79
edits
Changes
Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 12:18, August 8, 2011
, 12:18, August 8, 2011→A point of view on this article: new section
==References==
==References==
<references/>
<references/>
== A point of view on this article ==
Hi! First of all, pardon my awful english. I'm a huge fan of Conservapedia in general, and of this article in particular: I've found the points 11 and 12 of this list (the "action-at-a-distance" points) incredibily inspired, so I use sometimes these points as sign at the end of posts in some forum.
First of all, as I've seen during my physics studies, there is no such thing as "liberal physics", just physics.
Physicists can have different opinions on specific topics, and it's a good thing: finding who is wrong is the only way to make scientific progress.
When a new phenomenon is discovered, the first thing to do is the known physics laws can describe it: this may be called a "conservative" point of view. But if this is not possible new laws have to be found: you may call them "liberal laws".
The special theory of relativity, though, is not object of debates, so actually the physicists are '''conservative''' in beliving
that a lot of phenomena can be explained using the relativity theory.
This article pretends to be a page about science. Well, it turns out that it is a (wonderful) ''pure nonsense'' page (I really love nonsense!). There are conceptual errors, absurdities, even miracles (I hope that you won't call them "scientific proofs")...
for example, points 7, 11, 29, 31, 32 are all manifestly wrong, as
everyone with a little knowledge of physics can confirm. Point 13: no one is searching gravitons.
Point 25: if an object is moving in one direction,
then physics '''should''' distinguish among the direction (and, in fact, it does).
The classic aether does not exist.
Not all the points are wrong, though. The necessity of dark matter and dark energy in the current cosmological models it's a problem well known
to the experts. There are two possibilities: one can prove experimentally that these entities exists ''and/or'' general relativity is wrong
on large scales. My opinion (but it's just an opinion) is that the dark matter exists (it has been observed in galaxy collisions, for example), but
general relativity has to be modified on large scales (maybe a quantum theory of gravitation could help?).
So: most of the points are trash. Some of the points are quite right indeed (not the Bible ones, at least if you want to write an article
about science). And, for the sake of correctness, someone should write a page with phenomena explained by relativity that aren't
explained in the framework of classical mechanics and electrodynamics.
This is only my POV, obviously. But if Conservapedia wants to be a source of knowledge (regardless the "conservative" or "liberal" point of view)
you have to write facts, not nonsense. I'm a Conservapedia fan for the nonsense, so that advice is against my interests :P
Have a nice day, [[User:MM87|<font color="#E56717">'''MM'''</font>]]''[[User_talk:MM87|<font color="#FBB117">'''''87'''''</font>]] 08:18, 8 August 2011 (EDT)