79
edits
Changes
Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 19:40, August 8, 2011
, 19:40, August 8, 2011→A point of view on this article
: You say, "there is no such thing as 'liberal physics,' just physics." But obviously an [[atheistic]] view of the world is going to lean towards atheistic explanations, no matter how implausible. Moreover, [[liberals]] are often unwilling to admit that they are wrong about anything, leaving them clinging to theories for decades after they should have been rejected. See, e.g., [[Piltdown Man]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:15, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
: You say, "there is no such thing as 'liberal physics,' just physics." But obviously an [[atheistic]] view of the world is going to lean towards atheistic explanations, no matter how implausible. Moreover, [[liberals]] are often unwilling to admit that they are wrong about anything, leaving them clinging to theories for decades after they should have been rejected. See, e.g., [[Piltdown Man]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:15, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:: ... and so? Physics, and science in general, is the study of interconnections among natural phenomena, not between natural and supernatural ones. This other thing is called "metaphysics" ("beyond-nature"). Do you see? Even the ancient greeks knew the difference.
::But this is not the point. You're probably the first and main writer of this page, so I'll talk directly to you. Do you care if some of the points of the article are wrong of not? How did you verify the correctness of the sentences?
::(Curiosity: if you don't think that the theory of relativity gives a good description of the world, how do you explain the relativistic effects... without relativity? I mean, for example, the costance of the speed of light, or the different mean life of instable particles when they are at rest or in motion). --[[User:MM87|<font color="#E56717">'''MM'''</font>]]''[[User_talk:MM87|<font color="#FBB117">'''''87'''''</font>]] 15:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)