User:GregG/RSS 2
From Conservapedia
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:52:31 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:E=mc2</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
moved [[<a href="/index.php?title=Talk:E%3Dmc2&redirect=no" class="mw-redirect" title="Talk:E=mc2">Talk:E=mc2</a>]] to [[<a href="/Talk:E%3Dmc%C2%B2" title="Talk:E=mc²">Talk:E=mc²</a>]] move as suggested
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:52:31 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>E=mc2</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
moved [[<a href="/index.php?title=E%3Dmc2&redirect=no" class="mw-redirect" title="E=mc2">E=mc2</a>]] to [[<a href="/E%3Dmc%C2%B2" title="E=mc²">E=mc²</a>]] move as suggested
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:52:30 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
deleted "[[<a href="/E%3Dmc%C2%B2" title="E=mc²">E=mc²</a>]]" Deleted to make way for move
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:50:21 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Main Page Left:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 17:50, 25 March 2012 | ||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 493: | Line 493: | ||
:::MNCalder, you claimed I set up a blog on blogspot, but I noticed a conspicuous absence of evidence for this claim. Evidently, you are not a skeptic nor are you trying to convince skeptics of your claim. :) Conservative 10:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | :::MNCalder, you claimed I set up a blog on blogspot, but I noticed a conspicuous absence of evidence for this claim. Evidently, you are not a skeptic nor are you trying to convince skeptics of your claim. :) Conservative 10:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
:Conservative is right, You have not responded at all. Please back up your claims before making such accusations. Also, we are a meritocracy, and Conservative's edit far outstrip your own. | :Conservative is right, You have not responded at all. Please back up your claims before making such accusations. Also, we are a meritocracy, and Conservative's edit far outstrip your own. | ||
| - | :::RobS, do you imagine writing high traffic articles? Why don't you launch your own wiki if you are so unhappy? Show the world how it's done since you are often | + | :::RobS, do you imagine writing high traffic articles? Why don't you launch your own wiki if you are so unhappy? Show the world how it's done since you are often telling people how it should be done. Conservative 13:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT) |
| + | And a message to certain gentlemen: Last time I checked, your website still was not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article (Even your fellow liberals don't respect you). :) 13:49, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
== Conservapedia Sports? == | == Conservapedia Sports? == | ||
Hello, upon scrolling through the main page today I was struck by a great thought. Although the coverage of Tim Tebow etc. is of great merit, I think there should be a greater focus on sport overall, as a nice sidebar to all the torment and strife highlighted on the main page. Would it be possible? And would anyone be interested in collaborating for a christian, conservative (obviously!) section on the upcoming NFL draft for example? God bless | Hello, upon scrolling through the main page today I was struck by a great thought. Although the coverage of Tim Tebow etc. is of great merit, I think there should be a greater focus on sport overall, as a nice sidebar to all the torment and strife highlighted on the main page. Would it be possible? And would anyone be interested in collaborating for a christian, conservative (obviously!) section on the upcoming NFL draft for example? God bless | ||
::You mean on the left sidebar like the debate topics? Conservative 23:24, 24 March 2012 (EDT) | ::You mean on the left sidebar like the debate topics? Conservative 23:24, 24 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:47:58 GMT (edit by AugustO)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:E=mc2</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Irrelevant claims:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 17:47, 25 March 2012 | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
:AugustO 13:03, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | :AugustO 13:03, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
::Why do you feel that I need to do that? I understand that you may wish to believe relativity is true, but that is no reason to impose your personal beliefs on others.--DavidEdwards 13:40, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ::Why do you feel that I need to do that? I understand that you may wish to believe relativity is true, but that is no reason to impose your personal beliefs on others.--DavidEdwards 13:40, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | :::Thinking that all claims have the same validity seems not a very conservative position. I don't expect you to accept my personal beliefs, but there is a tendency in physics that the claims which are backed up by those willing to do the experiments and the maths have a greater following than random insights. AugustO 13:47, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:45:59 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Main Page Left:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 17:45, 25 March 2012 | ||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 493: | Line 493: | ||
:::MNCalder, you claimed I set up a blog on blogspot, but I noticed a conspicuous absence of evidence for this claim. Evidently, you are not a skeptic nor are you trying to convince skeptics of your claim. :) Conservative 10:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | :::MNCalder, you claimed I set up a blog on blogspot, but I noticed a conspicuous absence of evidence for this claim. Evidently, you are not a skeptic nor are you trying to convince skeptics of your claim. :) Conservative 10:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
:Conservative is right, You have not responded at all. Please back up your claims before making such accusations. Also, we are a meritocracy, and Conservative's edit far outstrip your own. | :Conservative is right, You have not responded at all. Please back up your claims before making such accusations. Also, we are a meritocracy, and Conservative's edit far outstrip your own. | ||
| + | :::RobS, do you imagine writing high traffic articles? Why don't you launch your own wiki if you are so unhappy? Show the world how it's done since you are often going on how it should be done. Conservative 13:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
== Conservapedia Sports? == | == Conservapedia Sports? == | ||
Hello, upon scrolling through the main page today I was struck by a great thought. Although the coverage of Tim Tebow etc. is of great merit, I think there should be a greater focus on sport overall, as a nice sidebar to all the torment and strife highlighted on the main page. Would it be possible? And would anyone be interested in collaborating for a christian, conservative (obviously!) section on the upcoming NFL draft for example? God bless | Hello, upon scrolling through the main page today I was struck by a great thought. Although the coverage of Tim Tebow etc. is of great merit, I think there should be a greater focus on sport overall, as a nice sidebar to all the torment and strife highlighted on the main page. Would it be possible? And would anyone be interested in collaborating for a christian, conservative (obviously!) section on the upcoming NFL draft for example? God bless | ||
::You mean on the left sidebar like the debate topics? Conservative 23:24, 24 March 2012 (EDT) | ::You mean on the left sidebar like the debate topics? Conservative 23:24, 24 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:40:19 GMT (edit by DavidEdwards)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:E=mc2</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Irrelevant claims:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 17:40, 25 March 2012 | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
:you can find people claiming anything Indeed - and that's why there is a difference between the unsubstantiated claims in the first section, and the actual experiments in the following paragraphs. If you have a good explanation of the outcome of these experiments (some math would be nice), feel free to add your personal claim. | :you can find people claiming anything Indeed - and that's why there is a difference between the unsubstantiated claims in the first section, and the actual experiments in the following paragraphs. If you have a good explanation of the outcome of these experiments (some math would be nice), feel free to add your personal claim. | ||
:AugustO 13:03, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | :AugustO 13:03, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::Why do you feel that I need to do that? I understand that you may wish to believe relativity is true, but that is no reason to impose your personal beliefs on others.--DavidEdwards 13:40, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:03:57 GMT (edit by DorMouse)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Main Page Left:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 17:03, 25 March 2012 | ||
| Line 470: | Line 470: | ||
:::::What I was just about to say. Also his obsessions with Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, obesity and machismo.--HolterSchmitz 19:59, 23 March 2012 (EDT) | :::::What I was just about to say. Also his obsessions with Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, obesity and machismo.--HolterSchmitz 19:59, 23 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
I see some gentlemen still have not figured out why I wrote the homosexuality article. Will I/we take the reason to my/our grave? :) C.S. Lewis said the liberals who engage in criticism of written works in terms of how and why they are written are wrong in 100% of the cases based on his own experience. [6] | I see some gentlemen still have not figured out why I wrote the homosexuality article. Will I/we take the reason to my/our grave? :) C.S. Lewis said the liberals who engage in criticism of written works in terms of how and why they are written are wrong in 100% of the cases based on his own experience. [7] | ||
| - | + |  | |
Lastly, as far as some of the articles I wrote, I just saw a need in the marketplace for more comprehensive works. At the time I wrote the atheism article I didn't realize the extent that atheism was a shrinking worldview in terms of its adherents that is expected to further shrink at an accelerated rate (see: Decline of atheism). Why the pixels of the atheism article will barely be dry before atheist population is a shriveled up and emaciated population. And at that time, the atheism article will be of much interest to the general public as an article on Baal worship is today. :) Conservative 20:54, 23 March 2012 (EDT) | Lastly, as far as some of the articles I wrote, I just saw a need in the marketplace for more comprehensive works. At the time I wrote the atheism article I didn't realize the extent that atheism was a shrinking worldview in terms of its adherents that is expected to further shrink at an accelerated rate (see: Decline of atheism). Why the pixels of the atheism article will barely be dry before atheist population is a shriveled up and emaciated population. And at that time, the atheism article will be of much interest to the general public as an article on Baal worship is today. :) Conservative 20:54, 23 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| Line 492: | Line 492: | ||
:Do you imagine anyone actually reads your posts? Rob Smith 12:36, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | :Do you imagine anyone actually reads your posts? Rob Smith 12:36, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
:::MNCalder, you claimed I set up a blog on blogspot, but I noticed a conspicuous absence of evidence for this claim. Evidently, you are not a skeptic nor are you trying to convince skeptics of your claim. :) Conservative 10:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | :::MNCalder, you claimed I set up a blog on blogspot, but I noticed a conspicuous absence of evidence for this claim. Evidently, you are not a skeptic nor are you trying to convince skeptics of your claim. :) Conservative 10:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | :Conservative is right, You have not responded at all. Please back up your claims before making such accusations. Also, we are a meritocracy, and Conservative's edit far outstrip your own. | ||
== Conservapedia Sports? == | == Conservapedia Sports? == | ||
Hello, upon scrolling through the main page today I was struck by a great thought. Although the coverage of Tim Tebow etc. is of great merit, I think there should be a greater focus on sport overall, as a nice sidebar to all the torment and strife highlighted on the main page. Would it be possible? And would anyone be interested in collaborating for a christian, conservative (obviously!) section on the upcoming NFL draft for example? God bless | Hello, upon scrolling through the main page today I was struck by a great thought. Although the coverage of Tim Tebow etc. is of great merit, I think there should be a greater focus on sport overall, as a nice sidebar to all the torment and strife highlighted on the main page. Would it be possible? And would anyone be interested in collaborating for a christian, conservative (obviously!) section on the upcoming NFL draft for example? God bless | ||
::You mean on the left sidebar like the debate topics? Conservative 23:24, 24 March 2012 (EDT) | ::You mean on the left sidebar like the debate topics? Conservative 23:24, 24 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:03:08 GMT (edit by AugustO)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:E=mc2</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Irrelevant claims:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 17:03, 25 March 2012 | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
==Irrelevant claims== | ==Irrelevant claims== | ||
Are these claims of so called "experimental verification" valid or useful? If you look at enough so-called science you can find people claiming anything. --DavidEdwards 12:59, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | Are these claims of so called "experimental verification" valid or useful? If you look at enough so-called science you can find people claiming anything. --DavidEdwards 12:59, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | :you can find people claiming anything Indeed - and that's why there is a difference between the unsubstantiated claims in the first section, and the actual experiments in the following paragraphs. If you have a good explanation of the outcome of these experiments (some math would be nice), feel free to add your personal claim. | ||
| + | :AugustO 13:03, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:59:23 GMT (edit by DavidEdwards)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:E=mc2</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 16:59, 25 March 2012 | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
Indeed, these are the ≈ 17MeV! | Indeed, these are the ≈ 17MeV! | ||
AugustO 11:51, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | AugustO 11:51, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Irrelevant claims== | ||
| + | Are these claims of so called "experimental verification" valid or useful? If you look at enough so-called science you can find people claiming anything. --DavidEdwards 12:59, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:55:03 GMT (edit by Karajou)
<html>
<head> <title>User talk:LeviS</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
deleted "[[<a href="/index.php?title=User_talk:LeviS&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="User talk:LeviS (page does not exist)">User talk:LeviS</a>]]" User blocked indefinitely: content was: "Explain who Almondluver is, please. <a href="/User:Karajou" title="User:Karajou">Karajou</a> 12:49, 25 March 2012 (EDT)" (and the only contributor was "<a href="/Special:Contributions/Karajou" title="Special:Contributions/Karajou">Karajou</a>")
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:52:30 GMT (edit by WesleyS)
<html>
<head> <title>E=mc2</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Undo revision 970341 by <a href="/Special:Contributions/LeviS" title="Special:Contributions/LeviS">LeviS</a> (<a href="/index.php?title=User_talk:LeviS&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="User talk:LeviS (page does not exist)">talk</a>)
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 16:52, 25 March 2012 | ||
| Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:15:31 GMT (edit by AugustO)
<html>
<head> <title>E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
a day later, Aschlafly should try to provide some material to back up his statements
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 19:15, 25 March 2012 | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | E=mc<sup>2</sup> is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate light to matter. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc<sup>2</sup> is liberal claptrap. | + | E=mc<sup>2</sup> is a meaningless[Citation Needed], almost nonsensical[Citation Needed], statement in physics that purports to relate light to matter[Citation Needed]. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc<sup>2</sup> is liberal claptrap. |
Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics are impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis. | Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics are impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis. | ||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:23:06 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
fix link, tidy up a bit
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 19:23, 25 March 2012 | ||||||||||||||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||||||||||||||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||||||||||||||
| - | E=mc<sup>2</sup> is a meaningless | + | E=mc<sup>2</sup> is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate light to matter. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc<sup>2</sup> is liberal claptrap. | ||||||||||||
Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics are impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis. | Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics are impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis. | ||||||||||||||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||||||||||||||
For more than a century, the claim that E=mc<sup>2</sup> has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the lamestream media. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons, and in the study of antimatter.<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc<sup>2</sup>." October 11, 2005. PBS NOVA. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref> | For more than a century, the claim that E=mc<sup>2</sup> has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the lamestream media. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons, and in the study of antimatter.<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc<sup>2</sup>." October 11, 2005. PBS NOVA. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref> | ||||||||||||||
| - | + | Ten top physicists were asked to describe Einstein's equation E=mc<sup>2</sup>:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html</ref>
| |||||||||||||
| - | Ten top physicists were asked to describe Einstein's equation E=mc<sup>2</sup>
| + | |||||||||||||
cquote|It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}} | cquote|It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}} | ||||||||||||||
| + | |||||||||||||||
| + | == History of E=mc<sup>2</sup> == | ||||||||||||||
| + | |||||||||||||||
| + | The liberal Public Broadcasting Service explained the history of E=mc<sup>2</sup> for its NOVA series as follows:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/ancestors-einstein.html</ref> | ||||||||||||||
| + | |||||||||||||||
| + |
| ||||||||||||||
==Experimental verification== | ==Experimental verification== | ||||||||||||||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:39:07 GMT (edit by EvelynOleary7)
<html>
<head> <title>User:EvelynOleary7</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
New user account
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:23:06 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
fix link, tidy up a bit
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 19:23, 25 March 2012 | ||||||||||||||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||||||||||||||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||||||||||||||
| - | E=mc<sup>2</sup> is a meaningless | + | E=mc<sup>2</sup> is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate light to matter. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc<sup>2</sup> is liberal claptrap. | ||||||||||||
Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics are impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis. | Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics are impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis. | ||||||||||||||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||||||||||||||
For more than a century, the claim that E=mc<sup>2</sup> has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the lamestream media. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons, and in the study of antimatter.<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc<sup>2</sup>." October 11, 2005. PBS NOVA. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref> | For more than a century, the claim that E=mc<sup>2</sup> has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the lamestream media. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons, and in the study of antimatter.<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc<sup>2</sup>." October 11, 2005. PBS NOVA. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref> | ||||||||||||||
| - | + | Ten top physicists were asked to describe Einstein's equation E=mc<sup>2</sup>:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html</ref>
| |||||||||||||
| - | Ten top physicists were asked to describe Einstein's equation E=mc<sup>2</sup>
| + | |||||||||||||
cquote|It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}} | cquote|It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}} | ||||||||||||||
| + | |||||||||||||||
| + | == History of E=mc<sup>2</sup> == | ||||||||||||||
| + | |||||||||||||||
| + | The liberal Public Broadcasting Service explained the history of E=mc<sup>2</sup> for its NOVA series as follows:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/ancestors-einstein.html</ref> | ||||||||||||||
| + | |||||||||||||||
| + |
| ||||||||||||||
==Experimental verification== | ==Experimental verification== | ||||||||||||||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:15:31 GMT (edit by AugustO)
<html>
<head> <title>E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
a day later, Aschlafly should try to provide some material to back up his statements
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 19:15, 25 March 2012 | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | E=mc<sup>2</sup> is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate light to matter. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc<sup>2</sup> is liberal claptrap. | + | E=mc<sup>2</sup> is a meaningless[Citation Needed], almost nonsensical[Citation Needed], statement in physics that purports to relate light to matter[Citation Needed]. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc<sup>2</sup> is liberal claptrap. |
Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics are impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis. | Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics are impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis. | ||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:14:24 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Rain:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 19:14, 25 March 2012 | ||
| (2 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 507: | Line 507: | ||
It is totally hilarious that the atheists' parade was rained out, serves them right. I would just like to ask whether we can actually be sure that this was God's doing. Andy Schlafly said here: "I don't think anyone claims that God is responsible for everything that happens in the world." Can we know for sure that God caused this rain fall, but not, say, last year's tsunami? --FrederickT3 15:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | It is totally hilarious that the atheists' parade was rained out, serves them right. I would just like to ask whether we can actually be sure that this was God's doing. Andy Schlafly said here: "I don't think anyone claims that God is responsible for everything that happens in the world." Can we know for sure that God caused this rain fall, but not, say, last year's tsunami? --FrederickT3 15:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::What did Jesus say about rain? Didn't He say God causes it to rain on the just and the unjust? Does the book of Job give any clues about weather and weather catastrophes? Conservative 15:12, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:40:50 GMT (edit by GlennaYang6)
<html>
<head> <title>User:GlennaYang6</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
New user account
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:43:02 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
improved further
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 19:43, 25 March 2012 | ||||||||||||||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||||||||||||||
| - | E=mc<sup>2</sup> is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate | + | E=mc<sup>2</sup> is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate all matter to light. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc<sup>2</sup> is liberal claptrap. | ||||||||||||
Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics are impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis. | Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics are impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis. | ||||||||||||||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||||||||||||||
For more than a century, the claim that E=mc<sup>2</sup> has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the lamestream media. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons, and in the study of antimatter.<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc<sup>2</sup>." October 11, 2005. PBS NOVA. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref> | For more than a century, the claim that E=mc<sup>2</sup> has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the lamestream media. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons, and in the study of antimatter.<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc<sup>2</sup>." October 11, 2005. PBS NOVA. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref> | ||||||||||||||
| - | Ten top physicists were asked to describe
| + | The Theory of Relativity has never been able to derive E=mc<sup>2</sup>, and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh..79..591H</ref> | ||||||||||||
| + | |||||||||||||||
| + | At most radiation has a mass equivalence, which was correctly derived by Henri Poincare in 1904:<ref>http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-42-8-540</ref> | ||||||||||||||
| + | |||||||||||||||
| + |
| ||||||||||||||
| + | |||||||||||||||
| + | Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc<sup>2</sup>:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html</ref>
| ||||||||||||||
cquote|It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}} | cquote|It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}} | ||||||||||||||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:44:42 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Template:Mainpageleft</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Creation vs. evolution battleground state of Texas: an update:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 19:44, 25 March 2012 | ||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
The Question evolution! campaign is a worldwide anti-evolution campaign and is primarily being conducted in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and South Africa.[8] The focus of the campaign is on 15 Questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer. The 15 questions can be found HERE. | The Question evolution! campaign is a worldwide anti-evolution campaign and is primarily being conducted in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and South Africa.[9] The focus of the campaign is on 15 Questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer. The 15 questions can be found HERE. | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - |  | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - |  | ||
== Are creationists buying up and hiding all the transitional fossils? == | == Are creationists buying up and hiding all the transitional fossils? == | ||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:43:02 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
improved further
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 19:43, 25 March 2012 | ||||||||||||||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||||||||||||||
| - | E=mc<sup>2</sup> is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate | + | E=mc<sup>2</sup> is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate all matter to light. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc<sup>2</sup> is liberal claptrap. | ||||||||||||
Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics are impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis. | Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics are impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis. | ||||||||||||||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||||||||||||||
For more than a century, the claim that E=mc<sup>2</sup> has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the lamestream media. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons, and in the study of antimatter.<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc<sup>2</sup>." October 11, 2005. PBS NOVA. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref> | For more than a century, the claim that E=mc<sup>2</sup> has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the lamestream media. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons, and in the study of antimatter.<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc<sup>2</sup>." October 11, 2005. PBS NOVA. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref> | ||||||||||||||
| - | Ten top physicists were asked to describe
| + | The Theory of Relativity has never been able to derive E=mc<sup>2</sup>, and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh..79..591H</ref> | ||||||||||||
| + | |||||||||||||||
| + | At most radiation has a mass equivalence, which was correctly derived by Henri Poincare in 1904:<ref>http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-42-8-540</ref> | ||||||||||||||
| + | |||||||||||||||
| + |
| ||||||||||||||
| + | |||||||||||||||
| + | Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc<sup>2</sup>:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html</ref>
| ||||||||||||||
cquote|It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}} | cquote|It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}} | ||||||||||||||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:40:50 GMT (edit by GlennaYang6)
<html>
<head> <title>User:GlennaYang6</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
New user account
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:39:07 GMT (edit by EvelynOleary7)
<html>
<head> <title>User:EvelynOleary7</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
New user account
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:47:51 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
improved further
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 19:47, 25 March 2012 | ||||||||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||||||||
E=mc<sup>2</sup> is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate all matter to light. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc<sup>2</sup> is liberal claptrap. | E=mc<sup>2</sup> is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate all matter to light. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc<sup>2</sup> is liberal claptrap. | ||||||||
| - | Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics | + | Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis. | ||||||
For more than a century, the claim that E=mc<sup>2</sup> has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the lamestream media. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons, and in the study of antimatter.<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc<sup>2</sup>." October 11, 2005. PBS NOVA. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref> | For more than a century, the claim that E=mc<sup>2</sup> has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the lamestream media. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons, and in the study of antimatter.<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc<sup>2</sup>." October 11, 2005. PBS NOVA. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref> | ||||||||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||||||||
|
| ||||||||
| - | == | + | ==One claim of experimental verification== | ||||||
The first experimental verification for the equation was performed 1932 by a team of an English and an Irish physicist, John Cockroft and Ernest Walton. This confirmation was a byproduct of "their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles"<ref>Nobel Prize Organization</ref> for which they were honored with the Nobel Prize in physics in 1951: | The first experimental verification for the equation was performed 1932 by a team of an English and an Irish physicist, John Cockroft and Ernest Walton. This confirmation was a byproduct of "their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles"<ref>Nobel Prize Organization</ref> for which they were honored with the Nobel Prize in physics in 1951: | ||||||||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||||||||
Currently the best empirical verification of this ground-breaking formula was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville et al.<ref>Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005) doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref>: Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−Δmc²/E=(−1.4±4.4)×10<sup>−7</sup>, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described | Currently the best empirical verification of this ground-breaking formula was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville et al.<ref>Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005) doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref>: Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−Δmc²/E=(−1.4±4.4)×10<sup>−7</sup>, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described | ||||||||
| - | ==An Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium== | + | ==An Isolated Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium== | ||||||
For most types of physical interactions, the masses of the initial reactants and of the final products match so closely that it is essentially impossible to measure any difference. But for nuclear reactions, the difference is measurable. That difference is related to the energy absorbed or released, described by the equation E=mc². (The equation applies to all interactions; the fact that nuclear interactions are the only ones for which the mass difference is measurable has led people to believe, wrongly, that E=mc² applies only to nuclear interactions.) | For most types of physical interactions, the masses of the initial reactants and of the final products match so closely that it is essentially impossible to measure any difference. But for nuclear reactions, the difference is measurable. That difference is related to the energy absorbed or released, described by the equation E=mc². (The equation applies to all interactions; the fact that nuclear interactions are the only ones for which the mass difference is measurable has led people to believe, wrongly, that E=mc² applies only to nuclear interactions.) | ||||||||
| - | + | The Theory of Relativity played no role in this work, but later tried to retrofit the theory to the data in order to explain the explain the observed mass changes. Here is the most famous example of the mass change. | |||||||
Nuclear fission, which is the basis for nuclear energy, was discovered in experiments by Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassman, and analyzed by Lise Meitner, in 1938. | Nuclear fission, which is the basis for nuclear energy, was discovered in experiments by Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassman, and analyzed by Lise Meitner, in 1938. | ||||||||
| Line 89: | Line 89: | ||||||||
The insight that the conversion from Uranium to Barium was caused by complete fission of the atom was made by Lise Meitner in December, 1938. She had the approximate "mass defect" quantities memorized, and so she worked out in her head, using the E=mc² equation, that there would be this enormous release of energy. This release was observed shortly thereafter, and the result is nuclear power and nuclear weapons. | The insight that the conversion from Uranium to Barium was caused by complete fission of the atom was made by Lise Meitner in December, 1938. She had the approximate "mass defect" quantities memorized, and so she worked out in her head, using the E=mc² equation, that there would be this enormous release of energy. This release was observed shortly thereafter, and the result is nuclear power and nuclear weapons. | ||||||||
| - | ==A | + | ==A Counterexample: Speed of Extremely Energetic Neutrinos== | ||||||
| - | Here is another example of the use of this formula in physics calculations. Recently there has been quite a controversy over whether neutrinos were observed traveling at a speed faster than light. Relativity doesn't allow that, and, since neutrinos have nonzero (but incredibly tiny) mass, they aren't even supposed to travel at the speed of light. This very issue came up on the Talk:Main_Page#Neutrinos. The speeds under discussion were calculated by the use of E=mc | + | Here is another example of the use of this formula in physics calculations. Recently there has been quite a controversy over whether neutrinos were observed traveling at a speed faster than light. Relativity doesn't allow that, and, since neutrinos have nonzero (but incredibly tiny) mass, they aren't even supposed to travel at the speed of light. This very issue came up on the Talk:Main_Page#Neutrinos. The speeds under discussion were calculated by the use of E=mc<sup>2</sup>. | ||||||
| - | The mass of a neutrino is about 0.44x10<sup>-36</sup>kilograms. (Normally all of these things are measured in more convenient units such as Giga-electron-Volts, but that makes implicit use of E=mc | + | The mass of a neutrino is about 0.44x10<sup>-36</sup>kilograms. (Normally all of these things are measured in more convenient units such as Giga-electron-Volts, but that makes implicit use of E=mc<sup>2</sup>. If we don't accept that, we have to do the calculations under classical physics, using SI (meter/kilogram/second) units.) The neutrinos were accelerated to an energy of about 17GeV, or .27x10<sup>-8</sup>Joules. Using the classical formula E=(1/2)mv^2, we get v=110x10<sup>12</sup>meters per second. This is about 370,000 times the speed of light. | ||||||
| - | + | Several scientists have gone on record stating that the neutrinos, which have mass, travel at precisely the speed of light. This dispoves the [[Theory of Relativity]] and the claim that E=mc<sup>2</sup>. | |||||||
== References == | == References == | ||||||||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:02:09 GMT (edit by AlecBacon7)
<html>
<head> <title>User:AlecBacon7</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
New user account
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:47:51 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
improved further
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 19:47, 25 March 2012 | ||||||||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||||||||
E=mc<sup>2</sup> is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate all matter to light. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc<sup>2</sup> is liberal claptrap. | E=mc<sup>2</sup> is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate all matter to light. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc<sup>2</sup> is liberal claptrap. | ||||||||
| - | Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics | + | Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis. | ||||||
For more than a century, the claim that E=mc<sup>2</sup> has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the lamestream media. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons, and in the study of antimatter.<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc<sup>2</sup>." October 11, 2005. PBS NOVA. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref> | For more than a century, the claim that E=mc<sup>2</sup> has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the lamestream media. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons, and in the study of antimatter.<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc<sup>2</sup>." October 11, 2005. PBS NOVA. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref> | ||||||||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||||||||
|
| ||||||||
| - | == | + | ==One claim of experimental verification== | ||||||
The first experimental verification for the equation was performed 1932 by a team of an English and an Irish physicist, John Cockroft and Ernest Walton. This confirmation was a byproduct of "their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles"<ref>Nobel Prize Organization</ref> for which they were honored with the Nobel Prize in physics in 1951: | The first experimental verification for the equation was performed 1932 by a team of an English and an Irish physicist, John Cockroft and Ernest Walton. This confirmation was a byproduct of "their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles"<ref>Nobel Prize Organization</ref> for which they were honored with the Nobel Prize in physics in 1951: | ||||||||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||||||||
Currently the best empirical verification of this ground-breaking formula was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville et al.<ref>Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005) doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref>: Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−Δmc²/E=(−1.4±4.4)×10<sup>−7</sup>, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described | Currently the best empirical verification of this ground-breaking formula was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville et al.<ref>Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005) doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref>: Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−Δmc²/E=(−1.4±4.4)×10<sup>−7</sup>, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described | ||||||||
| - | ==An Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium== | + | ==An Isolated Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium== | ||||||
For most types of physical interactions, the masses of the initial reactants and of the final products match so closely that it is essentially impossible to measure any difference. But for nuclear reactions, the difference is measurable. That difference is related to the energy absorbed or released, described by the equation E=mc². (The equation applies to all interactions; the fact that nuclear interactions are the only ones for which the mass difference is measurable has led people to believe, wrongly, that E=mc² applies only to nuclear interactions.) | For most types of physical interactions, the masses of the initial reactants and of the final products match so closely that it is essentially impossible to measure any difference. But for nuclear reactions, the difference is measurable. That difference is related to the energy absorbed or released, described by the equation E=mc². (The equation applies to all interactions; the fact that nuclear interactions are the only ones for which the mass difference is measurable has led people to believe, wrongly, that E=mc² applies only to nuclear interactions.) | ||||||||
| - | + | The Theory of Relativity played no role in this work, but later tried to retrofit the theory to the data in order to explain the explain the observed mass changes. Here is the most famous example of the mass change. | |||||||
Nuclear fission, which is the basis for nuclear energy, was discovered in experiments by Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassman, and analyzed by Lise Meitner, in 1938. | Nuclear fission, which is the basis for nuclear energy, was discovered in experiments by Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassman, and analyzed by Lise Meitner, in 1938. | ||||||||
| Line 89: | Line 89: | ||||||||
The insight that the conversion from Uranium to Barium was caused by complete fission of the atom was made by Lise Meitner in December, 1938. She had the approximate "mass defect" quantities memorized, and so she worked out in her head, using the E=mc² equation, that there would be this enormous release of energy. This release was observed shortly thereafter, and the result is nuclear power and nuclear weapons. | The insight that the conversion from Uranium to Barium was caused by complete fission of the atom was made by Lise Meitner in December, 1938. She had the approximate "mass defect" quantities memorized, and so she worked out in her head, using the E=mc² equation, that there would be this enormous release of energy. This release was observed shortly thereafter, and the result is nuclear power and nuclear weapons. | ||||||||
| - | ==A | + | ==A Counterexample: Speed of Extremely Energetic Neutrinos== | ||||||
| - | Here is another example of the use of this formula in physics calculations. Recently there has been quite a controversy over whether neutrinos were observed traveling at a speed faster than light. Relativity doesn't allow that, and, since neutrinos have nonzero (but incredibly tiny) mass, they aren't even supposed to travel at the speed of light. This very issue came up on the Talk:Main_Page#Neutrinos. The speeds under discussion were calculated by the use of E=mc | + | Here is another example of the use of this formula in physics calculations. Recently there has been quite a controversy over whether neutrinos were observed traveling at a speed faster than light. Relativity doesn't allow that, and, since neutrinos have nonzero (but incredibly tiny) mass, they aren't even supposed to travel at the speed of light. This very issue came up on the Talk:Main_Page#Neutrinos. The speeds under discussion were calculated by the use of E=mc<sup>2</sup>. | ||||||
| - | The mass of a neutrino is about 0.44x10<sup>-36</sup>kilograms. (Normally all of these things are measured in more convenient units such as Giga-electron-Volts, but that makes implicit use of E=mc | + | The mass of a neutrino is about 0.44x10<sup>-36</sup>kilograms. (Normally all of these things are measured in more convenient units such as Giga-electron-Volts, but that makes implicit use of E=mc<sup>2</sup>. If we don't accept that, we have to do the calculations under classical physics, using SI (meter/kilogram/second) units.) The neutrinos were accelerated to an energy of about 17GeV, or .27x10<sup>-8</sup>Joules. Using the classical formula E=(1/2)mv^2, we get v=110x10<sup>12</sup>meters per second. This is about 370,000 times the speed of light. | ||||||
| - | + | Several scientists have gone on record stating that the neutrinos, which have mass, travel at precisely the speed of light. This dispoves the [[Theory of Relativity]] and the claim that E=mc<sup>2</sup>. | |||||||
== References == | == References == | ||||||||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:44:42 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Template:Mainpageleft</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Creation vs. evolution battleground state of Texas: an update:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 19:44, 25 March 2012 | ||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
The Question evolution! campaign is a worldwide anti-evolution campaign and is primarily being conducted in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and South Africa.[13] The focus of the campaign is on 15 Questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer. The 15 questions can be found HERE. | The Question evolution! campaign is a worldwide anti-evolution campaign and is primarily being conducted in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and South Africa.[14] The focus of the campaign is on 15 Questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer. The 15 questions can be found HERE. | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | | ||
== Are creationists buying up and hiding all the transitional fossils? == | == Are creationists buying up and hiding all the transitional fossils? == | ||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:03:41 GMT (edit by NKeaton)
<html>
<head> <title>User:AlecBacon7</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
blocked [[<a href="/index.php?title=User:AlecBacon7&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new mw-userlink" title="User:AlecBacon7 (page does not exist)">AlecBacon7</a> (<a href="/index.php?title=User_talk:AlecBacon7&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="User talk:AlecBacon7 (page does not exist)">Talk</a> | <a href="/Special:Contributions/AlecBacon7" title="Special:Contributions/AlecBacon7">contribs</a>)]] with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) Spamming links to external sites: Looks like spammer account
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:14:20 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>Template:Mainpageright</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
comma inside quotations
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 20:14, 25 March 2012 | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
 | | ||
| - | + | ||
[18] The Almighty rained on your parade atheists. What are you going to do about it? | [19] The Almighty rained on your parade atheists. What are you going to do about it? | ||
| - | + | ||
---- | ---- | ||
As liberals try to make race the issue in the tragic death of Trayvon Martin, the lamestream media underreport that the gunman is himself a minority who allegedly suffered a broken nose and lacerated skull in the altercation. [24] [25] | As liberals try to make race the issue in the tragic death of Trayvon Martin, the lamestream media underreport that the gunman is himself a minority who allegedly suffered a broken nose and lacerated skull in the altercation. [26] [27] | ||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:23:38 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 20:23, 25 March 2012 | ||||||||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||||||||
The Theory of Relativity has never been able to derive E=mc<sup>2</sup>, and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh..79..591H</ref> | The Theory of Relativity has never been able to derive E=mc<sup>2</sup>, and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh..79..591H</ref> | ||||||||
| - | At most radiation has a mass equivalence, which was correctly derived by Henri Poincare in 1904:<ref>http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-42-8-540</ref> | + | At most, radiation has a mass equivalence, which was correctly derived by Henri Poincare in 1904:<ref>http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-42-8-540</ref> | ||||||
|
| ||||||||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:14:20 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>Template:Mainpageright</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
comma inside quotations
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 20:14, 25 March 2012 | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
| | ||
| - | + | ||
[28] The Almighty rained on your parade atheists. What are you going to do about it? | [29] The Almighty rained on your parade atheists. What are you going to do about it? | ||
| - | + | ||
---- | ---- | ||
As liberals try to make race the issue in the tragic death of Trayvon Martin, the lamestream media underreport that the gunman is himself a minority who allegedly suffered a broken nose and lacerated skull in the altercation. [34] [35] | As liberals try to make race the issue in the tragic death of Trayvon Martin, the lamestream media underreport that the gunman is himself a minority who allegedly suffered a broken nose and lacerated skull in the altercation. [36] [37] | ||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:54:26 GMT (edit by XylinaChang581)
<html>
<head> <title>User:XylinaChang581</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
New user account
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:23:38 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 20:23, 25 March 2012 | ||||||||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||||||||
The Theory of Relativity has never been able to derive E=mc<sup>2</sup>, and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh..79..591H</ref> | The Theory of Relativity has never been able to derive E=mc<sup>2</sup>, and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh..79..591H</ref> | ||||||||
| - | At most radiation has a mass equivalence, which was correctly derived by Henri Poincare in 1904:<ref>http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-42-8-540</ref> | + | At most, radiation has a mass equivalence, which was correctly derived by Henri Poincare in 1904:<ref>http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-42-8-540</ref> | ||||||
|
| ||||||||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 21:12:43 GMT (edit by Bratwurst)
<html>
<head> <title>User:Bratwurst</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
New user account
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:54:26 GMT (edit by XylinaChang581)
<html>
<head> <title>User:XylinaChang581</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
New user account
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 21:24:32 GMT (edit by KarenG)
<html>
<head> <title>User:KarenG</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
New user account
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 21:12:43 GMT (edit by Bratwurst)
<html>
<head> <title>User:Bratwurst</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
New user account
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 21:41:03 GMT (edit by PatternOfPersona)
<html>
<head> <title>Omnipotence</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 21:41, 25 March 2012 | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | Omnipotence refers to an agent which is axiomatically over all other agents. Abstractly, such an agent is said to have unlimited power, or, omnipotence. This abstraction, called the concept of omnipotence is a concept that we draw by contrast<ref>The Paradox of the Stone; C. Wade Savage; The Philosophical Review, Vol. 76, No. 1 (Jan., 1967), pp. 74-79 | + | Omnipotence refers to an agent which is axiomatically over all other agents. Abstractly, such an agent is said to have unlimited power, or, omnipotence. This abstraction, called the concept of omnipotence, is a concept that we draw by contrast<ref>The Paradox of the Stone; C. Wade Savage; The Philosophical Review, Vol. 76, No. 1 (Jan., 1967), pp. 74-79 |
</ref> to limited powers (limited agents), and by the possession, or instantiation, of every kind of power <ref>Omnipotence and Quantification; Tersur Aben [38]</ref> | </ref> to limited powers (limited agents), and by the possession, or instantiation, of every kind of power <ref>Omnipotence and Quantification; Tersur Aben [39]</ref> | ||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 21:24:32 GMT (edit by KarenG)
<html>
<head> <title>User:KarenG</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
New user account
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 21:44:09 GMT (edit by PatternOfPersona)
<html>
<head> <title>Omnipotence</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Coherence vs. incoherence of omnipotence:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 21:44, 25 March 2012 | ||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | Omnipotence refers to an agent which is axiomatically over all other agents. Abstractly, such an agent is said to have unlimited power, or, omnipotence. This abstraction, called the concept of omnipotence is a concept that we draw by contrast<ref>The Paradox of the Stone; C. Wade Savage; The Philosophical Review, Vol. 76, No. 1 (Jan., 1967), pp. 74-79 | + | Omnipotence refers to an agent which is axiomatically over all other agents. Abstractly, such an agent is said to have unlimited power, or, omnipotence. This abstraction, called the concept of omnipotence, is a concept that we draw by contrast<ref>The Paradox of the Stone; C. Wade Savage; The Philosophical Review, Vol. 76, No. 1 (Jan., 1967), pp. 74-79 |
</ref> to limited powers (limited agents), and by the possession, or instantiation, of every kind of power <ref>Omnipotence and Quantification; Tersur Aben [40]</ref> | </ref> to limited powers (limited agents), and by the possession, or instantiation, of every kind of power <ref>Omnipotence and Quantification; Tersur Aben [41]</ref> | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Prior to any act, divine omnipotence is perceived as coherent with itself. In other words, omnipotence, as a concept, is immediately coherent. | Prior to any act, divine omnipotence is perceived as coherent with itself. In other words, omnipotence, as a concept, is immediately coherent. | ||
| - | The immediate coherence of the concept of omnipotence is how we even can get the sense that omnipotence is paradoxical: it's immediate coherence is (mis)interpreted as a limitation upon it. Only by allowing that it may apply its own agency upon itself, and, thus, upon the fact that things can be identified, is this supposed limitation remedied. Know-ability is a function of the fact that there is a connection, or correspondence, between the knower and the knowable. But, the position that the immediate coherence of omnipotence is a limitation upon omnipotence is tantamount to the position that the possibility of knowledge constitutes an agent which is distinct from, and superior to, an omnipotent agent. In other words, this position is equivalent to the statement: "rationality is not co-extensive with omnipotence, despite that omnipotence is known immediately to be coherent".<ref>Some Puzzles Concerning Omnipotence; George I. Mavrodes[42]</ref> | + | The immediate coherence of the concept of omnipotence is how we even can get the sense that omnipotence is paradoxical: it's immediate coherence is (mis)interpreted as a limitation upon it. Only by allowing that it may apply its own agency upon itself, and, thus, upon the fact that things can be identified, is this supposed limitation remedied. Know-ability is a function of the fact that there is a connection, or correspondence, between the knower and the knowable. But, the position that the immediate coherence of omnipotence is a limitation upon omnipotence is tantamount to the position that the possibility of knowledge constitutes an agent which is distinct from, and superior to, an omnipotent agent. In other words, this position is equivalent to the statement: "rationality is not co-extensive with omnipotence, despite that omnipotence is known immediately to be coherent".<ref>Some Puzzles Concerning Omnipotence; George I. Mavrodes[43]</ref> In fact, if one maintains the supposedly ‘initial’ position that the (logically) necessary conception of omnipotence includes the 'power' to compromise both itself and all other identity, and if one concludes from this position that omnipotence is epistemologically incoherent, then one implicitly is asserting that one's own ‘initial’ position is incoherent. |
| - | + | ||
== Limited powers == | == Limited powers == | ||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 21:44:09 GMT (edit by PatternOfPersona)
<html>
<head> <title>Omnipotence</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Coherence vs. incoherence of omnipotence:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 21:44, 25 March 2012 | ||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | Omnipotence refers to an agent which is axiomatically over all other agents. Abstractly, such an agent is said to have unlimited power, or, omnipotence. This abstraction, called the concept of omnipotence is a concept that we draw by contrast<ref>The Paradox of the Stone; C. Wade Savage; The Philosophical Review, Vol. 76, No. 1 (Jan., 1967), pp. 74-79 | + | Omnipotence refers to an agent which is axiomatically over all other agents. Abstractly, such an agent is said to have unlimited power, or, omnipotence. This abstraction, called the concept of omnipotence, is a concept that we draw by contrast<ref>The Paradox of the Stone; C. Wade Savage; The Philosophical Review, Vol. 76, No. 1 (Jan., 1967), pp. 74-79 |
</ref> to limited powers (limited agents), and by the possession, or instantiation, of every kind of power <ref>Omnipotence and Quantification; Tersur Aben [44]</ref> | </ref> to limited powers (limited agents), and by the possession, or instantiation, of every kind of power <ref>Omnipotence and Quantification; Tersur Aben [45]</ref> | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Prior to any act, divine omnipotence is perceived as coherent with itself. In other words, omnipotence, as a concept, is immediately coherent. | Prior to any act, divine omnipotence is perceived as coherent with itself. In other words, omnipotence, as a concept, is immediately coherent. | ||
| - | The immediate coherence of the concept of omnipotence is how we even can get the sense that omnipotence is paradoxical: it's immediate coherence is (mis)interpreted as a limitation upon it. Only by allowing that it may apply its own agency upon itself, and, thus, upon the fact that things can be identified, is this supposed limitation remedied. Know-ability is a function of the fact that there is a connection, or correspondence, between the knower and the knowable. But, the position that the immediate coherence of omnipotence is a limitation upon omnipotence is tantamount to the position that the possibility of knowledge constitutes an agent which is distinct from, and superior to, an omnipotent agent. In other words, this position is equivalent to the statement: "rationality is not co-extensive with omnipotence, despite that omnipotence is known immediately to be coherent".<ref>Some Puzzles Concerning Omnipotence; George I. Mavrodes[46]</ref> | + | The immediate coherence of the concept of omnipotence is how we even can get the sense that omnipotence is paradoxical: it's immediate coherence is (mis)interpreted as a limitation upon it. Only by allowing that it may apply its own agency upon itself, and, thus, upon the fact that things can be identified, is this supposed limitation remedied. Know-ability is a function of the fact that there is a connection, or correspondence, between the knower and the knowable. But, the position that the immediate coherence of omnipotence is a limitation upon omnipotence is tantamount to the position that the possibility of knowledge constitutes an agent which is distinct from, and superior to, an omnipotent agent. In other words, this position is equivalent to the statement: "rationality is not co-extensive with omnipotence, despite that omnipotence is known immediately to be coherent".<ref>Some Puzzles Concerning Omnipotence; George I. Mavrodes[47]</ref> In fact, if one maintains the supposedly ‘initial’ position that the (logically) necessary conception of omnipotence includes the 'power' to compromise both itself and all other identity, and if one concludes from this position that omnipotence is epistemologically incoherent, then one implicitly is asserting that one's own ‘initial’ position is incoherent. |
| - | + | ||
== Limited powers == | == Limited powers == | ||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 21:51:16 GMT (edit by PatternOfPersona)
<html>
<head> <title>Essay: Omnipotence, and the logic of power</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Introduction:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 21:51, 25 March 2012 | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
::Symbolic logic---and natural language used more-or-less as if it were such logic---is the resort of minds that struggle to attain and maintain a basic sense of things. In other words, our fallen minds ride logic and language like a fool rides a motorcycle: sensing the power, but insensible to some of the risk.</small> | ::Symbolic logic---and natural language used more-or-less as if it were such logic---is the resort of minds that struggle to attain and maintain a basic sense of things. In other words, our fallen minds ride logic and language like a fool rides a motorcycle: sensing the power, but insensible to some of the risk.</small> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Omnipotence itself is simple. The complexity involved in rightly understanding it---contra all the logic of misunderstanding it---is a function of the fact that omnipotence, like infinity, is perceived at all by contrasting reference to those complex and variable things which it is not. In other words, omnipotence is identified to begin with by exemption from all the kinds of logical possibilities which only limited powers may have in terms of themselves, including multiple instantiation/synthesis/reproduction, complete and semi capitulation, concrete incoherence, and logical duplicity. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The 'omni' in 'omnipotence' is properly in reference to all other agents. This implies that an omnipotent agent is inexhaustibly powerful in its activities with regard to those agents. The common error in thinking about what it must mean for an agent to be omnipotent is in putting omnipotence in adverse relation to all sense, to all identity, such that the 'omni' is seen as being in reference not only to all actual limited agents, but to all agents whatever, and to all sense whatever. But, the fact that identies exist, and can be apprehended by the human mind, implies that there is a set of qualities, or powers, which exist necessarily and co-extensively. This set is the omnipotent agent. | ||
Prior to any act, divine omnipotence is perceived as coherent with itself. In other words, omnipotence, as a concept, is immediately coherent. | Prior to any act, divine omnipotence is perceived as coherent with itself. In other words, omnipotence, as a concept, is immediately coherent. | ||
| Line 21: | Line 25: | ||
The immediate coherence of the concept of omnipotence is how we even can get the sense that omnipotence is paradoxical: it's immediate coherence is (mis)interpreted as a limitation upon it. Only by allowing that it may apply its own agency upon itself, and, thus, upon the fact that things can be identified, is this supposed limitation remedied. Know-ability is a function of the fact that there is a connection, or correspondence, between the knower and the knowable. But, the position that the immediate coherence of omnipotence is a limitation upon omnipotence is tantamount to the position that the possibility of knowledge constitutes an agent which is distinct from, and superior to, an omnipotent agent. In other words, this position is equivalent to the statement: "rationality is not co-extensive with omnipotence, despite that omnipotence is known immediately to be coherent". | The immediate coherence of the concept of omnipotence is how we even can get the sense that omnipotence is paradoxical: it's immediate coherence is (mis)interpreted as a limitation upon it. Only by allowing that it may apply its own agency upon itself, and, thus, upon the fact that things can be identified, is this supposed limitation remedied. Know-ability is a function of the fact that there is a connection, or correspondence, between the knower and the knowable. But, the position that the immediate coherence of omnipotence is a limitation upon omnipotence is tantamount to the position that the possibility of knowledge constitutes an agent which is distinct from, and superior to, an omnipotent agent. In other words, this position is equivalent to the statement: "rationality is not co-extensive with omnipotence, despite that omnipotence is known immediately to be coherent". | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
Most acts which seem not to abide the initial concept of omnipotence are actually precluded by the concept. For example, the act of killing oneself actually is not applicable to an omnipotent being, since, despite that such an act does involve some power, it also involves a lack of power. Other acts simply are difficult to rightly understand, for our failure to observe our own abstraction processes of the things which present the difficulty. So, in posing action questions on omnipotence, we easily fail to consciously apprehend the familiar simplicities by which we abstract the concept in the first place. | Most acts which seem not to abide the initial concept of omnipotence are actually precluded by the concept. For example, the act of killing oneself actually is not applicable to an omnipotent being, since, despite that such an act does involve some power, it also involves a lack of power. Other acts simply are difficult to rightly understand, for our failure to observe our own abstraction processes of the things which present the difficulty. So, in posing action questions on omnipotence, we easily fail to consciously apprehend the familiar simplicities by which we abstract the concept in the first place. | ||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:02:08 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Template:Mainpageright</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 22:02, 25 March 2012 | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<!-- Please, to help with searching of topics, include tag line in edit notes below before saving. EG:"Obama Fails" --> | <!-- Please, to help with searching of topics, include tag line in edit notes below before saving. EG:"Obama Fails" --> | ||
<!--============================BEGIN COPY BELOW THIS LINE!=============================== --> | <!--============================BEGIN COPY BELOW THIS LINE!=============================== --> | ||
| + | Have you ever asked yourself why prominent evolutionists like Richard Dawkins now refuse to publicly debate creationists?[48] | ||
| + | ---- | ||
Conservative Michele Bachmann defends Newt Gingrich's criticism of Barack Obama for making race the issue in the Trayvon Martin tragedy. Bachmann agreed with Gingrich that "race shouldn’t matter, all human life is valuable." [49] | Conservative Michele Bachmann defends Newt Gingrich's criticism of Barack Obama for making race the issue in the Trayvon Martin tragedy. Bachmann agreed with Gingrich that "race shouldn’t matter, all human life is valuable." [50] | ||
---- | ---- | ||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:15:28 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Template:Mainpageleft</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
The Charles Darwin and Adolf Hitler connection
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 22:15, 25 March 2012 | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
== Why is evolution pushed by evolutionists? == | == Why is evolution pushed by evolutionists? == | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:16:13 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Template:Mainpageleft</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
The evolutionary racist Adolf Hitler:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 22:16, 25 March 2012 | ||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
== Why is evolution pushed by evolutionists? == | == Why is evolution pushed by evolutionists? == | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| Line 19: | Line 21: | ||
== The evolutionary racist Adolf Hitler == | == The evolutionary racist Adolf Hitler == | ||
| - | | + | |
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:02:08 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Template:Mainpageright</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 22:02, 25 March 2012 | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<!-- Please, to help with searching of topics, include tag line in edit notes below before saving. EG:"Obama Fails" --> | <!-- Please, to help with searching of topics, include tag line in edit notes below before saving. EG:"Obama Fails" --> | ||
<!--============================BEGIN COPY BELOW THIS LINE!=============================== --> | <!--============================BEGIN COPY BELOW THIS LINE!=============================== --> | ||
| + | Have you ever asked yourself why prominent evolutionists like Richard Dawkins now refuse to publicly debate creationists?[51] | ||
| + | ---- | ||
Conservative Michele Bachmann defends Newt Gingrich's criticism of Barack Obama for making race the issue in the Trayvon Martin tragedy. Bachmann agreed with Gingrich that "race shouldn’t matter, all human life is valuable." [52] | Conservative Michele Bachmann defends Newt Gingrich's criticism of Barack Obama for making race the issue in the Trayvon Martin tragedy. Bachmann agreed with Gingrich that "race shouldn’t matter, all human life is valuable." [53] | ||
---- | ---- | ||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 21:51:16 GMT (edit by PatternOfPersona)
<html>
<head> <title>Essay: Omnipotence, and the logic of power</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Introduction:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 21:51, 25 March 2012 | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
::Symbolic logic---and natural language used more-or-less as if it were such logic---is the resort of minds that struggle to attain and maintain a basic sense of things. In other words, our fallen minds ride logic and language like a fool rides a motorcycle: sensing the power, but insensible to some of the risk.</small> | ::Symbolic logic---and natural language used more-or-less as if it were such logic---is the resort of minds that struggle to attain and maintain a basic sense of things. In other words, our fallen minds ride logic and language like a fool rides a motorcycle: sensing the power, but insensible to some of the risk.</small> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Omnipotence itself is simple. The complexity involved in rightly understanding it---contra all the logic of misunderstanding it---is a function of the fact that omnipotence, like infinity, is perceived at all by contrasting reference to those complex and variable things which it is not. In other words, omnipotence is identified to begin with by exemption from all the kinds of logical possibilities which only limited powers may have in terms of themselves, including multiple instantiation/synthesis/reproduction, complete and semi capitulation, concrete incoherence, and logical duplicity. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The 'omni' in 'omnipotence' is properly in reference to all other agents. This implies that an omnipotent agent is inexhaustibly powerful in its activities with regard to those agents. The common error in thinking about what it must mean for an agent to be omnipotent is in putting omnipotence in adverse relation to all sense, to all identity, such that the 'omni' is seen as being in reference not only to all actual limited agents, but to all agents whatever, and to all sense whatever. But, the fact that identies exist, and can be apprehended by the human mind, implies that there is a set of qualities, or powers, which exist necessarily and co-extensively. This set is the omnipotent agent. | ||
Prior to any act, divine omnipotence is perceived as coherent with itself. In other words, omnipotence, as a concept, is immediately coherent. | Prior to any act, divine omnipotence is perceived as coherent with itself. In other words, omnipotence, as a concept, is immediately coherent. | ||
| Line 21: | Line 25: | ||
The immediate coherence of the concept of omnipotence is how we even can get the sense that omnipotence is paradoxical: it's immediate coherence is (mis)interpreted as a limitation upon it. Only by allowing that it may apply its own agency upon itself, and, thus, upon the fact that things can be identified, is this supposed limitation remedied. Know-ability is a function of the fact that there is a connection, or correspondence, between the knower and the knowable. But, the position that the immediate coherence of omnipotence is a limitation upon omnipotence is tantamount to the position that the possibility of knowledge constitutes an agent which is distinct from, and superior to, an omnipotent agent. In other words, this position is equivalent to the statement: "rationality is not co-extensive with omnipotence, despite that omnipotence is known immediately to be coherent". | The immediate coherence of the concept of omnipotence is how we even can get the sense that omnipotence is paradoxical: it's immediate coherence is (mis)interpreted as a limitation upon it. Only by allowing that it may apply its own agency upon itself, and, thus, upon the fact that things can be identified, is this supposed limitation remedied. Know-ability is a function of the fact that there is a connection, or correspondence, between the knower and the knowable. But, the position that the immediate coherence of omnipotence is a limitation upon omnipotence is tantamount to the position that the possibility of knowledge constitutes an agent which is distinct from, and superior to, an omnipotent agent. In other words, this position is equivalent to the statement: "rationality is not co-extensive with omnipotence, despite that omnipotence is known immediately to be coherent". | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
Most acts which seem not to abide the initial concept of omnipotence are actually precluded by the concept. For example, the act of killing oneself actually is not applicable to an omnipotent being, since, despite that such an act does involve some power, it also involves a lack of power. Other acts simply are difficult to rightly understand, for our failure to observe our own abstraction processes of the things which present the difficulty. So, in posing action questions on omnipotence, we easily fail to consciously apprehend the familiar simplicities by which we abstract the concept in the first place. | Most acts which seem not to abide the initial concept of omnipotence are actually precluded by the concept. For example, the act of killing oneself actually is not applicable to an omnipotent being, since, despite that such an act does involve some power, it also involves a lack of power. Other acts simply are difficult to rightly understand, for our failure to observe our own abstraction processes of the things which present the difficulty. So, in posing action questions on omnipotence, we easily fail to consciously apprehend the familiar simplicities by which we abstract the concept in the first place. | ||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:18:59 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Template:Mainpageleft</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 22:18, 25 March 2012 | ||
| (3 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Conservapedia: Over <big>350 million</big> Views & <!--as of 08/11/11-->940,000 Edits. | Conservapedia: Over <big>350 million</big> Views & <!--as of 08/11/11-->940,000 Edits. | ||
| - | + | == Why is evolution pushed by evolutionists? == | |
| - | + | *[http://creation.com/the-charles-darwin-adolf-hitler-connexion-correcting-misinformation-re-slavery-racism The Charles Darwin - Adolf Hitler connection] | |
| - | + | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
== The evolutionary racist Adolf Hitler == | == The evolutionary racist Adolf Hitler == | ||
| - | | + | |
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:20:32 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Template:Mainpageright</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 22:20, 25 March 2012 | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<!-- Please, to help with searching of topics, include tag line in edit notes below before saving. EG:"Obama Fails" --> | <!-- Please, to help with searching of topics, include tag line in edit notes below before saving. EG:"Obama Fails" --> | ||
<!--============================BEGIN COPY BELOW THIS LINE!=============================== --> | <!--============================BEGIN COPY BELOW THIS LINE!=============================== --> | ||
| + | |||
| + | "Susan G. Komen for the Cure is feeling a pinch on donations following a controversy over its funding for Planned Parenthood, a leading provider of birth-control and abortion services. ... Separately, at least five of the group's leaders have stepped down in recent weeks." [55] | ||
| + | |||
| + | An agnostic British scholar studied the Shroud of Turin and concludes in his new book, The Sign, that the Shroud is authentic and was even the basis of disciples' acceptance of the Resurrection. [56] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
Have you ever asked yourself why prominent evolutionists like Richard Dawkins now refuse to publicly debate creationists?[57] | Have you ever asked yourself why prominent evolutionists like Richard Dawkins now refuse to publicly debate creationists?[58] | ||
---- | ---- | ||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:22:09 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Template:Mainpageright</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 22:22, 25 March 2012 | ||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
<!--============================BEGIN COPY BELOW THIS LINE!=============================== --> | <!--============================BEGIN COPY BELOW THIS LINE!=============================== --> | ||
Have you ever asked yourself why prominent evolutionists like Richard Dawkins now refuse to publicly debate creationists?[59] | Have you ever asked yourself why prominent evolutionists like Richard Dawkins now refuse to publicly debate creationists?[60] | ||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | "Susan G. Komen for the Cure is feeling a pinch on donations following a controversy over its funding for Planned Parenthood, a leading provider of birth-control and abortion services. ... Separately, at least five of the group's leaders have stepped down in recent weeks." [61] | ||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | An agnostic British scholar studied the Shroud of Turin and concludes in his new book, The Sign, that the Shroud is authentic and was even the basis of disciples' acceptance of the Resurrection. [62] | ||
---- | ---- | ||
Conservative Michele Bachmann defends Newt Gingrich's criticism of Barack Obama for making race the issue in the Trayvon Martin tragedy. Bachmann agreed with Gingrich that "race shouldn’t matter, all human life is valuable." [63] | Conservative Michele Bachmann defends Newt Gingrich's criticism of Barack Obama for making race the issue in the Trayvon Martin tragedy. Bachmann agreed with Gingrich that "race shouldn’t matter, all human life is valuable." [64] | ||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:28:53 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Template:Mainpageleft</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Where in the Bible is the trinity first alluded to?:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 22:28, 25 March 2012 | ||
| Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
| - | |||
== Masterpieces == | == Masterpieces == | ||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:42:21 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
soon, the articles already rank high. by the way, it was dubbed "Operation flying fortresses" as in plural
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 22:42, 25 March 2012 | ||
| Line 474: | Line 474: | ||
:::::What I was just about to say. Also his obsessions with Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, obesity and machismo.--HolterSchmitz 19:59, 23 March 2012 (EDT) | :::::What I was just about to say. Also his obsessions with Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, obesity and machismo.--HolterSchmitz 19:59, 23 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
I see some gentlemen still have not figured out why I wrote the homosexuality article. Will I/we take the reason to my/our grave? :) C.S. Lewis said the liberals who engage in criticism of written works in terms of how and why they are written are wrong in 100% of the cases based on his own experience. [65] | I see some gentlemen still have not figured out why I wrote the homosexuality article. Will I/we take the reason to my/our grave? :) C.S. Lewis said the liberals who engage in criticism of written works in terms of how and why they are written are wrong in 100% of the cases based on his own experience. [66] | ||
| - | | + | |
Lastly, as far as some of the articles I wrote, I just saw a need in the marketplace for more comprehensive works. At the time I wrote the atheism article I didn't realize the extent that atheism was a shrinking worldview in terms of its adherents that is expected to further shrink at an accelerated rate (see: Decline of atheism). Why the pixels of the atheism article will barely be dry before atheist population is a shriveled up and emaciated population. And at that time, the atheism article will be of much interest to the general public as an article on Baal worship is today. :) Conservative 20:54, 23 March 2012 (EDT) | Lastly, as far as some of the articles I wrote, I just saw a need in the marketplace for more comprehensive works. At the time I wrote the atheism article I didn't realize the extent that atheism was a shrinking worldview in terms of its adherents that is expected to further shrink at an accelerated rate (see: Decline of atheism). Why the pixels of the atheism article will barely be dry before atheist population is a shriveled up and emaciated population. And at that time, the atheism article will be of much interest to the general public as an article on Baal worship is today. :) Conservative 20:54, 23 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:28:53 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Template:Mainpageleft</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Where in the Bible is the trinity first alluded to?:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 22:28, 25 March 2012 | ||
| Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
| - | |||
== Masterpieces == | == Masterpieces == | ||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:22:09 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Template:Mainpageright</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 22:22, 25 March 2012 | ||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
<!--============================BEGIN COPY BELOW THIS LINE!=============================== --> | <!--============================BEGIN COPY BELOW THIS LINE!=============================== --> | ||
Have you ever asked yourself why prominent evolutionists like Richard Dawkins now refuse to publicly debate creationists?[67] | Have you ever asked yourself why prominent evolutionists like Richard Dawkins now refuse to publicly debate creationists?[68] | ||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | "Susan G. Komen for the Cure is feeling a pinch on donations following a controversy over its funding for Planned Parenthood, a leading provider of birth-control and abortion services. ... Separately, at least five of the group's leaders have stepped down in recent weeks." [69] | ||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | An agnostic British scholar studied the Shroud of Turin and concludes in his new book, The Sign, that the Shroud is authentic and was even the basis of disciples' acceptance of the Resurrection. [70] | ||
---- | ---- | ||
Conservative Michele Bachmann defends Newt Gingrich's criticism of Barack Obama for making race the issue in the Trayvon Martin tragedy. Bachmann agreed with Gingrich that "race shouldn’t matter, all human life is valuable." [71] | Conservative Michele Bachmann defends Newt Gingrich's criticism of Barack Obama for making race the issue in the Trayvon Martin tragedy. Bachmann agreed with Gingrich that "race shouldn’t matter, all human life is valuable." [72] | ||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:18:59 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Template:Mainpageleft</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 22:18, 25 March 2012 | ||
| (3 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Conservapedia: Over <big>350 million</big> Views & <!--as of 08/11/11-->940,000 Edits. | Conservapedia: Over <big>350 million</big> Views & <!--as of 08/11/11-->940,000 Edits. | ||
| - | + | == Why is evolution pushed by evolutionists? == | |
| - | + | *[http://creation.com/the-charles-darwin-adolf-hitler-connexion-correcting-misinformation-re-slavery-racism The Charles Darwin - Adolf Hitler connection] | |
| - | + | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
== The evolutionary racist Adolf Hitler == | == The evolutionary racist Adolf Hitler == | ||
| - | | + | |
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:47:57 GMT (edit by ElmerByrne8)
<html>
<head> <title>User:ElmerByrne8</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
New user account
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:42:21 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
soon, the articles already rank high. by the way, it was dubbed "Operation flying fortresses" as in plural
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 22:42, 25 March 2012 | ||
| Line 474: | Line 474: | ||
:::::What I was just about to say. Also his obsessions with Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, obesity and machismo.--HolterSchmitz 19:59, 23 March 2012 (EDT) | :::::What I was just about to say. Also his obsessions with Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, obesity and machismo.--HolterSchmitz 19:59, 23 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
I see some gentlemen still have not figured out why I wrote the homosexuality article. Will I/we take the reason to my/our grave? :) C.S. Lewis said the liberals who engage in criticism of written works in terms of how and why they are written are wrong in 100% of the cases based on his own experience. [74] | I see some gentlemen still have not figured out why I wrote the homosexuality article. Will I/we take the reason to my/our grave? :) C.S. Lewis said the liberals who engage in criticism of written works in terms of how and why they are written are wrong in 100% of the cases based on his own experience. [75] | ||
| - | | + | |
Lastly, as far as some of the articles I wrote, I just saw a need in the marketplace for more comprehensive works. At the time I wrote the atheism article I didn't realize the extent that atheism was a shrinking worldview in terms of its adherents that is expected to further shrink at an accelerated rate (see: Decline of atheism). Why the pixels of the atheism article will barely be dry before atheist population is a shriveled up and emaciated population. And at that time, the atheism article will be of much interest to the general public as an article on Baal worship is today. :) Conservative 20:54, 23 March 2012 (EDT) | Lastly, as far as some of the articles I wrote, I just saw a need in the marketplace for more comprehensive works. At the time I wrote the atheism article I didn't realize the extent that atheism was a shrinking worldview in terms of its adherents that is expected to further shrink at an accelerated rate (see: Decline of atheism). Why the pixels of the atheism article will barely be dry before atheist population is a shriveled up and emaciated population. And at that time, the atheism article will be of much interest to the general public as an article on Baal worship is today. :) Conservative 20:54, 23 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:55:01 GMT (edit by Efarinholt)
<html>
<head> <title>User:Efarinholt</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
New user account
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:48:57 GMT (edit by TeonSaenz6)
<html>
<head> <title>User:TeonSaenz6</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
New user account
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:56:01 GMT (edit by ElishaGabriel)
<html>
<head> <title>User:ElishaGabriel</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
New user account
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:55:01 GMT (edit by Efarinholt)
<html>
<head> <title>User:Efarinholt</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
New user account
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:48:57 GMT (edit by TeonSaenz6)
<html>
<head> <title>User:TeonSaenz6</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
New user account
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:47:57 GMT (edit by ElmerByrne8)
<html>
<head> <title>User:ElmerByrne8</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
New user account
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 23:08:18 GMT (edit by AddieLogan2)
<html>
<head> <title>User:AddieLogan2</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
New user account
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:56:01 GMT (edit by ElishaGabriel)
<html>
<head> <title>User:ElishaGabriel</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
New user account
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 23:12:03 GMT (edit by MallieVelazquez)
<html>
<head> <title>User:MallieVelazquez</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
New user account
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 23:08:18 GMT (edit by AddieLogan2)
<html>
<head> <title>User:AddieLogan2</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
New user account
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 23:17:50 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>User talk:Aschlafly</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Unit vs. Units: Good suggestion - let's prefer the singular. Thanks.
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 23:17, 25 March 2012 | ||
| Line 143: | Line 143: | ||
Some articles on units use the singular (meter), others the plural: Electron-Volts, Atomic mass units. Could we have some consistency, at least in this matter? IMO the singular is preferable, as when searching for the singular, the plural pops up, too, but not vice versa. | Some articles on units use the singular (meter), others the plural: Electron-Volts, Atomic mass units. Could we have some consistency, at least in this matter? IMO the singular is preferable, as when searching for the singular, the plural pops up, too, but not vice versa. | ||
AugustO 11:33, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | AugustO 11:33, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Good suggestion - let's prefer the singular. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 19:17, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 23:12:03 GMT (edit by MallieVelazquez)
<html>
<head> <title>User:MallieVelazquez</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
New user account
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 23:25:49 GMT (edit by PenelopeP)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Trayvon Martin:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 23:25, 25 March 2012 | ||
| Line 400: | Line 400: | ||
:::::I guess Conservapedia doesn't want to take a stance on gun rights. Interesting. IanR 02:31, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | :::::I guess Conservapedia doesn't want to take a stance on gun rights. Interesting. IanR 02:31, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
::::::Regarding the witness "John" -- has there been confirmation from law enforcement that he made that report to them? KingHanksley 12:45, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ::::::Regarding the witness "John" -- has there been confirmation from law enforcement that he made that report to them? KingHanksley 12:45, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | I don't understand why CP is so lame on this issue. If CP has ambitions to be a leading voice in the conservative movement, shouldn't it be saying: (1) racism is totally wrong, (2) law and order is totally right, (3) we should have respect for the police, who are paid to keep the public safe and who understand that keeping public order involves a lot more than just waving a gun at anyone who looks vaguely out of place (in Trayvon's case, because he was the wrong colour)? I really don't understand why the leadership of CP isn't being more forthright about this case. It's a gilt-edged opportunity to promote genuine conservative values. PenelopeP 19:25, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
==E.L.A.== | ==E.L.A.== | ||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 23:17:50 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>User talk:Aschlafly</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Unit vs. Units: Good suggestion - let's prefer the singular. Thanks.
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 23:17, 25 March 2012 | ||
| Line 143: | Line 143: | ||
Some articles on units use the singular (meter), others the plural: Electron-Volts, Atomic mass units. Could we have some consistency, at least in this matter? IMO the singular is preferable, as when searching for the singular, the plural pops up, too, but not vice versa. | Some articles on units use the singular (meter), others the plural: Electron-Volts, Atomic mass units. Could we have some consistency, at least in this matter? IMO the singular is preferable, as when searching for the singular, the plural pops up, too, but not vice versa. | ||
AugustO 11:33, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | AugustO 11:33, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Good suggestion - let's prefer the singular. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 19:17, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Sun, 25 Mar 2012 23:29:06 GMT (edit by WilcoxD)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Rain:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 23:29, 25 March 2012 | ||
| Line 509: | Line 509: | ||
It is totally hilarious that the atheists' parade was rained out, serves them right. I would just like to ask whether we can actually be sure that this was God's doing. Andy Schlafly said here: "I don't think anyone claims that God is responsible for everything that happens in the world." Can we know for sure that God caused this rain fall, but not, say, last year's tsunami? --FrederickT3 15:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | It is totally hilarious that the atheists' parade was rained out, serves them right. I would just like to ask whether we can actually be sure that this was God's doing. Andy Schlafly said here: "I don't think anyone claims that God is responsible for everything that happens in the world." Can we know for sure that God caused this rain fall, but not, say, last year's tsunami? --FrederickT3 15:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
::What did Jesus say about rain? Didn't He say God causes it to rain on the just and the unjust? Does the book of Job give any clues about weather and weather catastrophes? Conservative 15:12, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ::What did Jesus say about rain? Didn't He say God causes it to rain on the just and the unjust? Does the book of Job give any clues about weather and weather catastrophes? Conservative 15:12, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::::Short memories anyone? WilcoxD 19:29, 25 March 2012 (EDT)  | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 03:44:08 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Rain:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 03:44, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 523: | Line 523: | ||
::Atheists are so simpy though with their "why is their evil" whining. Like, if there was a God, then why is my triple scoop ice cream cone dripping on my hand and why did it rain on my parade? Of course, Christian apologists have a ready defense about the existence of evil which confounds simpy atheists: Atheism and the Problem of Evil No doubt any pockets of whiny and simpy atheist resistence is going to be easily defeated with the Question evolution! campaign and other Christian initiatives. Conservative 22:51, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ::Atheists are so simpy though with their "why is their evil" whining. Like, if there was a God, then why is my triple scoop ice cream cone dripping on my hand and why did it rain on my parade? Of course, Christian apologists have a ready defense about the existence of evil which confounds simpy atheists: Atheism and the Problem of Evil No doubt any pockets of whiny and simpy atheist resistence is going to be easily defeated with the Question evolution! campaign and other Christian initiatives. Conservative 22:51, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
:::Conservative, did you ever play Mad Libs as a kid? It's the game where you supply a random collection of nouns, verbs, adjectives... etc. that get placed randomly into a pre-written story. The end results can be quite comical. Anyway, that's what many of your replies read like. Either that, or a poorly written Turing program. --JoshuaB 23:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | :::Conservative, did you ever play Mad Libs as a kid? It's the game where you supply a random collection of nouns, verbs, adjectives... etc. that get placed randomly into a pre-written story. The end results can be quite comical. Anyway, that's what many of your replies read like. Either that, or a poorly written Turing program. --JoshuaB 23:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::JoshuaB, why don't you show me how it's done. Show me a well written article that you have written which has received a wide readership. Of course, we both know that is not going to happen, don't we? The "criticmeister" is no doubt quite lame when it comes to his own writing. Conservative 23:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 03:19:49 GMT (edit by JoshuaB)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Rain:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 03:19, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 522: | Line 522: | ||
or maybe it was just rain, without any political implications? | or maybe it was just rain, without any political implications? | ||
::Atheists are so simpy though with their "why is their evil" whining. Like, if there was a God, then why is my triple scoop ice cream cone dripping on my hand and why did it rain on my parade? Of course, Christian apologists have a ready defense about the existence of evil which confounds simpy atheists: Atheism and the Problem of Evil No doubt any pockets of whiny and simpy atheist resistence is going to be easily defeated with the Question evolution! campaign and other Christian initiatives. Conservative 22:51, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ::Atheists are so simpy though with their "why is their evil" whining. Like, if there was a God, then why is my triple scoop ice cream cone dripping on my hand and why did it rain on my parade? Of course, Christian apologists have a ready defense about the existence of evil which confounds simpy atheists: Atheism and the Problem of Evil No doubt any pockets of whiny and simpy atheist resistence is going to be easily defeated with the Question evolution! campaign and other Christian initiatives. Conservative 22:51, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | :::Conservative, did you ever play Mad Libs as a kid? It's the game where you supply a random collection of nouns, verbs, adjectives... etc. that get placed randomly into a pre-written story. The end results can be quite comical. Anyway, that's what many of your replies read like. Either that, or a poorly written Turing program. --JoshuaB 23:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 03:11:43 GMT (edit by JoshuaB)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Question:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 03:11, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
:::::Also, did you ever answer my simple question on Talk:Main Page about how much time you've spent reading the Bible this month?--Andy Schlafly 22:50, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | :::::Also, did you ever answer my simple question on Talk:Main Page about how much time you've spent reading the Bible this month?--Andy Schlafly 22:50, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::::::Come off it Schlafly. This article is not about my Bible reading, is it? No. Does my opinion of the publishing criteria of physics academia have any bearing on the assertions you are trying make? No. Again: Do you not accept that mass and energy are interchangeable or is it a problem with this specific equation? --JoshuaB 23:11, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 02:58:01 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Rain:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 02:58, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 521: | Line 521: | ||
or maybe it was just rain, without any political implications? | or maybe it was just rain, without any political implications? | ||
| - | ::Atheists are so simpy though with their "why is their evil" whining. Like, if there was a God, then why is my triple scoop ice cream cone dripping on my hand and why did it rain on my parade? Of course, Christian apologists have a ready defense about the existence of evil which confounds simpy atheists: Atheism and the Problem of Evil No doubt whiny and simpy | + | ::Atheists are so simpy though with their "why is their evil" whining. Like, if there was a God, then why is my triple scoop ice cream cone dripping on my hand and why did it rain on my parade? Of course, Christian apologists have a ready defense about the existence of evil which confounds simpy atheists: Atheism and the Problem of Evil No doubt any pockets of whiny and simpy atheist resistence is going to be easily defeated with the Question evolution! campaign and other Christian initiatives. Conservative 22:51, 25 March 2012 (EDT) |
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 02:57:04 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
improved
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 02:57, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis. | Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis. | ||
| - | Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of gravity. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge, having nothing to do with gravity. Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge. | + | Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of gravity. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity. Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge. |
For more than a century, the claim that E=mc<sup>2</sup> has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the lamestream media. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons, and in the study of antimatter.<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc<sup>2</sup>." October 11, 2005. PBS NOVA. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref> | For more than a century, the claim that E=mc<sup>2</sup> has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the lamestream media. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons, and in the study of antimatter.<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc<sup>2</sup>." October 11, 2005. PBS NOVA. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref> | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 02:53:39 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Rain:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 02:53, 26 March 2012 | ||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 521: | Line 521: | ||
or maybe it was just rain, without any political implications? | or maybe it was just rain, without any political implications? | ||
| + | ::Atheists are so simpy though with their "why is their evil" whining. Like, if there was a God, then why is my triple scoop ice cream cone dripping on my hand and why did it rain on my parade? Of course, Christian apologists have a ready defense about the existence of evil which confounds simpy atheists: Atheism and the Problem of Evil No doubt whiny and simpy atheists are going to be easily defeated with the Question evolution! campaign. Conservative 22:51, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 02:50:14 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Question: The qualifications on your answer render it almost meaningless.
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 02:50, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
::::Yes. We already know the Theory of Relativity is an incomplete model of our universe. So yes, the theory may be "false", but the one that takes it's place will most likely have many of the same properties. Secondly, would I approve of a "well-written paper that criticized it"? I don't know what that means. I'm not a physicist, so I don't see what difference my "approval" of said paper would make. Now that I've been so kind as to answer your questions, would you return the courtesy and answer the ones I posted above? --JoshuaB 22:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ::::Yes. We already know the Theory of Relativity is an incomplete model of our universe. So yes, the theory may be "false", but the one that takes it's place will most likely have many of the same properties. Secondly, would I approve of a "well-written paper that criticized it"? I don't know what that means. I'm not a physicist, so I don't see what difference my "approval" of said paper would make. Now that I've been so kind as to answer your questions, would you return the courtesy and answer the ones I posted above? --JoshuaB 22:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::::The qualifications on your answer render it almost meaningless. I'm not asking whether your approval of a paper would make a difference, or your opinion about whether you think the replacement of the Theory of Relativity will "most likely" be another theory of relativity. The question was simple and straightforward, referring to a paper critical of the theory of relativity without any appeasement to those who insist on believing in it. An unqualified answer is requested. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::::Also, did you ever answer my simple question on Talk:Main Page about how much time you've spent reading the Bible this month?--Andy Schlafly 22:50, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 02:44:27 GMT (edit by DorMouse)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Rain:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 02:44, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 519: | Line 519: | ||
 | | ||
:::Please see: Essay: The "Reason Rally" was so depressing Conservative 21:16, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | :::Please see: Essay: The "Reason Rally" was so depressing Conservative 21:16, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| - | + | ||
| + | or maybe it was just rain, without any political implications? | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 02:40:12 GMT (edit by JoshuaB)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Rain:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 02:40, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 519: | Line 519: | ||
| | | ||
:::Please see: Essay: The "Reason Rally" was so depressing Conservative 21:16, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | :::Please see: Essay: The "Reason Rally" was so depressing Conservative 21:16, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 02:35:46 GMT (edit by JoshuaB)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Question:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 02:35, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
:::JoshuaB, do you accept the possibility that the Theory of Relativity may be false, and would you approve a well-written paper that criticized it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question.--Andy Schlafly 21:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | :::JoshuaB, do you accept the possibility that the Theory of Relativity may be false, and would you approve a well-written paper that criticized it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question.--Andy Schlafly 21:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::::Yes. We already know the Theory of Relativity is an incomplete model of our universe. So yes, the theory may be "false", but the one that takes it's place will most likely have many of the same properties. Secondly, would I approve of a "well-written paper that criticized it"? I don't know what that means. I'm not a physicist, so I don't see what difference my "approval" of said paper would make. Now that I've been so kind as to answer your questions, would you return the courtesy and answer the ones I posted above? --JoshuaB 22:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 02:33:13 GMT (edit by DorMouse)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Main Page Left:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 02:33, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 500: | Line 500: | ||
:::RobS, do you imagine writing high traffic articles? Why don't you launch your own wiki if you are so unhappy? Show the world how it's done since you are often telling people how it should be done. Conservative 13:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | :::RobS, do you imagine writing high traffic articles? Why don't you launch your own wiki if you are so unhappy? Show the world how it's done since you are often telling people how it should be done. Conservative 13:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
And a message to certain gentlemen: Last time I checked, your website still was not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article (Even your fellow liberals don't respect you). :) Conservative 14:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | And a message to certain gentlemen: Last time I checked, your website still was not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article (Even your fellow liberals don't respect you). :) Conservative 14:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Newton, you have your own account at "that other site", so instead of posting red telephone messages that cast serious doubt on your sanity, why not use it?22:33, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
== Conservapedia Sports? == | == Conservapedia Sports? == | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 02:24:00 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
<a href="/Mass" class="mw-redirect" title="Mass">Mass</a> is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of <a href="/Gravity" class="mw-redirect" title="Gravity">gravity</a>. In contrast, the intrinsic <a href="/Energy" title="Energy">energy</a> of an object (such as an <a href="/Atom" title="Atom">atom</a>) is a function of electrost
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 02:24, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis. | Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of gravity. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge, having nothing to do with gravity. Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge. | ||
For more than a century, the claim that E=mc<sup>2</sup> has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the lamestream media. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons, and in the study of antimatter.<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc<sup>2</sup>." October 11, 2005. PBS NOVA. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref> | For more than a century, the claim that E=mc<sup>2</sup> has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the lamestream media. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons, and in the study of antimatter.<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc<sup>2</sup>." October 11, 2005. PBS NOVA. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref> | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 02:18:03 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Essay: The "Reason Rally" was so depressing</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
See also:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 02:18, 26 March 2012 | ||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Essays: | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
Other resources: | Other resources: | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 02:13:05 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>Template:Mainpageright</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 02:13, 26 March 2012 | ||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<!-- Please, to help with searching of topics, include tag line in edit notes below before saving. EG:"Obama Fails" --> | <!-- Please, to help with searching of topics, include tag line in edit notes below before saving. EG:"Obama Fails" --> | ||
<!--============================BEGIN COPY BELOW THIS LINE!=============================== --> | <!--============================BEGIN COPY BELOW THIS LINE!=============================== --> | ||
| + | "Why isn't there more outrage when innocent kids die in Detroit? ... What have we done for Delric? Or Kade'jah? Or Je'Rean? They were black kids, too. They were innocent. And they were killed for stupid, stupid reasons right here in Detroit," writes Opinion Editor Stephen Henderson. | ||
| + | ---- | ||
No doubt very angry that atheists are but a squeak in American society and are destined to become a half a squeak [83][84], some atheists wash road Christians anointed with oil.[85] | No doubt very angry that atheists are but a squeak in American society and are destined to become a half a squeak [86][87], some atheists wash road Christians anointed with oil.[88] | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:59:56 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Template:Mainpageright</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 01:59, 26 March 2012 | ||
| (2 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<!-- Please, to help with searching of topics, include tag line in edit notes below before saving. EG:"Obama Fails" --> | <!-- Please, to help with searching of topics, include tag line in edit notes below before saving. EG:"Obama Fails" --> | ||
<!--============================BEGIN COPY BELOW THIS LINE!=============================== --> | <!--============================BEGIN COPY BELOW THIS LINE!=============================== --> | ||
| + | No doubt very angry that atheists are but a squeak in American society and are destined to become a half a squeak [89][90], some atheists wash road Christians anointed with oil.[91] | ||
| + | |||
| + | On a related note, please read the new Conservapedia comedy/satire entitled The "Reason Rally" was so depressing | ||
| + | ---- | ||
The high speed Question evolution! campaign booklet composition train is leaving the station![92] | The high speed Question evolution! campaign booklet composition train is leaving the station![93] | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:55:58 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Question: do you accept the possibility that the <a href="/Theory_of_Relativity" class="mw-redirect" title="Theory of Relativity">Theory of Relativity</a> may be false, and would you approve a well-written paper that criticized it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question.
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 01:55, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
::Why won't a peer-reviewed journal publish a criticism of SR or GR? Liberal conspiracy? Also, do you not accept that mass and energy are interchangeable or is it a problem with this specific equation? --JoshuaB 21:24, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ::Why won't a peer-reviewed journal publish a criticism of SR or GR? Liberal conspiracy? Also, do you not accept that mass and energy are interchangeable or is it a problem with this specific equation? --JoshuaB 21:24, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::JoshuaB, do you accept the possibility that the Theory of Relativity may be false, and would you approve a well-written paper that criticized it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question.--Andy Schlafly 21:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:36:55 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Essay: The "Reason Rally" was so depressing</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
See also:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 01:36, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| + | |||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:33:52 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Rain:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 01:33, 26 March 2012 | ||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 515: | Line 515: | ||
::::It is a glorious time to be a Bible believer and a depressing time to be an atheist (see: Atheism and depression). Conservative 20:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ::::It is a glorious time to be a Bible believer and a depressing time to be an atheist (see: Atheism and depression). Conservative 20:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| - | | + | |
:::Please see: Essay: The "Reason Rally" was so depressing Conservative 21:16, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | :::Please see: Essay: The "Reason Rally" was so depressing Conservative 21:16, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:31:12 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Essay: The "Reason Rally" was so depressing</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 01:31, 26 March 2012 | ||
| (2 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | | + | |
| + | <br /><br /> | ||
| + | See also: [[Atheism and depression]] and Global atheism is shrinking | ||
== The Almighty caused it to rain on the "Reason Rally" == | == The Almighty caused it to rain on the "Reason Rally" == | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:24:54 GMT (edit by JoshuaB)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 01:24, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
:Peer-reviewed journals won't publish a criticism of relativity. That's obvious. Although I don't have a copy of the full paper, I doubt it attempts to fully support the hearsay that was excluded, and I would not be surprised if it was included simply to safeguard against complaints for what followed. It adds nothing to the basic point that follows and is quoted here.--Andy Schlafly 21:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | :Peer-reviewed journals won't publish a criticism of relativity. That's obvious. Although I don't have a copy of the full paper, I doubt it attempts to fully support the hearsay that was excluded, and I would not be surprised if it was included simply to safeguard against complaints for what followed. It adds nothing to the basic point that follows and is quoted here.--Andy Schlafly 21:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::Why won't a peer-reviewed journal publish a criticism of SR or GR? Liberal conspiracy? Also, do you not accept that mass and energy are interchangeable or is it a problem with this specific equation? --JoshuaB 21:24, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:23:31 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Essay: The "Reason Rally" was so depressing</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
See also:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 01:23, 26 March 2012 | ||
| (4 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
== The Almighty caused it to rain on the "Reason Rally" == | == The Almighty caused it to rain on the "Reason Rally" == | ||
| - | | ||
[94] The Almighty rained on your parade atheists. What are you going to do about it? | [95] The Almighty rained on your parade atheists. What are you going to do about it? | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| - | Other resources: | + | Other resources: |
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:20:18 GMT (edit by JoshuaB)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Irrelevant claims:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 01:20, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
::::::::Then why do you insist with this anti-religious pseudoscience?--DavidEdwards 14:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ::::::::Then why do you insist with this anti-religious pseudoscience?--DavidEdwards 14:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
← Now you have intrigued me: what's your definition of pseudoscience? AugustO 14:45, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ← Now you have intrigued me: what's your definition of pseudoscience? AugustO 14:45, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Pssst! DavidEdwards! You're trying waaaaay too hard. --JoshuaB 21:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
=Question= | =Question= | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:20:17 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Essay: The "Reason Rally" was so depressing</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
The Almighty caused it to rain on the "Reason Rally":
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 01:20, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
== The Almighty caused it to rain on the "Reason Rally" == | == The Almighty caused it to rain on the "Reason Rally" == | ||
| - | | + | |
[96] The Almighty rained on your parade atheists. What are you going to do about it? | [97] The Almighty rained on your parade atheists. What are you going to do about it? | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:19:00 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Question: I would not be surprised if it was included simply to safeguard against complaints for what followed. It adds nothing to the basic point that follows and is quoted here.
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 01:19, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
=Question= | =Question= | ||
This snipet of sentence appears in the introduction: "...a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory." Let's compare that to the entire sentence it was lifted from: "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory." One can't help but notice that the part of the sentence that states that the theory has been observed to be valid in real world experimentation, has been surgically removed. Why is this? Is it because it stands in contradiction to the claim the lead author of this article is trying to promulgate? --JoshuaB 20:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | This snipet of sentence appears in the introduction: "...a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory." Let's compare that to the entire sentence it was lifted from: "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory." One can't help but notice that the part of the sentence that states that the theory has been observed to be valid in real world experimentation, has been surgically removed. Why is this? Is it because it stands in contradiction to the claim the lead author of this article is trying to promulgate? --JoshuaB 20:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Peer-reviewed journals won't publish a criticism of relativity. That's obvious. Although I don't have a copy of the full paper, I doubt it attempts to fully support the hearsay that was excluded, and I would not be surprised if it was included simply to safeguard against complaints for what followed. It adds nothing to the basic point that follows and is quoted here.--Andy Schlafly 21:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:16:56 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Rain:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 01:16, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 516: | Line 516: | ||
::::It is a glorious time to be a Bible believer and a depressing time to be an atheist (see: Atheism and depression). Conservative 20:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ::::It is a glorious time to be a Bible believer and a depressing time to be an atheist (see: Atheism and depression). Conservative 20:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| | | ||
| + | :::Please see: Essay: The "Reason Rally" was so depressing Conservative 21:16, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:14:00 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Essay: The "Reason Rally" was so depressing</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
The Almighty caused it to rain on the "Reason Rally":
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 01:14, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
== The Almighty caused it to rain on the "Reason Rally" == | == The Almighty caused it to rain on the "Reason Rally" == | ||
| - | | + | |
[98] The Almighty rained on your parade atheists. What are you going to do about it? | [99] The Almighty rained on your parade atheists. What are you going to do about it? | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:13:15 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Essay:Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 01:13, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| + | |||
</body>
</html>
