Debate:What is CP's position on Relativity? (and, in general, on physical sciences)

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Debate:What is CP's position on Relativity? (and, in general, on physical sciences) as edited by DavidB4-bot (Talk | contribs) at 04:17, July 12, 2016. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

As the title says, I don't understand what CP says about relativity. For example, the pages Physics and Counterexamples to relativity are not coherent at all. The former describes the most important physical branches and conceptual frameworks, including relativity, saying for example "The Standard Model of particle physics has been extremely successful insofar as it has been tested" (please note that the standard model is a relativistic field theory). In fact, this page shows that relativity is a successful theory, just as Relativity does. On the other hand, the latter contains critical sentences on relativity, most of them without citations. Should or shouldn't CP be coherent? If the answer is positive, which of the two pages should be modified?

There is currently a sort of "debate" in this talk page: I'm proposing corrections (with citations and all that stuff) to sentences incorrect and without citations, but no one is answering and I was warned not to correct the page without "consensus". A lot of people in the past tried to correct that page (much more people than people defending that page), but the situation has not changed for an year or so, mining CP's credibility.

Cordially, MM87 12:08, 12 August 2011 (EDT)


Andy says, "It is a statement that purports to relate all matter to energy. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism), and numerous attempts to derive E=mc² in general from first principles have failed. Political pressure,[2] however, has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of this nonsensical equation. Simply put, E=mc² is liberal claptrap."[1] I have not aware of anyone who believes that E=mc2 attempts to unify the laws governing mass with the laws governing light. Wschact 07:22, 12 February 2013 (EST)

Apparently, the only two users who believe this are User:Markman and Andy. Markham does not claim to believe that it is true, but is merely reverting User:AugustO on the grounds that Andy outranks AugustO and that the text should remain until Andy can respond. This approach is highly problematic because E=mc2 has become one of the more frequently viewed pages on CP, and is widely-discussed on other websites as the dramatic example of false statements on CP. The E=mc2 edit war is costing CP much of its credibility. Perhaps, we can find a way to resolve this amicably for the benefit of the CP project. Thanks, Wschact 03:52, 4 March 2013 (EST)

Special Relativity

Conservatives in general and CP in particular do not have a problem with the Special theory of relativity. Wschact 07:22, 12 February 2013 (EST)

GPS satellite systems

There are many sources which say that the United States' GPS system includes an adjustment for the effects of relativity. However, a few CP editors deny this is true and that relativity has no real-world applications. What is CP's consensus view on relativity? Wschact 22:50, 24 March 2013 (EDT)


  1. February 12, 2013