atheist has come to deny the existence of God, he has also come to accept evolution. This is where Dawkins gets his most ardent and obsessive followers. As Dawkins preaches atheistic falsehood, he also preaches the myth of evolution. His loyal followers hang to every word Dawkins spews about evolution; they NEVER question his word. Although Dawkins has been evolutionarily stumped<ref>http://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again </ref>, and lost a debate to Rabbi Boteach<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref> , atheists still cling to his teachings without question.

Richard Dawkins fans do have a cultic obsession with him. He is more than just a man to the atheist movement, he is ironically the god of the atheist movement. Despite the so-called "atheistic skepticism," Dawkins is help above criticism to his fans. He is not a small, aging, man to them, he is their golden calf.

==References==
{{reflist}}

Liberal values

2010-05-15T05:13:56Z

JonS: removal of vandal work

'''Liberal values''' refers to the [[values|value system]] commonly held by [[liberals]], just as [[Professor values]] and [[Hollywood values]] do for professors and Hollywood respectively. Liberal values stand in stark opposition to [[conservative values]] and thus reject those things which [[conservatives]] hold to be dear and true. This includes, but is not limited to:

*failure to warn people, particularly youngsters, about the harm caused by a lack of conservative values.
* [[Censorship]] of ideas not deemed [[political correctness|politically correct]]. E.g., Liberal students protest or disrupt conservative guest speakers on [[college]] campuses.
* [[Liberal denial|Denial]] of politically incorrect truths such as the link between [[abortion]] and [[breast cancer]].
* Opposition to the [[free market]], instead favoring heavy [[socialism|regulation]].
* A desire for equal outcomes as opposed to equal opportunity.
* Excessive emphasis on awards and titles, especially those awarded by liberal institutions.
* To judge something immoral behavior is tantamount to being a bigot.
* [[Bigotry]] itself, an almost uniquely [[liberal]] trait.
* Confusing [[separation of church and state]] with [[atheism]].
* A willingness to excuse any aggressive and irreverent behaviour in other countries, while harshly criticizing their own.
* Strict [[materialism]] and an overreliance on narrowly defined "reality".
* Contempt for authorities.
* Mistaking conclusions for facts.

In general, liberal values tend to undermine traditional society, and in certain instances can cause irreparable harm to the lives of individuals who are brought under their sway.

Talk:Conservapedia essay: Are Richard Dawkins fans cultic?

2010-05-15T04:11:19Z

JonS: Created page with 'Hello to whomever is reading this! This is my rough draft of this essay, I would be greatly appreciative of any feedback on this. I am sorry about the citations, I am not too fam…'

Hello to whomever is reading this! This is my rough draft of this essay, I would be greatly appreciative of any feedback on this. I am sorry about the citations, I am not too familiar with wiki software and I do not know how to make them footnotes. -JonS

Conservapedia essay: Are Richard Dawkins fans cultic?

2010-05-15T04:09:37Z

JonS: Rough draft

[[Richard Dawkins]] is, perhaps, the world's most prominent [[atheist]] and [[evolutionist]]. He has gained a large following of fellow atheists, [[agnostics]], evolutionists, and [[liberals]]. Dawkins is commonly cited by evolutionists and atheists in their flimsy defenses of their liberal falsehoods. While the ardent followers of Dawkins claim to be atheists, they have, ironically enough, deified Richard Dawkins, effectively holding him as a demigod, if not their outright god. Through Dawkins' staunch assault on [[creation]], [[religion]], and [[God]], and his incessant defense of atheism and evolution, Richard Dawkins' fans maintain a cultic obsession with him.

Many close minded atheists have understandably clung to Dawkins in their blasphemies against God and Christianity. Atheists fear the Word of the [[Bible]] regarding blasphemy: {{Bible quote|Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. |book=Matthew|chap=12|verses=31-32|version=KJV}}

The harsh, yet direct words of the Bible strike fear into atheists, and their blasphemes against the [[Holy Spirit]]. Atheists feel as if they cannot be forgiven for what they have thought, or said against God. The feeling of despair the atheists feel is comforted through Dawkins and his reinforcement of their false belief system. He offers an alternative to religion; the atheist does not need to fear about his blasphemy or [[Hell]], and instead dedicates himself to tearing apart [[Christian]] traditions and [[morality]]. Although Dawkins provides comfort to these atheists, he is by no means an effective comfort. This is made obvious through atheistic hyperbole regarding religion; rather than accept the truth of the Bible, atheists proclaim against it the loudest, as if silencing the Word will somehow make it less true. Their bold, yet false, proclamations creates a circular nature of harm in atheists. When an atheist feels as if God is right their watching his actions, they overcompensate through even more vicious assaults on God, with Richard Dawkins commanding them to do so. With the "comfort" Dawkins provides to these poor souls, the atheists inevitably listen to every word Dawkins says, and follow him into believing in evolution.

By the time an atheist has come to deny the existence of God, he has also come to accept evolution. This is where Dawkins gets his most ardent and obsessive followers. As Dawkins preaches atheistic falsehood, he also preaches the myth of evolution. His loyal followers hang to every word Dawkins spews about evolution; they NEVER question his word. Although {{cite web |url=http://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again |title=Dawkins has been evolutionarily stumped |}}, and {{cite web |url=http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx |title=lost a debate to Rabbi Boteach |}}, atheists still cling to his teachings without question.

Richard Dawkins fans do have a cultic obsession with him. He is more than just a man to the atheist movement, he is ironically the god of the atheist movement. Despite the so-called "atheistic skepticism," Dawkins is help above criticism to his fans. He is not a small, aging, man to them, he is their golden calf.

Roman Republic

2010-05-14T22:07:17Z

JonS: /* The Fall of the Republic */

{{Rome}}

The '''Roman Republic''' is the term used to refer to the second era of Roman history, between the kingship and the empire. The origins of the Republic are dubious and legendary at best, and utterly fictional at worst. However, the Romans had a concrete sense of the foundation date of their city, and referred to it frequently in histories. From Roman reckoning, historians place the pivotal events of the beginning of the Roman Republic at 509 B.C.

Historians also debate the time of the fall of Rome, based on their private conceptions of what Roman republicanism truly meant. In a sense, the end of the Republic was inevitable after the rise of Marius, but the true end of the Republic is often placed at either the death of [[Julius Caesar]] when Republican government first truly ceased, the Battle of Actium (Augustus' victory over Mark Antony), or the Constitutional Settlement of [[Augustus]], which recognized that ruler as ''princeps'', or "first citizen," with plenary power over Roman holdings. Most historians agree to use the date of the Constitutional Settlement as the date when all possibility of the restoration of the Republic finally ended, bringing the Republic to its true close, in 27 B.C.

==Early Years==
=== Etruscan Influence on Rome ===
Rome itself was founded in the eighth century B.C. Legend said that [[Romulus]] had founded the city after killing Remus. But in actuality, it was founded by shepherds and farmers. The name means "river city" and indicates it was located on the Tiber River. In northern Italy, the Etruscans, a people from Turkey, ruled. They conquered Rome and installed kings there. A simple farming village became a civilized trading settlement. The Etruscans introduced the arch, the aqueduct, building statues of pagan gods, and brought order and a sense of pride and uniqueness to the Romans. In short, they advanced Rome.

=== The Overthrow of the Tarquins ===
One of the Etruscan kings of Rome was Tarquin the Proud. In 509 B.C., some wealthy landowners ousted him and made Rome a republic, or government where people elected their leaders. A senate was founded for the patricians (wealthy nobles and landowners) to vote in while a comitia was founded for the plebeians (middle class and poor) to represent themselves in. A constitution was written. In the republic, the patricians had more power. In the family, the father, or paterfamilias, had ultimate control over his wife and children.

=== The Gauls and Other Foundation Myths ===
Early in Republican history, the city was besieged by the Gauls, led by Brennus, and ransomed. This was the first incursion upon the soil of the city, and the last time enemies passed the sacred pomerium (border line) of the city until 410 A.D. The account is romanticized in Titus Livius|Livy's ''Roman History'', where he describes that but for the efforts of the scorned hero Camillus, the Gauls would have utterly razed the city.<ref>Plutarch, ''Life of Camillus''</ref> Instead, the ragtag remnants of the Roman Army were held the Capitoline Hill - one of the Seven Hills of Rome - against the Gauls in stalemate, ceding the rest of the city to the advancing armies.

After this stalemate had lasted for some time, the Gauls offered to leave for a sum of gold. The Romans quickly accepted, and began to carry out their gold, and weigh out the appropriate price on a Gallic [[balance scale]]. The Romans soon discovered that the Gauls had deliberately tinkered with the scales so as to weigh the gold lighter than it actually was, to trick the Romans into paying more. As the Romans protested, and prepared to rescind the treaty, Brennus is said to have yelled ''"Vae Victis!"'', or, "Woe to the Conquered!", upon which he threw his sword onto the scales as an ''additional'' counterweight to the Roman gold. The Romans, their land savage and their gold extorted from them, set to rebuilding the city. The Gauls were never to return.

However, the rebuilding of the city proved difficult. Titus Livius [[Livy]] tells that the Romans almost considered abandoning the city of Rome, and moving wholesale to Alba Longa, the mythical nearby city of Aeneas, to begin their lives anew there. However, after an impassioned speech by Camillus, the Romans instead chose to rebuild Rome, at a breakneck pace. Livy blames this hurried reconstruction for the disorganization and haphazard layout of the Roman streets, when compared with the ordered city plans of provincial capitals and colonies.<ref>Titus Livius, ''Roman History''</ref>

Much of this account was likely sensationalized, to glorify the early roots of Rome in correlation with the image programme of [[Augustus]], Livy's direct patron.

== The Conquest of Italy ==
Early Rome was a tiny settlement surrounded by hostile kingdoms. The Romans formed alliances with neighboring cities. When they defeated an enemy, they ruled it so they would be safe. As there were always new enemies, the Romans kept conquering. In 272 B.C., all of mainland Italy was ruled by the Roman Republic.

=== The Struggle of the Orders: the Gracchi ===

=== [[The Punic Wars]]: Nascent Roman Imperialism ===
Meanwhile, Sicily and Sardinia were ruled by Carthage, a wealthy and powerful trading metropolis in North Africa. Disdaining commerce, the Romans at first did not mind the Carthaginians ruling the western Mediterranean. But after conquering Italy, the Romans feared Carthage might attack from Sicily. Plus, during a civil war in Sicily Rome and Carthage aided opposing groups. In 241 B.C. a war began. It was the first of the Punic Wars, so called because punic was the Latin word for Carthage. After developing a navy, the Romans won.

=== The Jugurthine War, Marius, and the Beginning of the End ===

==The Long Fall==
=== Sulla and Pompey: "More Worship the Rising Sun than the Setting" ===

=== The First Triumvirate ===
The First Triumvirate was an alliance formed between Julius Caesar, Pompey, and Marcus Crassus formed in 60 BC. The purpose of the triumvirate was for the three members to gain political power through their mutual support for each other. While the triumvirate did allow for the three to gain much political power, it ultimately fell apart due to the ambitions of each member.

=== The Fall of the Republic ===
In Janurary of 49 BC, [[Julius Caesar]] crossed the Rubicon River in Northern Italy and proclaimed "alea iacta est" or "the die is cast." This was an act of treason against the Roman Republic, and so Caesar began his civil war against [[Pompey]].

Caesar went on to crush the legions of Pompey, and then used his legions to force the Senate to declare him Dictator for life. In 44 BC, in a conspiracy led by Brutus, Julius Caesar was assassinated by a number of senators. His assassination outraged up the public, and led to the conditions for the the republic to replaced by an empire.

Caesar left his wealth to his adopted son, Octavian (later renamed [[Augustus Caesar]]). Octavian allied himself with Mark Antony and Lepidus. The three of them formed the Second Triumvirate and effectively ruled Rome. The ambitions of each member tore the alliance apart, forcing Lepidus to exile and leading to Mark Antony's suicide, leaving Octavian as the sole ruler of Rome. It took several years for Octavian to set up his government, but he ultimately ended the Roman Republic by 27 BC, reforming the Roman Republic in the [[Roman Empire]].

==Roman Legacies==
From this period was derived the very word republic, plus the words senate, patricians, constitution, and plebes (plebeians). When the United States Constitution was written in 1787, the nation was modeled after Rome and became a republic. A Senate was formed, and also checks and balances, enshrined in the ancient republic, kept each branch of government from growing too powerful.

=== Republican Overtones in the Early Empire ===

=== Republican Terminology and Symbology Today ===

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Ancient Rome]]

Jonathan Swift

2010-05-14T20:54:03Z

JonS: A Modest Proposal was written in 1729, not 1929

[[Image:Jonathan_swift.jpg|thumb|Portrait of Jonathan Swift]]'''Jonathan Swift''' (1667-1745) was an [[England|English]] satirical writer. Born in [[Dublin]] to English parents, he moved to England in 1688 to become secretary to Sir William Temple. He took Anglican holy orders but did not obtain promotion.

His ''Tale of the Tub'' and ''The Battle of the Books'' were both published in 1704. At first he was interested in [[Whigs|Whig]] politics but he became a [[Tory]] in 1710 and proceeded to write powerful tracts such as ''Conduct of the Allies'' (1711). In 1714 he returned to [[Ireland]] as Dean of St. Patrick's and was followed by his devoted female friends Hester Johnson (the Stella of his ''Journal'') and Esther Vanhomrigh (the Vanessa of his poetry).

In Dublin he wrote some of his best and most famous works, including ''[[Gulliver's Travels]]'' (1726), ''[[A Modest Proposal]]'' (1729) and the ''Drapier's Letters'' (1724-5). Authorship of his works is sometimes assigned to his professional title of '''Dean Swift'''.

==External links==

*[http://www.jaffebros.com/lee/gulliver/ Gulliver's Travels: online version]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Swift, Jonathan}}
[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category: Anglo-Irish People]]

Roman Republic

2010-05-14T20:37:58Z

JonS: /* The First Triumvirate */

{{Rome}}

The '''Roman Republic''' is the term used to refer to the second era of Roman history, between the kingship and the empire. The origins of the Republic are dubious and legendary at best, and utterly fictional at worst. However, the Romans had a concrete sense of the foundation date of their city, and referred to it frequently in histories. From Roman reckoning, historians place the pivotal events of the beginning of the Roman Republic at 509 B.C.

Historians also debate the time of the fall of Rome, based on their private conceptions of what Roman republicanism truly meant. In a sense, the end of the Republic was inevitable after the rise of Marius, but the true end of the Republic is often placed at either the death of [[Julius Caesar]] when Republican government first truly ceased, the Battle of Actium (Augustus' victory over Mark Antony), or the Constitutional Settlement of [[Augustus]], which recognized that ruler as ''princeps'', or "first citizen," with plenary power over Roman holdings. Most historians agree to use the date of the Constitutional Settlement as the date when all possibility of the restoration of the Republic finally ended, bringing the Republic to its true close, in 27 B.C.

==Early Years==
=== Etruscan Influence on Rome ===
Rome itself was founded in the eighth century B.C. Legend said that [[Romulus]] had founded the city after killing Remus. But in actuality, it was founded by shepherds and farmers. The name means "river city" and indicates it was located on the Tiber River. In northern Italy, the Etruscans, a people from Turkey, ruled. They conquered Rome and installed kings there. A simple farming village became a civilized trading settlement. The Etruscans introduced the arch, the aqueduct, building statues of pagan gods, and brought order and a sense of pride and uniqueness to the Romans. In short, they advanced Rome.

=== The Overthrow of the Tarquins ===
One of the Etruscan kings of Rome was Tarquin the Proud. In 509 B.C., some wealthy landowners ousted him and made Rome a republic, or government where people elected their leaders. A senate was founded for the patricians (wealthy nobles and landowners) to vote in while a comitia was founded for the plebeians (middle class and poor) to represent themselves in. A constitution was written. In the republic, the patricians had more power. In the family, the father, or paterfamilias, had ultimate control over his wife and children.

=== The Gauls and Other Foundation Myths ===
Early in Republican history, the city was besieged by the Gauls, led by Brennus, and ransomed. This was the first incursion upon the soil of the city, and the last time enemies passed the sacred pomerium (border line) of the city until 410 A.D. The account is romanticized in Titus Livius|Livy's ''Roman History'', where he describes that but for the efforts of the scorned hero Camillus, the Gauls would have utterly razed the city.<ref>Plutarch, ''Life of Camillus''</ref> Instead, the ragtag remnants of the Roman Army were held the Capitoline Hill - one of the Seven Hills of Rome - against the Gauls in stalemate, ceding the rest of the city to the advancing armies.

After this stalemate had lasted for some time, the Gauls offered to leave for a sum of gold. The Romans quickly accepted, and began to carry out their gold, and weigh out the appropriate price on a Gallic [[balance scale]]. The Romans soon discovered that the Gauls had deliberately tinkered with the scales so as to weigh the gold lighter than it actually was, to trick the Romans into paying more. As the Romans protested, and prepared to rescind the treaty, Brennus is said to have yelled ''"Vae Victis!"'', or, "Woe to the Conquered!", upon which he threw his sword onto the scales as an ''additional'' counterweight to the Roman gold. The Romans, their land savage and their gold extorted from them, set to rebuilding the city. The Gauls were never to return.

However, the rebuilding of the city proved difficult. Titus Livius [[Livy]] tells that the Romans almost considered abandoning the city of Rome, and moving wholesale to Alba Longa, the mythical nearby city of Aeneas, to begin their lives anew there. However, after an impassioned speech by Camillus, the Romans instead chose to rebuild Rome, at a breakneck pace. Livy blames this hurried reconstruction for the disorganization and haphazard layout of the Roman streets, when compared with the ordered city plans of provincial capitals and colonies.<ref>Titus Livius, ''Roman History''</ref>

Much of this account was likely sensationalized, to glorify the early roots of Rome in correlation with the image programme of [[Augustus]], Livy's direct patron.

== The Conquest of Italy ==
Early Rome was a tiny settlement surrounded by hostile kingdoms. The Romans formed alliances with neighboring cities. When they defeated an enemy, they ruled it so they would be safe. As there were always new enemies, the Romans kept conquering. In 272 B.C., all of mainland Italy was ruled by the Roman Republic.

=== The Struggle of the Orders: the Gracchi ===

=== [[The Punic Wars]]: Nascent Roman Imperialism ===
Meanwhile, Sicily and Sardinia were ruled by Carthage, a wealthy and powerful trading metropolis in North Africa. Disdaining commerce, the Romans at first did not mind the Carthaginians ruling the western Mediterranean. But after conquering Italy, the Romans feared Carthage might attack from Sicily. Plus, during a civil war in Sicily Rome and Carthage aided opposing groups. In 241 B.C. a war began. It was the first of the Punic Wars, so called because punic was the Latin word for Carthage. After developing a navy, the Romans won.

=== The Jugurthine War, Marius, and the Beginning of the End ===

==The Long Fall==
=== Sulla and Pompey: "More Worship the Rising Sun than the Setting" ===

=== The First Triumvirate ===
The First Triumvirate was an alliance formed between Julius Caesar, Pompey, and Marcus Crassus formed in 60 BC. The purpose of the triumvirate was for the three members to gain political power through their mutual support for each other. While the triumvirate did allow for the three to gain much political power, it ultimately fell apart due to the ambitions of each member.

=== The Fall of the Republic ===

==Roman Legacies==
From this period was derived the very word republic, plus the words senate, patricians, constitution, and plebes (plebeians). When the United States Constitution was written in 1787, the nation was modeled after Rome and became a republic. A Senate was formed, and also checks and balances, enshrined in the ancient republic, kept each branch of government from growing too powerful.

=== Republican Overtones in the Early Empire ===

=== Republican Terminology and Symbology Today ===

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Ancient Rome]]