Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:AFD E=MC² and the Frogton Universal Force Law"

Revision as of 18:29, August 17, 2021

It is essentially impossible to view the article as anything other than a joke. This "Universal Force Law" is named after an effectively unknown person (no Google hits, for example) who seems to exist only as a new Conservapedia author. And he takes a concept that is actually quite well understood by scientifically literate people, ind goes into paragraph after paragraph of nonsense trying to make it sound confusing.

Relativity denial is conducted at a rather high level here at Conservapedia. People wishing to jump on the bandwagon would be well advised to do their homework. For example, by looking at the many articles on the subject listed on my user page at [1]. I particularly recommend the article [2].

SamHB (talk) 22:10, August 16, 2021 (EDT)

I have removed the "delete" template. It appears that this person actually purported to "publish" a "book", visible on Amazon. He (Isaac Frogton) therefore needs to be taken a little bit more seriously than I was taking him yesterday.

I have been taking on relativity denial here at Conservapedia for at least 10 years now, and am quite good at it, as is my colleague AugustO. If Mr. Frogton wants to raise his objections to E=MC², or any other aspects of relativity, the Counterexamples to Relativity page is the place for it. He will be number 53. While the equation E=MC² is just difficult enough to be found mystifying by many people, it is actually well understood by scientifically literate people. There is much discussion here at Conservapedia and elsewhere, explaining the equation. Just throwing around nonsense of one's own doesn't make one's point that the equation is nonsense.

An example (of many) of the confused nature of Mr. Frogton's writing may be found in in the book excerpt on Amazon:

This book sets the record straight, ... explaining things way beyond the comprehension of physicists, such as the the fact that E=(3/4)MC² couldn't possibly be correct, as it would mean no force could ever accelerate an object beyond √(3/4) of the speed of light, which rather makes a mockery of the concept of photons having momentum.

No one proposes such an outlandish "straw man" notion, or tries to explain how such a notion could limit speeds of objects, or could affect the concept of photons having momentum.

By the way, it is considered to be in poor taste to create an account on a wiki purely for the purpose of flogging one's own book. But, considering the subject, Conservapedia is the place to be.

SamHB (talk) 14:29, August 17, 2021 (EDT)