Last modified on December 20, 2007, at 01:01

User talk:Physicsnut

Return to "Physicsnut" page.

I'm too slack to use the welcome template, which is, furthermore, hideous, but welcome. Be aware that saying good things about relativity is apparently liberal bias. --SimonA 13:48, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Why? I can understand evolution being a matter of political intrigue, but relativity (special in it's whole, general by most) is accepted by everyone but a bunch of cranks. Physicsnut 15:28, 17 December 2007 (EST)
I honestly have no idea. --SimonA 14:18, 18 December 2007 (EST)

And yet I doubt that'll be the only novel scientific perspective you'll find on Conservapedia... Anyway, welcome as well, hope you stick around a while. Feebasfactor 18:12, 17 December 2007 (EST)

This is a bit psychotic. Good luck, I guess. Scientists not welcome - loud and clear. Physicsnut 21:06, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Even in the best of cases, in edit conflicts like that you end up needing authoritive sources for all the changes you want to make. Feebasfactor 21:58, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Like what? I need an authoratitve source to say that Herman Minkowski was involved with developing SR? ( - "Minkowski developed a new view of space and time and laid the mathematical foundation of the theory of relativity. By 1907 Minkowski realised that the work of Lorentz and Einstein could be best understood in a non-euclidean space. He considered space and time, which were formerly thought to be independent, to be coupled together in a four-dimensional 'space-time continuum'. Minkowski worked out a four-dimensional treatment of electrodynamics. His major works in this area are Raum und Zeit (1907) and Zwei Abhand lungen über die Grundgleichungen der Elektrodynamik (1909).").
Wait, wait, I know, I need a source say that Henri Poincaré and Hendrik Lorentz's formulas were only related to electrodynamics, and did not refute the aether? ( "In an extensive treatise on the aberration of light and the problems arising in connection with it, he followed A.J. Fresnel's hypothesis of the existence of an immovable ether, which freely penetrates all bodies.")
Hold on, is it that I need a source that states that Dicke died a well respected physicist, not "hurt professionally?" - ( "Though not consistantly a member of the American Astronomical Society, he was awarded the Society's Beatrice M. Tinsley Prize in 1992")
No, no, that's not it, it must be that I need a source that the Kaluza–Klein theory was a model that attempted to merge theories of gravation and electromagnatism. ( "The Modern Kaluza-Klein Theory unifies Maxwell's Theory of Electromagnetic and Einstein's Theory of General Relativity & Gravity.")
It is readily apparent that this site has some motive to slander Robert Dicke. If he were alive he would be disgusted to be used as fodder for the political grist mill. This quote was telling, from the founder and ultimate boss - "It's bias to insist on describing theories that compete with relativity in terms of relativity." - It's BIAS TO INSIST ON DESCRIBING BRANS-DICKE IN TERMS OF RELATIVITY? From Dicke's abstract - ( - "A modified relativistic theory of gravitation, apparently compatible with Mach's principle, is developed.") Physicsnut 09:40, 19 December 2007 (EST)
I'm sorry that your first impression of the site has been so poor... I don't make the rules though, and I don't control what remains and what is "bias" in each article - that is left up to a select few editors at Conservapedia. But thank you for the sources and the suggested changes, I'll try editing the article to implement them as "neutrally" as possible. Feebasfactor 12:53, 19 December 2007 (EST)
I would like to apologize as well. Unfortunately, none of your edits cited any of that information, and on Conservapedia, yes, you do need to cite everything, especially when it disagrees with the already existing bias of the article. And if particularly drastically alters the tone of a paragraph or the page, potentially discuss it on the Talk page, stating that you are aware that such information would be contraversial for this site. However, always remind yourself of the bias that Conservapedia has, and speak appropriately to that audience. --Puellanivis 13:03, 19 December 2007 (EST)
It's rather a conservative perspective on Conservapedia than a bias - but those are certainly good suggestions for potentially controversial edits, Puellanivis. Feebasfactor 13:14, 19 December 2007 (EST)
Physicsnut, this site praises Robert Dicke and notes how he was improperly denied the Nobel Prize. This site does not allow attempts to belittle Dicke's work by merely describing it as a minor variation of the theory of relativity.--Aschlafly 13:04, 19 December 2007 (EST)


I'm going to change my mind on this; your physics contributions were of a nature of one trying to build some good entries...but please, instead of rants, please contact Aschlafly and explain your misgivings. Karajou 15:45, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Disinterested. I will protect the memory of a great scientist and leave. Physicsnut 20:01, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Reversion explained

Physicsnut, your comment for your changes is to protect Robert Dicke, but in fact your changes do nothing of the sort. Rather, your changes seem designed to protect the undeserved prestige of the Nobel Prize, at Robert Dicke's expense. Moreover, your change made the sentence incoherent, indicating that you are placing ideology over accuracy here. Hence I reverted it. You can explain further here and explore if a compromise is possible while preserving the insights and accuracy of the entry.--Aschlafly 18:01, 19 December 2007 (EST)

I am indifferent about the Nobel Prize. However, Calling Robert (You can call him Professor Dicke) "outspoken" and "hurt professionally" is an assault on a great man, recognized by all as a great man. Physicsnut 19:53, 19 December 2007 (EST)
Further, you insinuate that Dicke was passed over for the Nobel like Fred Hoyle and Raymond Damadian, who were passed over for being creationists. Dicke was perhaps the ultimate opposite of such - this I can speak to only from personal knowledge, but Robert was no such thing. He would be insulted by it. Please don't slander a great man on the altar of politics. Thanks. Physicsnut 19:58, 19 December 2007 (EST)