Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Theory of relativity

2018-09-06T03:23:46Z

Brossa: /* Numbers for claims about Mercury's precession. */

{| style=" width:95%; text-align:left; background:{{{background}}}; color:{{{color|black}}}; border:3px solid black; clear:both " align="center"
|-
|width="2%" style="text-align:center" cellpadding="5"|'''!'''
|'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''

'''Raising arguments which have been discussed before wastes the time of valuable editors and repeatedly doing so violates [[90/10]].'''

For older discussions, see the archive [[Talk:Theory of relativity/index|index]]. 
|valign="top" style="text-align:right"|[[Image:Conservlogo.png|65px]]
|}


== Special relativity and evidence ==
Many objects have been accelerated to velocities near the speed of light (in particle colliders) and it is easily observed that the rate at which those objects speed up as a constant force is applied is (very precisely) consistent with special relativity and not Gallilean relativity. That is, as their measured speed approaches the speed of light, that speed increases less and less in response to each "push" even though the "pushes" remain the same strength, thus apparently violating Newton's F = ma. On the other hand, Einstein's famous E = gamma * mc^2 appears to describe their rate of acceleration very accurately. I don't understand how this article proposes to surmount that objection. [[User:ZeroThree|ZeroThree]] 15:47, 28 October 2012 (EDT)

== Mass depending on direction ==

The article states:
:''There is a logical difficulty, however, to an increase in relativistic mass. Such increase would only exist in the direction of motion, and the rest mass would remain intact with respect to a force applied in a direction orthogonal to velocity. Neither mass nor energy is a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is illogical.''

As [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] on 8 July 2007 (EDT): ''This paragraph is nonsense [..] The relativistic mass applies no matter what the direction of the force is.''

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:45, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Neutrinos now obey speed limit ==

The observation sited in the first sentence of this article has been discredited. [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp] It appears that a loose fiber-optics cable is to blame for the misreadings. I suggest editing this first sentence, and any other mention of this in the article.--[[User:CarloP|CarloP]] 18:51, 2 March 2012 (EST)

:Issues concerning the neutrino experiment are not yet fully resolved. No problam: I replaced it with another counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:12, 2 March 2012 (EST)

== Why does Conservapedia seek to discredit Relativity ==

Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?

Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:''Conservapedia'' seeks the truth, not merely what the [[lamestream media]] claim is the truth. Moreover, once one accepts a logical fallacy, then anything false can be proven from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:: Ahh.... But the fact that the conclusion is false does not necessarily render the basis false. I could say "Andy Schlafly founded Conservapedia and therefore I am a pig monkey." I am not a pig monkey, and even if I were, that has nothing to do with you founding this website. But you still did. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:58, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:When looking around the internet, it is obvious that Conservapedia's classification of relativity as [[pseudoscience]] is a source of some amusement and contempt. Aschlafly, could you please answer the two questions I raised above? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:27, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, liberal peer pressure from "around the internet" does not illuminate the truth. If what liberals on the internet said made a dime's bit of difference, then the [[Bible]] would not be the best selling book (by far) and the percentage of people who are [[conservative]] would not be growing (as it does).

::"Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?" Because it's false, it confuses people, it misleads people into stop reading the Bible, and its orthodoxy interferes with the advancement of science for the benefit of all. Other than that, it's not a bad theory!

::"Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition?" The only bias is by liberals who shout down any criticism of the theory. If the theory were so clearly true, then there would be no need for some liberals to rely on [[censorship]] in propping it up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:10, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== GPS and Relativity ==

I note that anyone using a GPS is relying on the Theory of Relativity being true, since calculations derived from Relativity are used within a GPS. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:GPS does '''''not''''' rely on the [[Theory of Relativity]], and this has been thoroughly explained on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

::Hi Aschlafly, I've located at least some of the discussion re GPS in the archives of this talk page, and there a lot of references for me to examine before I can make any further serious comments; certainly there are some references which appear to state that GPS relies on relativity. Can you perhaps draw my attention to what you consider the most important (half-dozen or so) references which indicate that the GPS system does NOT rely on relativity so that I have somewhere to start from? In the meantime I'll continue editing and improving less controversial articles as I have been doing for the last two months (my talk page lists nearly 40 articles I can usefully contribute to). [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:17, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:::This note 7 is on [[Counterexamples to Relativity]]:

::::Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”

:::The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing: the small effects claimed by the special and general theories nearly cancel each other out for orbiting satellites. From an engineering perspective, it makes far more sense simply to adjust the clocks using synchronization rather than relying on (dubious) theoretical claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Another false claim because of sloppy reading: In the same source by The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, you can find how the authors Fliegel and DiEsposti describe what is happening to the clocks in the satellites:
''Since GPS receivers work in the time and not in the frequency domain, they handle the velocity, gravity, and acceleration shifts differently than described above. First, each GPS space vehicle (SV) clock is offset from its nominal rate by about -4.45 × 10-10 (= -38 microseconds per day) to allow for the relativistic offsets between the differences between the SV and the ground. Of this -38 microseconds per day, about -45 are due to the gravitational potential difference between the SV at its mean distance and the earth's surface, and +7 to the mean SV speed, which is about 3.87 km/sec. (p. 193).

The text is about the necessity of ''further'' corrections by the ''operational control system'' - there are corrections ''already'' installed in the clocks!

''The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing:'' This sentence is wrong. It has shown to be wrong a couple of times, so it starts to become a lie. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:12, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Theory of Relativity]] was not used to develop GPS, nor would it be sensible to waste time and money doing so. Synchronization is cheaper, simpler, and more reliable. The above quote does not contradict this obvious truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:32, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

::The fact that these offsets are implemented in the clocks '''in accord with the theory of relativity''' as you can read in the very source you quoted shows that the [[Theory of Relativity]] is used in the GPS - and this from the very beginning of the project! Please, start to read your sources - completely! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:37, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Please, before we get into any more debate, could someone supply some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:41, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly took his quote from [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] by Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond S. DiEsposti (though he probably isn't aware of this). The paper is about relativistic effects due to moving GPS-'''''receivers''''' (or GPS-receivers in high altitudes) and comes to the conclusion, that at the moment, they don't have to include additional relativistic corrections.

:Aschlafly interprets this as if ''no'' relativistic corrections are implemented in the GPS.
:However, in the paper itself, you will find the section I quoted above, where the authors describe such very corrections within the clocks of the satellites.
:I'm afraid that Aschlafly won't come up with ''some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS'' as there aren't any.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:53, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Folks, the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the [[Theory of Relativity]] was used to design GPS. That burden includes describing who, when, where, how, and why. It didn't happen. And if it did, the person who wasted time and money on such a frivolous approach should explain the mistake, because engineers can simply synchronize the clocks far more accurately than the theory ever could.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:It looks to me as if you are trying to put impossible conditions prior to any debate. To avoid a lengthy debate all you have to do is produce some actual references which support your point of view. Is this too much to ask?

:If it didn't happen then you should be able to produce some evidence of this, so '''some actual references please'''. The only 'evidence' you have produced so far is an out-of-context quote from a paper which is concerned primarily with GPS receivers (that same paper mentions the use of relativity-related adjustments to the clocks on the GPS satellite transmitters). Surely you must have more than this. Will you accept evidence from engineers and companies involved in designing and building the GPS system? If not, why not? Who would you accept evidence from? The US Department of Defense? Do you seriously expect a member of the public to be able to access internal design documents as your "who, when, where, how, and why" statement implies?

:If you care to check my contribution history you will see that I am actively contributing non-controversial information to articles. This discussion re GPS etc. is only a small part of my activities on Conservapedia. Since I've barely started on considering and consolidating what evidence there is re GPS I would rather have a week or so to look at the evidence before getting into a debate. This should give you ample time to come up with some references to support the separation of GPS and relativity. Simple searches via Google turn up numerous instances where relativity is claimed to be relevant to GPS, but I can't find anything to the contrary and '''I need your help to do so'''. I would really like to see evidence from '''both sides''' of the discussion before entering the debate, so '''some actual references please'''. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 19:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, you're requesting proof that something didn't happen. Moreover, someone with an engineering background (such as myself) would not expect it to have happened. It is like asking for a reference that no green cheese was found on the Moon. No such scientific reference is likely to exist, nor would anyone expect such a reference to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:28, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:: Every single article on GPS says that relativistic adjustments are made to the satellite clocks. Some give the formulas and some give quantitative data on the adjustments. Textbooks explain why the adjustments are necessary. I don't see any reason to doubt that GPS uses relativistic adjustments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:52, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::GPS does make synchronizing adjustments. Call them whatever you like, but those adjustments are not made based on predictions by the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Indeed, it would be a silly waste of time and money to synchronize in such a manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::: Unless you drive the flying Delorean from ''Back to the Future'', relativity would say that its effect on your car when you're driving at normal speeds is so small it need not be accounting for. The normal error for GPS (about 40 feet) is many magnitudes higher than the error relativity would cause. Now, the GPS in the Flying DeLorean would be another issue. But until that's invented, let's not worry about it, ok? Of course, if you were orienteering, your speed would be even slower than if you were driving. Indeed, if you were moving at any normal speed (even a supersonic jet), relativity would be incredibly small (assuming that it exists as scientists explain it). [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:14, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::''GPS does make synchronizing adjustments'' Not only simple synchronizing: read the specifications for the GPS, read the sources ''in full'' which you are quoting, and you will see that all these engineers and scientists don't give a damn that you think that they are wasting ''time and money''.
:::::Aschlafly, your position is only tenable as you are willing to ignore most of the data which is presented to you. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:12, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, please correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you believe very firmly that relativity has nothing to do with GPS, even though you are unwilling to present any evidence to support this belief, and wish to put severe restrictions on what 'proof' of the relationship other folks may present. I raised some five questions above as to what sort of evidence you might consider. Could you please answer these questions.

::I'd like to ask Mr. Schafly if he could explain what the clock adjustments on GPS satellites are for, the article is not clear, and neither is anything on this talk page.--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:44, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Cahnkj, herewith a summary of the clock-adjustment situation as I (RolandPlankton) see it. Newton's equations of motions say nothing about how clocks keep time. Einstein's equations of relativity imply that identical clocks will vary in their timekeeping (tick at different rates) if they are travelling at different speeds, or if they are at different heights in a gravitational field, or if they are subject to different accelerations; see [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview]. Now the satellites used in the GPS system require very accurate clocks which are in step with ground-based clocks. The paper just quoted provides the various relativistic equations which apply - the satellites are travelling faster than a ground-based receiver, and are at a different height in a gravitational field. Prior to launch the clocks in the GPS satellites are deliberately set to a different tick rate from ground-based clocks, so that when they are in orbit the clocks will appear to tick at the same rate; the difference in tick rates is about 38 nanoseconds per day, and this adjustment can be calculated from the relevant relativistic equations.

:::But the problem is that Aschlafly rejects the Theory of Relativity, and hence rejects any calculation based on that. The only serious argument he has put forth on this current talk page (see preceding section) is an appeal to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Truth the truth]; the quote he provides above is also demolished above. You may wish to consult [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], which is rebutted point by point in [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]].

:::Hope this doesn't add too much to the confusion. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 12:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::Mr. Schlafly states above that "the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the Theory of Relativity was used to design GPS." (This is a fair requirement, and it seems as this has been done when AugustO referred to the Fliegel and DiEsposti paper above.)

::::But really, isn't the burden of proof on anyone who claims ''anything'' on this site, since Conservapedia Commandment #1 states that "everything you post must be true and verifiable" and Commandment #2 states that users should "always cite and give credit to <nowiki>[their]</nowiki> sources?" --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 19:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Good point. Anyone who asserts ''on this site'' that GPS was designed based on the [[Theory of Relativity]] needs to prove the claim. Note that the claim is implausible because it is cheaper, easier, and more precise to synchronize GPS based on observations rather than theoretical speculation. Also note that no [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for verification of the [[Theory of Relativity]] with GPS.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:55, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::Whether GPS was designed based on Relativity or not may be irrelevant. Whether or not Relativity is necessary for the clocks to run efficiently and accurately, also irrelevant. Observations of the satellites are still consistent with the predictions of General and Special Relativity as evidenced here: http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp. Please not that this is an article by the same Tom Van Flandern quoted on this site as saying that relativity is unnecessary for GPS calculations, so I trust this is a source you will accept. Here he is saying here that while relativity may be UNNECESSARY for those calculations, it is still CONFIRMED by our observations.[[User:Williagz|Gus Williams]] 14:03, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

===A Separate Question for Mr. Schlafly About References===

::Aschlafly, as a separate issue, in view of of your apparent attitude to references, could I ask you to have a look at the articles I have been working on over the last two months: [[Pi]], [[Programming language]], [[Compiler]], and the work-in-progress [[Chomsky hierarchy]]. Obviously I'm only asking you to consider the changes I have made. In particular, can you check if the references are acceptable to you, and can you also check that the general style and level of writing is in accordance with Conservapedia's aims? The next article I intend to turn my intention to is [[Context-Free Grammar]], since it seems to me that this fails to satisfy [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Style]] "Articles on complex topics need an introduction which assumes little or no previous knowledge". [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:03, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Roland, your good edits are appreciated and I've seen no complaints about them. I agree that the [[Context-Free Grammar]] would benefit from a better introduction and look forward to reading what you add there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

===READ THE MANUAL===
This debate seems pretty ridiculous, given that GPS is a public system with open specifications. If you're building a GPS receiver you do, in fact, need to compensate for relativistic effects. The correction equations that must be used on the receiving side equipment are given in the official GPS interface specification, IS-GPS-200G [http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200G.pdf], p.92. section 20.3.3.3.3.1: User Algorithm for SV Clock Correction.

<blockquote>
The polynomial defined in the
following allows the user to determine the effective SV PRN code phase offset referenced to the
phase center of the antennas with respect to GPS system time (t) at the time of data
transmission. The coefficients transmitted in subframe 1 describe the offset apparent to the two frequency
user for the interval of time in which the parameters are transmitted. This estimated
correction accounts for the deterministic SV clock error characteristics of bias, drift and aging, as
well as for the SV implementation characteristics of group delay bias and mean differential
group delay. '''Since these coefficients do not include corrections for relativistic effects, the user's equipment must determine the requisite relativistic correction. Accordingly, the offset given below includes a term to perform this function'''...
</blockquote>
I did not include the equations here, but they're given in the manual. --[[User:Smac56|Smac56]] 16:54, 7 December 2014 (EST)

== Why are adjustments needed to GPS? ==

A good question was raised above: if synchronization to GPS is not due to the [[Theory of Relativity]], then what is it due to?

And the answer is simply this: [[quantum mechanics]]. There are fundamental uncertainties, and those uncertainties will lead to clock differences. Otherwise a [[perpetual motion machine]] would be possible. It isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

Where to start with this. This is so bad it isn't even wrong. Could I respectfully suggest that you confine your efforts to areas you understand at least a little bit.

The impossibility of perpetual motion has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. It comes from the 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics and predates quantum mechanics by at least 100 years.

The uncertainty principle is also completely irrelevant. If we imagine a 100 kg satellite moving at a velocity of approximately 100 km/s (this is three times the earth's velocity , so is a plausible and easy to handle number). If we know the satelites location to an uncertainty of 1cm then the uncertainty on its velocity implied by the uncertainty principle is 1 part in 10^39 (i.e. completely negligable).[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 13:10, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

:Well, this is progress indeed. Could you please provide references to support the contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects?

:Also, as an aside, how do you say that fundamental uncertainties described by quantum mechanics relate to the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine? Not sure I follow you there. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 23:36, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::It's basic logic. Unless someone denies [[quantum mechanics]] and the fundamental uncertainties it describes -- and many [[Relativists]] do deny it -- then synchronization will be required as a logical result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Do you have any references? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::I haven't looked ... nor is it necessary to. I wouldn't look for references to confirm any logical statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:14, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Really? Is it fair to say then that this contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects is not something that you have read about but rather something that you yourself concluded from your own knowledge of quantum mechanics and GPS systems? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::P.S. As a result of this discussion I found a couple of articles which appear to confirm that GPS satellites have their clocks adjusted by about 38,000 nanoseconds per day before launch in compliance with relitavistic predictions (both Special and General Relativity are taken into account). The articles are [http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp here] and [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html here]. Is there really any question that this is what is happening? I would think that if these sources are to be questioned that some sort of reference should be provided. A mere assertion that the adjustments are as a result of quantum mechanical effects and that it is a matter of logic would not usually be enough for any serious encyclopedia. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::The references are [[hearsay]]. Logic is far more compelling, more efficient, and more likely to lead to the correct result.

::::::To take the analogy mentioned above, if you agree that [[perpetual motion machines]] are impossible, what is the reason?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:45, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Quantum mechanics gives a probabilistic model of phenomena. Indeed, the page you linked for quantum mechanics states:
::"If we measure such an observable, generally the wave function does not predict exactly which value we will obtain. Instead, the wave function gives us the probability that a certain value will be obtained."
:If this is the case, that means that Quantum mechanical phenomena are ''unpredictable''. How is it that clock adjustments can be made based on unpredictable events, ie, probabilities?
:I'd also like to know how the GPS system is affected by these phenomena.
:--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 01:51, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Logic is a nice thing. But engineers like to calculate. So could you give us a Ballpark estimate for the quantum mechanic effects which come into play here? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:59, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:(Edit conflict x2) Andy, as a lawyer I can assure you that hearsay is a [[legal]] concept which is of little use in this sort of scientific discussion. Whilst I understand that non-legally trained people sometimes confuse the nature and applicability of the concept, I can confirm that it has no relevance here.

:The difficulty here arises from your wanting to assert the truth of a matter without providing either references or even the basis for you own logic. Just saying "quantum mechanics" is hardly enlightening. Do you deny that GPS satellite clocks are adjusted by approximately 38,000 nanoseconds as referred to in the references that I provided? If not, do you say that there is a quantum calculation that accounts for that adjustment? What is that quantum calculation and what is it based on? I am really having difficulty in understanding the basis for all of this. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 02:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, this reference [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] has been pointed out to you several times already. Since it is published by folks actually working on the GPS system, I hardly think that it qualifies as 'hearsay'. It contains all the relevant relativistic equations, which are not really that complicated, and derives the 38 nanosecond figure quoted above. An assertion on scientific matters without any evidence can't really be taken seriously. Can we please see the quantum mechanical equations and calculations which come up with the same or similar result? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 09:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, I'm inclined to suspect that your disbelief in relativity is so strong that you are unwilling to consider any evidence which might indicate that relativity could be correct, and are hence flailing around looking for some other explanation as to what actually happens (GPS clock adjustment by 38 ns). Would you care to comment on my suspicion? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 09:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Quote: "A logical statement is a declarative sentence that is either true or false." [http://www.ontotext.com/factforge/logical-statement].

So Aschlafly, why don't you need a reference to confirm a logical statement? Just because a statement is logical doesn't mean that it is true. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

: It would be helpful to have a more modern reference. GPS switched to a system of daily updates to the satellites. Maybe those relativistic formulas cause errors that require daily clock synchronizations to correct. Not likely. But to prove the point we ought to find a reference that says that the satellites still use the 38 ns/day relativistic adjustments, and that the daily corrections are much smaller than that. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:18, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::The best I've found so far is [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf] from Physics Today, May 2002. This confirms the initial adjustment and mentions further on page 7: "Additional small frequency offsets arise from clock drift, environmental changes, and other unavoidable effects such as the inability to launch the satellite into an orbit with precisely the desired semimajor axis. The satellite clock frequencies are adjusted so that they remain as close as possible to the frequency of the Naval Observatory's clock ensemble." Unfortunately it doesn't give the actual size of the adjustments, thought the word 'small' does indicate it as being much less than the initial adjustment. I rather like the last sentence of this paper: "Ordinary users of the GPS, though they may not need to be aware of it, have thus become dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time." [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:26, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::The lack of evidence, amid so much political pressure to prove it, is indicative that no proof can be found. Notice how no [[Nobel Prize]]s have been given for GPS confirming the [[Theory of Relativity]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:01, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::If you want to use the [[Nobel Prize]] as evidence against relativity, might I direct you to:
:::http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/relativity/
:::Where the official Nobel Prize website discusses various experiments related to relativity, and the relevant [[Nobel Prize]]s awarded for them.
:::--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:32, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::::GPS is not even on that overly broad list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, I've tried to confine my evidence to items which not even you can claim as 'hearsay'. A simple Google search turns up hundreds of references linking GPS and relativity, but in view of your earlier dismissal of such as hearsay, I thought I'd better stick to indisputable items. At least there is some fairly convincing evidence linking GPS with relativity (including all the relevant equations and the result of applying these equations), unlike your assertion linking GPS with quantum mechanics, where you have produced precisely zero evidence. You still haven't responded to my comments and question re 'logical statements' above. So, where is the evidence for your assertion? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 02:46, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:::There is no credible evidence that the [[Theory of Relativity]] had anything to do with the development of GPS. In addition, not even the pro-Relativity [[Nobel Prize]] [[liberals]] say that GPS proves the theory.

:::My comment about [[quantum mechanics]] was in response to a question about why synchronization is needed. Unless someone thinks that [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible (have you answered my question about that?), then synchronization will be needed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:00, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Could you please clarify what the connection between synchronisation, quantum mechanics and perpetual motion machines is? From what I've learned, clock synchronisation between the satellites is necessary because any signal between them travels at a finite speed, namely the speed of light. Do you deny that? The claim is that in order to compute the signal travel time and thus to synchronize the clocks correctly, the relative velocities and the differences in gravitational potential due to the different altitudes of the satellites (and Earth's surface) have to be taken into account. Do you think that is wrong? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:56, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

Lets stick to the subject (GPS and relativity); perpetual motion is a complete red herring, and I'm not sure how Nobel prizes come into the picture (we're debating science, not prizes).
On the basis of '''actual evidence produced''' in this discussion so far, I think that we can confidently state four facts:
#Prior to launch, the clock in a GPS satellite is set to run about 38 nanoseconds/day different from an otherwise identical clock on the earth's surface.
#When in orbit the GPS clock then appears to tick at the same rate as an identical clock on the earth's surface.
#Equations based on the theory of relativity accurately come up with this figure of around 38 nanoseconds.
#No evidence has been produced to show how quantum mechanics is involved.

If anyone disagrees with any of the above, they need to bear in mind ('''emphasis''' added):
:from Conservapedia:Commandments 1 Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''.
:from Conservapedia:Commandments 2 '''Always cite''' and give credit to your sources.
:from Conservapedia:Guidelines/Reliability 4 A major difference between Liberalism and Conservatism is how much each group is willing to have its pronouncements checked, its actions reviewed and evaluated.

Hope this summary helps. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:41, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

: That is the story as I have heard it. Except that I heard that the 38 ns/day adjustment was remotely switchable, because of relativity skeptics who did not believe that it would be necessary. I also don't agree that GPS is "dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time." The GPS system has the ability to measure the daily adjustments that it needs. So even with any relativity theory or Einstein conception, it could just make those 38 ns/day adjustments and GPS would have all the accuracy it has today. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:19, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::In the summary I was careful to stick to facts supported by evidence, and to avoid saying "GPS is dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time", even though the two main references I have quoted do in fact say this. All I said was that the adjustment calculated according to relativity agrees with the actual adjustment, from which one might reasonably conclude, in this instance at least, that relativity is consistent with reality. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 15:44, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::I note that no one has proposed any credible alternative theory as to why the orbiting clocks tick at a different speed from surface clocks, so until some better theory comes along I'm quite happy to stick with relativity. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:00, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:In the last week, apart from one clarification question from [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], no one has challenged the 'four facts' summary I provided above. According I will shortly move a copy of this summary along with the relevant references in to the talk pages of other relevant articles, and will then update those articles to match. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 13:36, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

::Beware: in your fact #1, the correction is 38 '''micro'''seconds, not '''nano'''seconds. See [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html]. My own rough calculations also agree that it's microseconds. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 15:05, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

::Well spotted, Judy. I've gone back to one of the sources and it is indeed 38 microseconds. Thank you for the correction. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:10, 21 April 2012 (EDT)
All right, can Andy Schlafly explain how adjusting the exponent in the law of gravity accounts for the orbits of the other planets? You know the reason why no one considers that as an alternative? Are you ready?! '''Because it doesn't work!''' And can you tell me why Einstein came up with GR? Was it to explain the orbit of Mercury? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 21:36, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

:::In response to your first question, the reason is purely political. Any grad student who suggests that tweaking the exponent in Newtonian mechanics is an interesting approach worth more attention will thereby eliminate his chances for obtaining a PhD.

:::In response to your second point, GR was tweaked to explain the Mercury perihelion precession, but now the more precisely observed data fail to match the theory. Grad students and Nobel Prize wannabes are clever enough to keep quiet about it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:56, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

Andy: You make an interesting point about people not thinking that the Newcomb/Hall theory of planetary precession is an interesting approach—I hadn't thought about that aversion. I'm not sure why you think that people who take an interest in that theory would eliminate their chances of getting a PhD—people take an interest in historical aspects of science all the time. I can think of a few discarded scientific theories that are commonly discussed in science classes: The Ptolemaic theory of the solar system, the "plum pudding" model of the atom, and the phlogiston theory of combustion come to mind. The first two are very commonly taught in science classes. I think this is because they do a very good job of illustrating the scientific method and the value of careful analytical thinking. The phlogiston theory also illustrates careful thinking, but it isn't discussed in science classes nearly as much. My guess is that this is because it's harder to visualize. You can easily make a diagram in a textbook of the epicycles of Ptolemy and the ellipses of Kepler. And the model of electrons circling the nucleus, as per the Rutherford atom, is pretty much the logo for all things atomic. Lavoisier's (and others') experiments with combustion don't make for as dramatic an illustration.

The Simon Newcomb / Asaph Hall theory of planetary precession, unfortunately, seems to be even less photogenic. The effect being explained, 43 arcseconds per century, may be hard to get sudents excited about. But I doubt whether anyone jeopardizes their academic or research careers by being interested in it.

Idea: How about if I write some articles about the 4 theories (Ptolemy/Kepler, pudding/Rutherford, phlogiston/oxidation, and Newcomb/Einstein)? We could create a category for discarded scientific theories.

But I won't get to it any time soon. I'm very busy at Ameriwiki.

By the way, I have to thank you for the "E=mc^2" article. It really sharpened my thinking about the issues involved in special relativity, and it contributed to the outline of the articles I'm writing at Ameriwiki.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:40, 2 May 2012 (EDT)

::: Ugh, the reasons GPS devices don't contain the "rigorous transformations" that relativity "would seem to require" is very simple. The satellites are in geosynchronous orbits, and the difference in time that relativity causes only need to be calculated once. From then on, it's simply a case of adding a few ns every day to the satellite clocks to account for this. I would've thought that was obvious to an expert. And only an expert should be attempting to write authoratively on the theory of relativity! A certificate in physics does not an expert make. [[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 15:09, 11 July 2012 (EDT)

== Logic and the GPS ==

*Atomic watches work on the Earth quite fine
*[[Quantum mechanics]] describe the physics of ''very small length and energy scales''
*Satellites are macroscopic objects.
*Even a precision of 1cm on the surface of the Earth isn't a very small length.

So which kind of logic tells us that quantum mechanical effects influence the synchronization of the clocks? Why are not only the scientists involved lying, but also their calculations?

For me it seems to be a logical conclusion that you, Aschlafly, are even more knowledgeable of Greek than of Science! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:He's trying to apply the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle to satellites? Are you kidding me? That principle is used for things at the ATOMIC LEVEL! Using ANYTHING with regards to quantum mechanics in an argument about satellites is absurdism and/or ignorance of the subject matter! Seriously Andy, I know you hate the Theory of Relativity, but you should really leave science to those who understand it. [[User:JanSmuts|JanSmuts]] 16:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::For someone who thinks that Brownian motion is about motion at the sub-atomic level your suggestions of scientific superiority ring hollow.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 10:15, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

== Newtonian explanation of Mercury's precession ==

I removed the phrase "[precession can be understood by] factoring in the gravitational pull due to other planets". The first sentence of that paragraph says the opposite, that the extra precession cannot be understood "even after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets". Unless I'm reading it wrong, it sounded like a contradiction. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 16:51, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:Where is the contradiction? If the exponent in Newtonian gravity is slightly adjusted, then it predicts the Mercury precession.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:01, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::I'm curious as to the justification for changing a formula in Newtonian gravity. Do you change it for every situation, or just for this one special case? Can you give us the adjusted formula, and specify the exact change? For such a change in physics which has been in use for over 250 years I would like to see a reference, preferably several good references. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:25, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
:::The old Newcomb-Hall hypothesis. [http://books.google.at/books?id=oKGlHjDzGjQC&lpg=PA379&dq=newcomb%20hall%20precession&pg=PA379#v=onepage&q=newcomb%20hall%20precession&f=false This book] says that it contradicts the observations of the orbit of the moon, which rules out a change of exponent of of the required magnitude. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 18:30, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
::The contributors to this section might be pleased to see that the issue has been discussed, at great length, right here at Conservapedia. An entire debate page was created for it: [[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity%3F]] This was a discussion that spilled over from [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness]].

::Furthermore, the subject was discussed on the relativity page itself, in the section [[Theory_of_relativity#Experimental_Verification_of_Relativity]]. There is a large chart showing the precessions of the planets under the Newcomb-Hall theory and under general relativity. They are the last two columns of the chart. The actual observations match the last column very well (see [http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm], taking into account that it's very hard to get accurate reading on the outer planets, since their precession is so small.

::One can see that the last two columns of the chart match only for Mercury. That is, Newcomb and Hall "tweaked" the exponent to the value of 2.000000157 in order to get Mercury's precession correct.

::Under the Newcomb-Hall theory, the precession of any orbiting body would be .000000078 revolutions per orbit. This works for Mercury, but is too high for the other planets, and way too high for the Moon. This is why the theory was discarded. With modern artificial satellites, such as the International Space Station, an orbit takes only an hour and a half, and the precession would be enormous. The clearly wrong value for the Moon is why the Newcomb-Hall theory was quickly discarded.

::Under general relativity, we know that the precession per orbit is proportional to the square of the planet's orbital velocity. Mercury has the highest velocity, so it has readily measurable precession. Artificial satellites are much slower, and the Moon is slower still.

::I personally don't see accepting the possible truth of such a thoroughly discredited theory as evidence of open-mindedness, but open-mindedness is admittedly a very tricky issue. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 18:11, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

::::"Mathematical physicists" (an [[oxymoron]] - I'll add it to the list) insisted that it was impossible for the exponent in Newtonian gravity to be anything other than '''''precisely''''' 2 (or -2). With the political push to promote the [[Theory of Relativity]], the influence of the mathematical physicists rose too, and that is what shut down the valid inquiry into whether the Newtonian exponent should be '''''precisely''''' 2 (or -2). But any logical inquiry must admit the possibility, or even the likelihood, that it would not be exactly 2 (or -2).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:31, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

The issue here is not whether the exponent is precisely two or not but that you have to have a model which explains all (or at least as many as possible) observations. To get the precision of Mercury right you produce a model which then fails to explain the observed precession of every other body in the solar system. This seems to be a good experimental demonstration that Newcomb-Hall is wrong (or least inadequate as a model). [[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:32, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:I'm not sure how [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] got us on the subject of the Newtonian exponent. My comment makes no mention of it. I'll answer his original question "where's the contradiction?": I quoted two sentences, both containing the phrase "other planets". One sentence said the precession '''can''' be understood by including the effects of the other planets, whereas the other said the precession '''cannot''' be understood that way. It is just rhetoric. The contradiction has little to do with physics. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 12:06, 16 April 2012 (EDT)

OK, how do you explain that adjusting the exponent in Newtonian gravity doesn't account for the orbits of the other planets? You say it has to do with politics. It has nothing to do with politics--the other theory just doesn't work! [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:33, 11 May 2012 (EDT)

:I doubt the minor tweak in the exponent would affect the other orbits. The orbit of Mercury would be far more sensitive to such a tweak than anything else.

:The broader question remains: isn't the [[censorship]] of any alternative to the [[Theory of Relativity]] obvious? If the theory were correct, then there would be no need for [[liberals]] to censor debate or alternative theories.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

::*''I doubt the minor tweak in the exponent would affect the other orbits.'' Do you have any calculations which would affirm this belief of yours? AFAIK, Simon Newcomb's and Asaph Hall's idea was discarded when excellent measurements for the Moon were made by Ernest W. Brown which didn't fit the predictions of Newcomb and Hall. This was in the early 20th century...
::*Today Computer simulations allow for an easy test of alternatives to Newton's exponent. Any student should be able to create one and see for himself that it doesn't work out.
::*The influence of the exponent on ''apsidal angles'' was discussed be Newton himself. It's still of interest today: a central system in which the exponent is 1 is easily imaginable (swing a weight on a spring around your head). And you will find publications on these subjects still today.
::That said:
::*Why don't you run a simulation for yourself?
::*''Alternative theories'' are discussed - and mostly discarded. That's the way physics works. Theories doesn't become true because you ''believe'' in them, they become more and more trustworthy when their predictions are verified over and over again.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:40, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

:::The Newcomb-Hall theory doesn't need anyone, liberal or otherwise, to censor it. It censors itself, by being wrong. It has been shown to be wrong many times, including Ernest Brown's observations, and some data published right here at [[Theory of relativity#Experiments that Fail to Prove Relativity|Conservapedia]].

:::Probably the best refutation at present is with artificial satellites, since their orbital period is so short. If you want to argue for the Newcomb-Hall theory, your best bet would be to find data showing that the periapsis of the International Space Station precesses by .013 degrees per month. That is an enormous precession, easily observed. The orbital eccentricity is only .001, but, since the ISS is so close and is in constant contact by radio and radar, there should be extremely good data. You should probably contact the author of the [http://www.heavens-above.com/ Heavens Above] web site. It has a huge amount of information on things like this.

:::I think that you will find that what you are up against is not liberals, but facts. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 12:44, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

== First sentence of article contradicted by the rest ==

Given that main body of the article now largely deals with the things GR can explain (including the precession of Mercury) should not the first sentance be changed?[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:37, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:GR is '''disproven''''' now by the precession of Mercury. See [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:22, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

I checked [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] and the number for the observed precession in the note are unreferenced. To be credible there has to be a reference for this number.[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 12:11, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

== Nobel Committee Criticism ==

That section of the article criticizes the Nobel Committee for not awarding a prize to a scientist who questions relativity, then immediately notes that no awards have been given for work related to relativity. Perhaps it'd be better to remove this contradiction; pick a poison and stick to it, so to speak. Alternatively, it may be more honest just to remove the section. --[[User:PaPatriot|PaPatriot]]

:What's contradictory about that? It's similar to how the Obama Administration won't appoint anyone who is [[pro-life]], and yet Obama won't campaign on being pro-[[abortion]]. That's not a contradiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:07, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

== Bending of light in Newtonian gravity ==

All right, can someone show me exactly how light is bent by gravity in Newtonian gravity? Photons have zero mass, so, according to Newtonian gravity, they should not feel gravity. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:56, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

:*Newton's Corpuscular theory of light didn't state that the mass of the photons is zero. It was just obvious that it is very tiny
:*For the actual calculation, the mass of the photon cancels out
:*[[Johann Georg von Soldner]] did the calculations in 1801 - Newton's theroy was still going strong, then. ([http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Ueber_die_Ablenkung_eines_Lichtstrals_von_seiner_geradlinigen_Bewegung Über die Ablenkung eines Lichtstrals von seiner geradlinigen Bewegung] English: ''On the Deflection of a Light Ray from its Rectilinear Motion''). The predicted effect was to tiny to be observed accurately in his time
:*Newton's corpuscular theory became unpopular since the 1820s, so this line of thought wasn't followed up.
:*Here is a modern re-calculation [http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.1031v6 Bending of light: A classical analysis]
:From Sendler's essay: ''Hoffentlich wird es niemand bedenklich finden, daß ich einen Lichtstral geradezu als schweren Körper behandle. Denn daß die Lichtstralen alle absoluten Eigenschaften der Materie besitzen, sieht man an dem Phänomen der Aberration, welches nur dadurch möglich ist, daß die Lichtstralen wirklich materiel sind. – Und überdies, man kann sich kein Ding denken, das existiren und auf unsere Sinne wirken soll, ohne die Eigenschaft der Materie zu haben. –''
:''Hopefully no one will take offense that I looked at a ray of light as an object of mass. That every ray of light has the absolute properties of matter is seen from the phenomenon of aberration, which is only possible because the rays are really material. — and furthermore, one can think of no thing which exists and interacts with our sense without having the properties of matter.''
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:45, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
::Yeah, I've heard of that. But the photon has zero mass. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:20, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Newtonian physics doesn't know about zero-mass particles, hence it doesn't make a unique prediction. One possible interpretation is to say "zero mass -> zero gravitational force -> no bending". Another interpretation is to take the mathematical limit of the equations for ''m''->0. Since ''ma = GMm/r2'', the mass of the photon cancels and you get ''a = GM/r2'', even in the limiting case ''m=''0. This leads to bending by half the amount as predicted by relativity (and observed). --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 22:47, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

== Conflation of Relativity and Relativism & Robert H. Dicke & Barack Obama ==

There appears to be significant resistance to relativity that is largely unfounded. The theory is in no way contradictory to Christian beliefs, or religion in general. As a conservative, right wing encycloepdia, I expect resistance to moral relativism.

From reading the article, it appears many of the authorship appear to conflate Einstein's relativity with moral relativism. The two concepts are entirely and utterly unrelated other than both containing the word "relativ". Newton's model of gravity as a simple inverse square law is a very close approximation to Einstein's model. The difference is Newton's is very slightly inaccurate and cannot be used where extreme accuracy is needed. Relativity can.

What's the difficulty with relativity here? The central premise is very basic and seems pretty self evident upon a little thought. There is no absolute frame of reference in a universe in which everything moves relative to everything else. Something can only be defined as moving with respect to (relative to) something else. And there you have it, general relativity.

There is also a problem with the section on Robert H. Dicke. He wasn't a major critic of relativity. Indeed, he developed some of the most stringent tests (relativity is highly falsifiable). It passed them. All.

I tracked down and read the article regarding relativity and law (Obama, etc.). It is quite a nice analogy, and is no way an attempt to use relativity to justify anything. The analogy is more closely related to the uncertainty principle - you cannot measure a particles position without changing or influencing it. You cannot just observe, as you have to intervene in order to do so. The same is true in American law (with a much stronger reliance on test cases, etc, than in say, English law). You cannot deal with one case without it having vast implications for others. That is all the paper is saying. Again, there is no agenda against conservatism or religion in this paper.

[[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 23:45, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== Clocks on Trains - alternative theory ==

Someone better come up with a really good explanation as to why a clock on a train will show a different time to a clock next to the track, after the train has travelled for a length of time. This has been done, and relativity predicted the difference (due to time dilation). If relativity is definitely un-true (the premise of this article), then what IS causing the difference in times?

The above GPS argument makes a similar case, but trains are easier to understand. The difference in time on these clocks has nothing at all to do with quantum physics. Noone try and claim it is, and that they don't have to prove it because it's a logical statement. Anyone who thinks they can logically infer QM (which is inherently illogical by human perception) needs to see a shrink.

[[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 23:51, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== Counterexamples to Recent Experiments ==

Recently, experiments have been published in Science, directly measuring general relativistic time dilation effects using atomic clocks placed about a metre apart. Do we have any idea how to refute this? The reference I provide is to a newspaper summary of the findings [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/einsteins-theory-is-proved--and-it-is-bad-news-if-you-own-a-penthouse-2088195.html]. I have also read the paper and see no loopholes.
--[[User:DanPW|DanPW]] 12:49, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

::We don't need to, and can't, refute this; it is true. This appears to be an update, over a much shorter distance, of the Pound-Rebka experiment of 1960 or so. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 08:27, 15 July 2017 (EDT)

:Probably our best bet is personal attacks on the researcher, Chou, or possibly [[NIST]]. I suspect Chou was not born in this country. He may have an agenda to confuse American citizens. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 14:35, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

== Information and Relativistic Time Dilation? ==

The question is this: are laws of physics the results of predetermined relationships, or are they result of using information?

This seemingly has nothing to do with time dilation, mass increase and such. But it does. Read more about this important question:

[http://www.msg2act.com/physics/ch/index.shtml]

It turns out, there is a connection between information processing and SR/GR time dilation.

In a simplified way, the more information there is, the slower the rate of physical processes.

Antecedent to first concept of physics, main SR/GR results can be derived out of thin air, without postulates.

== Edit of 29 Oct 2014 ==

I think [[User:Dossas]] was right in having the article say what it is before criticizing it. Most pages on science have at least a sentence or two, at the beginning, saying what the subject is.

I have moved the bulk of the criticism (Louis Essen, etc.) up a few paragraphs. The link to his article ''The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis'' was a dead link, but I found two other links that are equally fiery. And I put the "wouldn't get tenure" line into a better contextual place. That is, in with the paragraph about Essen. In fact, his ''Relativity and Time Signals'' paper has a quote at the top: "The theory is so rigidly held that young scientists dare not openly express their doubts" that you might want to put in, illustrating the "wouldn't get tenure" line. Though I haven't done that.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:10, 30 October 2014 (EDT)

== An argument against relativity ==
I think I have a strong (theoretical) argument against the theory of relativity. Is there anyone who could help me by reviewing my stuff, by giving me a professional opinion? May email address: laszlogm@admarc.hu {{unsigned|Laszlogm}}

::I think things like this would be best played out in public. After all, this is a wiki, and Conservapedia has a long history of debating relativity issues openly. But if you really do want to promulgate it in private, my email is near the top of my user page. However, if you go that route, I very well may decide, based on what I see, to make it public somewhere here on CP.
::Your next choice might be simply to publish it directly, either on your own user or talk page, or at the bottom of this page (Talk pages are appended at the end, so they are in forward chronological order).
::Perhaps your best bet, if you are feeling really confident, is to add it to the [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] page. But I should advise you in advance: The bar for counterexamples is rather high, and, unless you really have a correct counterexample, your argument will be figuratively ripped to shreds, the way all the others have been.
::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 13:33, 11 January 2015 (EST)
== Einstein’s Relativity and Relativism: Why Einstein’s theory of relativity is actually a powerful argument for absolute truth. ==

Please read the article [http://evangelicalfocus.com/blogs/1297/Einsteins_Relativity_and_Relativism Einstein’s Relativity and Relativism: Why Einstein’s theory of relativity is actually a powerful argument for absolute truth.] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:55, 11 February 2016 (EST)

== New heading ==

I have rarely laughed out loud as often as I did while reading this article. This must be satire, no? If not then I weep for humanity. {{unsigned|Nikib}}

:Yeah, sure you do. You might weep for closed-mindedness too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 15:15, 2 July 2017 (EDT)

::You may consider it to be satire, but it is not. The story is more complicated than that. Conservapedia is probably the most prominent place on the internet where relativity is treated this way. There is probably no one on the planet that disparages and denies relativity more ferociously than Andy Schlafly. The [[counterexamples to relativity]] page is world-famous, has over 2 million page views, and dominates, by a wide margin, Google searches for the subject. If you think that all of us at CP are anti-relativity, you are wrong.

::You should know that there is sort of a custom at CP, for pages like this, that parts of pages above the table of contents are not to by edited except by Aschlafly, but the material below the table of contents is the consensus (in the usual way for a wiki) of the editor base, and that most editors try to have that part of the page be a factual exposition of the subject. If you would like to contribute to that, feel free. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 15:37, 2 July 2017 (EDT)

== Gravitational time dilation ==

Each rising sun is a synchronization of time, every eclipses synchronize altitudes together from one eclipse to the other. Synchronization of events is incompatible with desynchronization of clocks. I prefer to believe in synchronization of eclipses than in desynchronization of clocks. But that is a choice. If you believe eclipses are desynchronized, it is God will, but you are not in the truth. If there were some (nano)seconds more at high altitudes between eclipses (slower rate), it would mean events happen quicker at low altitude (quicker rate of events in a time dilated frame???). What is your opinion? {{unsigned|Geocentric}}
:My opinion is that the English language is a beautiful and expressive language, and that science is a beautiful and useful pursuit. What I reverted showed a level of English and scientific literacy lower than that of a reasonable 10-year-old.
:Relativity is about fundamental physical truths about space and time, not trivialities about eclipses and sunrises. In any case, the phenomenon of sunrise is known, to anyone with a primary-school education, to be nothing but a manifestation of the rotation of the Earth (relativity!)
:I still do not know whether this person is a willful troll/vandal or is just monumentally ignorant. We certainly have our share of scientific nonsense at Conservapedia, such as [[Gravitation demystified]] and [[Hydroplate Theory]]<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/]</ref>. We don't need any more. I would recommend that this person go away. If this stuff persists, I will recommend that the administrators review this issue and block this user. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 20:27, 21 August 2017 (EDT)

== "Household name" claim ==

What made someone a "household name" is not of scientific interest. The [[fake news]] of the 1919 eclipse, and how media ran with it, hardly seems to be of encyclopedic value in a scientific entry. The implication that [[fake news]] must be true if people believe is not enlightening.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 16:46, 3 September 2018 (EDT)

:Information about Einstein's rise to fame is admittedly not appropriate for an actual science textbook. A physics textbook would describe Galileo's accomplishments in mechanics (leading to what we now call "Galilean relativity") and astronomy (telescope, moons of Jupiter, etc.) but would probably not discuss in any detail his problems with the Catholic Church.

:However, this an encyclopedia, not a physics textbook, and a certain amount of "fluff" or societal material appears in many CP articles. For example, the articles on Madonna Ciccone, Taylor Swift, Elvis Presley, Johannes Kepler, Stephen Hawking, Marie Curie, William Herschel, Wolfgang Mozart, and Ludwig van Beethoven, to name just a minuscule fraction of our articles, all have "soft" material on why they are famous.

:Like it or not, Einstein is a household name. If it weren't, would you be fighting so hard against him? And he got that way in 1919 because of the eclipse. I happen to disagree that that's his signature achievement. But it's the achievement that, for better or worse, got the headlines and made him a superstar.

:If the eclipse observations had been wrong, that fame would have been taken away. But Eddington's result was right while his methods were wrong.<ref>''Einstein's Luck'', John Waller, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-860719-9</ref> Eddington lucked out and got away with it, and the flaws in his analysis weren't discovered until decades later with the advent of more rigorous methods for analyzing experiments. By then, extremely precise and properly analyzed data had gotten the same result—the angle of deflection was 1.75 arcseconds.

:It is far better to say that people believed the eclipse news (else how could we explain how Einstein became a household word?) but Eddington's methods were wrong (And this is exactly what our article says!) than to censor that information and leave people in the dark about Einstein's fame.

:Wrong things get said all the time. In the extremely early years of computers, some famous person (can't be bothered to look it up, but you've probably read it too) said that the whole world would have a need for about 5 computers. And don't forget that the US Patent Office was once closed down because nothing more would be invented.

:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 19:05, 3 September 2018 (EDT)

== Numbers for claims about Mercury's precession. ==

ASchlafly compares the relativistic prediction for the precession of Mercury's orbit with observed values and states that "the conflict is greater than the margin of error." However, he does not show what these values are or provide a link to an external reference. Elsewhere on the same page some numbers for observed and predicted anomalous precession are provided, and they appear to be in agreement: the uncertainties overlap. For example, a predicted value of 42.98 ±0.04 arcseconds per century is provided, which does overlap with the provided observed value of 43.13 ± 0.14 arcseconds per century. Interestingly, there is no reference for the predicted value of 42.98 ±0.04. There are values in tables that do not match the values in the references that seem to be associated with the tables as well. Lastly, a formula for the approximation of precession under GR is provided in two places which is off by a factor of 2Π, in the reference frame of the orbiting body in question. Use of that formula as stated provides neither the correct predicted precession per orbit, nor the correct predicted precession per 100 Earth years (which is how the precession is normally presented). It's unclear when the incorrect formula was added to the page or for what purpose. 
If ASchlafly would cite or report the specific numbers that he is comparing, or point to his source for those numbers, his argument could be evaluated. Currently, his claim is in clear conflict with the numbers provided elsewhere on the page. The issue of the incomplete/incorrect formula and possible errors (or incorrect references) in the tables should probably be addressed by a more senior party than myself.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] ([[User talk:Brossa|talk]]) 14:14, 4 September 2018 (EDT)
:Ummm, yeah. I may have gotten the two "approximations" wrong. The one in footnote 46 or so was the approximation in Einstein's paper. The other one was just put together by me as an ''extreme'' back-of-the-envelope rough approximation designed to show how the precession depends on the planet's speed relative to the speed of light, without fussing over the orbital eccentricity. I'll go look at that again. It's made confusing by the need to choose really consistent units (what exactly is the Schwartzschild radius? Are we using c=1 units?). And the standard "theoretical" formulas are in Mercury years, whereas we traditionally describe this in Earth years.
:But keep in mind that the real test is whether the precession ''as observed through telescopes'' and the precession ''as precisely calculated from the Einstein field equations and the Schwartzschild metric'' agree. That's what the error bars are about. The two approximations are just that. You need to solve the equations, and (unlike for Newtonian/Keplerian gravity) that has to be done by computer.
:So I'll look at that and try to clean it up. And not have one of the approximations in the text while another is in a footnote. That's just dumb. Thanks for pointing out the problem. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 16:32, 4 September 2018 (EDT)
::I've looked it over, and I "sort of" stand by my original formulas. I think things are confused by the symbol "a". In modern relativity textbooks that's the Schwartzschild radius, (also know as the "gravitating radius") but in Einstein's paper it was the semi-major axis of the ellipse. (You remember a and b being the semi-major and semi-minor axes of an ellipse from high school, right? That's what Einstein was using.) Now the reason I say "sort of" is that my supposedly nice approximation of <math>\frac{3GM}{c^2 a(1-e^2)}</math> was already simplified, by me, from what was in Einstein's paper. And that was an approximation in any case. The only way to get the really precise theoretical prediction is to solve numerically for a geodesic, by computer. Thet's what the Pijpers paper is comparing with the experimental measurements. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:17, 5 September 2018 (EDT)
::::I agree that it's an approximation, and a reasonable one for these purposes, but that 3GM/... approximation is ''per radian'' of rotation, so the precession over an entire orbit (2π radians of rotation) is 2π(3GM/....), or <math>\frac{6piGM}{c^2 a(1-e^2)}</math>. That can be converted directly into arcseconds per Earth century. Incidentally, how do you get a π to show up in an equation?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] ([[User talk:Brossa|talk]]) 23:23, 5 September 2018 (EDT)

:::Not even top relativists claim that the advance of the perihelion of Mercury proves the General Theory of Relativity anymore. Once the divergence between more accurate measurements and the theory began occurring nearly 15 years ago, relativists stopped reporting data about this. The Wikipedia entry on this displays a style of everything except confirmation by the data of the theory. Instead, it talks about historical motivation and uses [[liberal style]] like "consistent with" rather than "confirms". Its citations are then more than a decade old. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 12:13, 5 September 2018 (EDT)
::::My question for you was just what the specific numbers you are comparing are, in support of your statement that the conflict is greater than the margin of error. For example: are you comparing the calculated vs. observed numbers for the anomalous precession only from the Pijpers paper, or some other numbers from the Wikipedia article, or some third source? You mention 15 years ago, so are you referring to some data from 2003 or thereabouts? As I said above, the numbers presented on the page here are ''not'' in conflict, so if you are operating with a different set of numbers we should know what those are. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] ([[User talk:Brossa|talk]]) 23:03, 5 September 2018 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

Talk:Theory of relativity

2018-09-06T03:03:44Z

Brossa:

{| style=" width:95%; text-align:left; background:{{{background}}}; color:{{{color|black}}}; border:3px solid black; clear:both " align="center"
|-
|width="2%" style="text-align:center" cellpadding="5"|'''!'''
|'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''

'''Raising arguments which have been discussed before wastes the time of valuable editors and repeatedly doing so violates [[90/10]].'''

For older discussions, see the archive [[Talk:Theory of relativity/index|index]]. 
|valign="top" style="text-align:right"|[[Image:Conservlogo.png|65px]]
|}


== Special relativity and evidence ==
Many objects have been accelerated to velocities near the speed of light (in particle colliders) and it is easily observed that the rate at which those objects speed up as a constant force is applied is (very precisely) consistent with special relativity and not Gallilean relativity. That is, as their measured speed approaches the speed of light, that speed increases less and less in response to each "push" even though the "pushes" remain the same strength, thus apparently violating Newton's F = ma. On the other hand, Einstein's famous E = gamma * mc^2 appears to describe their rate of acceleration very accurately. I don't understand how this article proposes to surmount that objection. [[User:ZeroThree|ZeroThree]] 15:47, 28 October 2012 (EDT)

== Mass depending on direction ==

The article states:
:''There is a logical difficulty, however, to an increase in relativistic mass. Such increase would only exist in the direction of motion, and the rest mass would remain intact with respect to a force applied in a direction orthogonal to velocity. Neither mass nor energy is a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is illogical.''

As [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] on 8 July 2007 (EDT): ''This paragraph is nonsense [..] The relativistic mass applies no matter what the direction of the force is.''

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:45, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Neutrinos now obey speed limit ==

The observation sited in the first sentence of this article has been discredited. [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp] It appears that a loose fiber-optics cable is to blame for the misreadings. I suggest editing this first sentence, and any other mention of this in the article.--[[User:CarloP|CarloP]] 18:51, 2 March 2012 (EST)

:Issues concerning the neutrino experiment are not yet fully resolved. No problam: I replaced it with another counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:12, 2 March 2012 (EST)

== Why does Conservapedia seek to discredit Relativity ==

Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?

Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:''Conservapedia'' seeks the truth, not merely what the [[lamestream media]] claim is the truth. Moreover, once one accepts a logical fallacy, then anything false can be proven from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:: Ahh.... But the fact that the conclusion is false does not necessarily render the basis false. I could say "Andy Schlafly founded Conservapedia and therefore I am a pig monkey." I am not a pig monkey, and even if I were, that has nothing to do with you founding this website. But you still did. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:58, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:When looking around the internet, it is obvious that Conservapedia's classification of relativity as [[pseudoscience]] is a source of some amusement and contempt. Aschlafly, could you please answer the two questions I raised above? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:27, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, liberal peer pressure from "around the internet" does not illuminate the truth. If what liberals on the internet said made a dime's bit of difference, then the [[Bible]] would not be the best selling book (by far) and the percentage of people who are [[conservative]] would not be growing (as it does).

::"Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?" Because it's false, it confuses people, it misleads people into stop reading the Bible, and its orthodoxy interferes with the advancement of science for the benefit of all. Other than that, it's not a bad theory!

::"Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition?" The only bias is by liberals who shout down any criticism of the theory. If the theory were so clearly true, then there would be no need for some liberals to rely on [[censorship]] in propping it up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:10, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== GPS and Relativity ==

I note that anyone using a GPS is relying on the Theory of Relativity being true, since calculations derived from Relativity are used within a GPS. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:GPS does '''''not''''' rely on the [[Theory of Relativity]], and this has been thoroughly explained on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

::Hi Aschlafly, I've located at least some of the discussion re GPS in the archives of this talk page, and there a lot of references for me to examine before I can make any further serious comments; certainly there are some references which appear to state that GPS relies on relativity. Can you perhaps draw my attention to what you consider the most important (half-dozen or so) references which indicate that the GPS system does NOT rely on relativity so that I have somewhere to start from? In the meantime I'll continue editing and improving less controversial articles as I have been doing for the last two months (my talk page lists nearly 40 articles I can usefully contribute to). [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:17, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:::This note 7 is on [[Counterexamples to Relativity]]:

::::Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”

:::The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing: the small effects claimed by the special and general theories nearly cancel each other out for orbiting satellites. From an engineering perspective, it makes far more sense simply to adjust the clocks using synchronization rather than relying on (dubious) theoretical claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Another false claim because of sloppy reading: In the same source by The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, you can find how the authors Fliegel and DiEsposti describe what is happening to the clocks in the satellites:
''Since GPS receivers work in the time and not in the frequency domain, they handle the velocity, gravity, and acceleration shifts differently than described above. First, each GPS space vehicle (SV) clock is offset from its nominal rate by about -4.45 × 10-10 (= -38 microseconds per day) to allow for the relativistic offsets between the differences between the SV and the ground. Of this -38 microseconds per day, about -45 are due to the gravitational potential difference between the SV at its mean distance and the earth's surface, and +7 to the mean SV speed, which is about 3.87 km/sec. (p. 193).

The text is about the necessity of ''further'' corrections by the ''operational control system'' - there are corrections ''already'' installed in the clocks!

''The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing:'' This sentence is wrong. It has shown to be wrong a couple of times, so it starts to become a lie. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:12, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Theory of Relativity]] was not used to develop GPS, nor would it be sensible to waste time and money doing so. Synchronization is cheaper, simpler, and more reliable. The above quote does not contradict this obvious truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:32, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

::The fact that these offsets are implemented in the clocks '''in accord with the theory of relativity''' as you can read in the very source you quoted shows that the [[Theory of Relativity]] is used in the GPS - and this from the very beginning of the project! Please, start to read your sources - completely! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:37, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Please, before we get into any more debate, could someone supply some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:41, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly took his quote from [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] by Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond S. DiEsposti (though he probably isn't aware of this). The paper is about relativistic effects due to moving GPS-'''''receivers''''' (or GPS-receivers in high altitudes) and comes to the conclusion, that at the moment, they don't have to include additional relativistic corrections.

:Aschlafly interprets this as if ''no'' relativistic corrections are implemented in the GPS.
:However, in the paper itself, you will find the section I quoted above, where the authors describe such very corrections within the clocks of the satellites.
:I'm afraid that Aschlafly won't come up with ''some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS'' as there aren't any.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:53, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Folks, the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the [[Theory of Relativity]] was used to design GPS. That burden includes describing who, when, where, how, and why. It didn't happen. And if it did, the person who wasted time and money on such a frivolous approach should explain the mistake, because engineers can simply synchronize the clocks far more accurately than the theory ever could.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:It looks to me as if you are trying to put impossible conditions prior to any debate. To avoid a lengthy debate all you have to do is produce some actual references which support your point of view. Is this too much to ask?

:If it didn't happen then you should be able to produce some evidence of this, so '''some actual references please'''. The only 'evidence' you have produced so far is an out-of-context quote from a paper which is concerned primarily with GPS receivers (that same paper mentions the use of relativity-related adjustments to the clocks on the GPS satellite transmitters). Surely you must have more than this. Will you accept evidence from engineers and companies involved in designing and building the GPS system? If not, why not? Who would you accept evidence from? The US Department of Defense? Do you seriously expect a member of the public to be able to access internal design documents as your "who, when, where, how, and why" statement implies?

:If you care to check my contribution history you will see that I am actively contributing non-controversial information to articles. This discussion re GPS etc. is only a small part of my activities on Conservapedia. Since I've barely started on considering and consolidating what evidence there is re GPS I would rather have a week or so to look at the evidence before getting into a debate. This should give you ample time to come up with some references to support the separation of GPS and relativity. Simple searches via Google turn up numerous instances where relativity is claimed to be relevant to GPS, but I can't find anything to the contrary and '''I need your help to do so'''. I would really like to see evidence from '''both sides''' of the discussion before entering the debate, so '''some actual references please'''. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 19:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, you're requesting proof that something didn't happen. Moreover, someone with an engineering background (such as myself) would not expect it to have happened. It is like asking for a reference that no green cheese was found on the Moon. No such scientific reference is likely to exist, nor would anyone expect such a reference to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:28, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:: Every single article on GPS says that relativistic adjustments are made to the satellite clocks. Some give the formulas and some give quantitative data on the adjustments. Textbooks explain why the adjustments are necessary. I don't see any reason to doubt that GPS uses relativistic adjustments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:52, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::GPS does make synchronizing adjustments. Call them whatever you like, but those adjustments are not made based on predictions by the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Indeed, it would be a silly waste of time and money to synchronize in such a manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::: Unless you drive the flying Delorean from ''Back to the Future'', relativity would say that its effect on your car when you're driving at normal speeds is so small it need not be accounting for. The normal error for GPS (about 40 feet) is many magnitudes higher than the error relativity would cause. Now, the GPS in the Flying DeLorean would be another issue. But until that's invented, let's not worry about it, ok? Of course, if you were orienteering, your speed would be even slower than if you were driving. Indeed, if you were moving at any normal speed (even a supersonic jet), relativity would be incredibly small (assuming that it exists as scientists explain it). [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:14, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::''GPS does make synchronizing adjustments'' Not only simple synchronizing: read the specifications for the GPS, read the sources ''in full'' which you are quoting, and you will see that all these engineers and scientists don't give a damn that you think that they are wasting ''time and money''.
:::::Aschlafly, your position is only tenable as you are willing to ignore most of the data which is presented to you. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:12, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, please correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you believe very firmly that relativity has nothing to do with GPS, even though you are unwilling to present any evidence to support this belief, and wish to put severe restrictions on what 'proof' of the relationship other folks may present. I raised some five questions above as to what sort of evidence you might consider. Could you please answer these questions.

::I'd like to ask Mr. Schafly if he could explain what the clock adjustments on GPS satellites are for, the article is not clear, and neither is anything on this talk page.--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:44, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Cahnkj, herewith a summary of the clock-adjustment situation as I (RolandPlankton) see it. Newton's equations of motions say nothing about how clocks keep time. Einstein's equations of relativity imply that identical clocks will vary in their timekeeping (tick at different rates) if they are travelling at different speeds, or if they are at different heights in a gravitational field, or if they are subject to different accelerations; see [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview]. Now the satellites used in the GPS system require very accurate clocks which are in step with ground-based clocks. The paper just quoted provides the various relativistic equations which apply - the satellites are travelling faster than a ground-based receiver, and are at a different height in a gravitational field. Prior to launch the clocks in the GPS satellites are deliberately set to a different tick rate from ground-based clocks, so that when they are in orbit the clocks will appear to tick at the same rate; the difference in tick rates is about 38 nanoseconds per day, and this adjustment can be calculated from the relevant relativistic equations.

:::But the problem is that Aschlafly rejects the Theory of Relativity, and hence rejects any calculation based on that. The only serious argument he has put forth on this current talk page (see preceding section) is an appeal to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Truth the truth]; the quote he provides above is also demolished above. You may wish to consult [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], which is rebutted point by point in [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]].

:::Hope this doesn't add too much to the confusion. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 12:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::Mr. Schlafly states above that "the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the Theory of Relativity was used to design GPS." (This is a fair requirement, and it seems as this has been done when AugustO referred to the Fliegel and DiEsposti paper above.)

::::But really, isn't the burden of proof on anyone who claims ''anything'' on this site, since Conservapedia Commandment #1 states that "everything you post must be true and verifiable" and Commandment #2 states that users should "always cite and give credit to <nowiki>[their]</nowiki> sources?" --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 19:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Good point. Anyone who asserts ''on this site'' that GPS was designed based on the [[Theory of Relativity]] needs to prove the claim. Note that the claim is implausible because it is cheaper, easier, and more precise to synchronize GPS based on observations rather than theoretical speculation. Also note that no [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for verification of the [[Theory of Relativity]] with GPS.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:55, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::Whether GPS was designed based on Relativity or not may be irrelevant. Whether or not Relativity is necessary for the clocks to run efficiently and accurately, also irrelevant. Observations of the satellites are still consistent with the predictions of General and Special Relativity as evidenced here: http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp. Please not that this is an article by the same Tom Van Flandern quoted on this site as saying that relativity is unnecessary for GPS calculations, so I trust this is a source you will accept. Here he is saying here that while relativity may be UNNECESSARY for those calculations, it is still CONFIRMED by our observations.[[User:Williagz|Gus Williams]] 14:03, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

===A Separate Question for Mr. Schlafly About References===

::Aschlafly, as a separate issue, in view of of your apparent attitude to references, could I ask you to have a look at the articles I have been working on over the last two months: [[Pi]], [[Programming language]], [[Compiler]], and the work-in-progress [[Chomsky hierarchy]]. Obviously I'm only asking you to consider the changes I have made. In particular, can you check if the references are acceptable to you, and can you also check that the general style and level of writing is in accordance with Conservapedia's aims? The next article I intend to turn my intention to is [[Context-Free Grammar]], since it seems to me that this fails to satisfy [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Style]] "Articles on complex topics need an introduction which assumes little or no previous knowledge". [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:03, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Roland, your good edits are appreciated and I've seen no complaints about them. I agree that the [[Context-Free Grammar]] would benefit from a better introduction and look forward to reading what you add there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

===READ THE MANUAL===
This debate seems pretty ridiculous, given that GPS is a public system with open specifications. If you're building a GPS receiver you do, in fact, need to compensate for relativistic effects. The correction equations that must be used on the receiving side equipment are given in the official GPS interface specification, IS-GPS-200G [http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200G.pdf], p.92. section 20.3.3.3.3.1: User Algorithm for SV Clock Correction.

<blockquote>
The polynomial defined in the
following allows the user to determine the effective SV PRN code phase offset referenced to the
phase center of the antennas with respect to GPS system time (t) at the time of data
transmission. The coefficients transmitted in subframe 1 describe the offset apparent to the two frequency
user for the interval of time in which the parameters are transmitted. This estimated
correction accounts for the deterministic SV clock error characteristics of bias, drift and aging, as
well as for the SV implementation characteristics of group delay bias and mean differential
group delay. '''Since these coefficients do not include corrections for relativistic effects, the user's equipment must determine the requisite relativistic correction. Accordingly, the offset given below includes a term to perform this function'''...
</blockquote>
I did not include the equations here, but they're given in the manual. --[[User:Smac56|Smac56]] 16:54, 7 December 2014 (EST)

== Why are adjustments needed to GPS? ==

A good question was raised above: if synchronization to GPS is not due to the [[Theory of Relativity]], then what is it due to?

And the answer is simply this: [[quantum mechanics]]. There are fundamental uncertainties, and those uncertainties will lead to clock differences. Otherwise a [[perpetual motion machine]] would be possible. It isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

Where to start with this. This is so bad it isn't even wrong. Could I respectfully suggest that you confine your efforts to areas you understand at least a little bit.

The impossibility of perpetual motion has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. It comes from the 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics and predates quantum mechanics by at least 100 years.

The uncertainty principle is also completely irrelevant. If we imagine a 100 kg satellite moving at a velocity of approximately 100 km/s (this is three times the earth's velocity , so is a plausible and easy to handle number). If we know the satelites location to an uncertainty of 1cm then the uncertainty on its velocity implied by the uncertainty principle is 1 part in 10^39 (i.e. completely negligable).[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 13:10, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

:Well, this is progress indeed. Could you please provide references to support the contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects?

:Also, as an aside, how do you say that fundamental uncertainties described by quantum mechanics relate to the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine? Not sure I follow you there. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 23:36, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::It's basic logic. Unless someone denies [[quantum mechanics]] and the fundamental uncertainties it describes -- and many [[Relativists]] do deny it -- then synchronization will be required as a logical result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Do you have any references? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::I haven't looked ... nor is it necessary to. I wouldn't look for references to confirm any logical statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:14, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Really? Is it fair to say then that this contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects is not something that you have read about but rather something that you yourself concluded from your own knowledge of quantum mechanics and GPS systems? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::P.S. As a result of this discussion I found a couple of articles which appear to confirm that GPS satellites have their clocks adjusted by about 38,000 nanoseconds per day before launch in compliance with relitavistic predictions (both Special and General Relativity are taken into account). The articles are [http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp here] and [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html here]. Is there really any question that this is what is happening? I would think that if these sources are to be questioned that some sort of reference should be provided. A mere assertion that the adjustments are as a result of quantum mechanical effects and that it is a matter of logic would not usually be enough for any serious encyclopedia. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::The references are [[hearsay]]. Logic is far more compelling, more efficient, and more likely to lead to the correct result.

::::::To take the analogy mentioned above, if you agree that [[perpetual motion machines]] are impossible, what is the reason?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:45, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Quantum mechanics gives a probabilistic model of phenomena. Indeed, the page you linked for quantum mechanics states:
::"If we measure such an observable, generally the wave function does not predict exactly which value we will obtain. Instead, the wave function gives us the probability that a certain value will be obtained."
:If this is the case, that means that Quantum mechanical phenomena are ''unpredictable''. How is it that clock adjustments can be made based on unpredictable events, ie, probabilities?
:I'd also like to know how the GPS system is affected by these phenomena.
:--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 01:51, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Logic is a nice thing. But engineers like to calculate. So could you give us a Ballpark estimate for the quantum mechanic effects which come into play here? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:59, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:(Edit conflict x2) Andy, as a lawyer I can assure you that hearsay is a [[legal]] concept which is of little use in this sort of scientific discussion. Whilst I understand that non-legally trained people sometimes confuse the nature and applicability of the concept, I can confirm that it has no relevance here.

:The difficulty here arises from your wanting to assert the truth of a matter without providing either references or even the basis for you own logic. Just saying "quantum mechanics" is hardly enlightening. Do you deny that GPS satellite clocks are adjusted by approximately 38,000 nanoseconds as referred to in the references that I provided? If not, do you say that there is a quantum calculation that accounts for that adjustment? What is that quantum calculation and what is it based on? I am really having difficulty in understanding the basis for all of this. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 02:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, this reference [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] has been pointed out to you several times already. Since it is published by folks actually working on the GPS system, I hardly think that it qualifies as 'hearsay'. It contains all the relevant relativistic equations, which are not really that complicated, and derives the 38 nanosecond figure quoted above. An assertion on scientific matters without any evidence can't really be taken seriously. Can we please see the quantum mechanical equations and calculations which come up with the same or similar result? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 09:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, I'm inclined to suspect that your disbelief in relativity is so strong that you are unwilling to consider any evidence which might indicate that relativity could be correct, and are hence flailing around looking for some other explanation as to what actually happens (GPS clock adjustment by 38 ns). Would you care to comment on my suspicion? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 09:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Quote: "A logical statement is a declarative sentence that is either true or false." [http://www.ontotext.com/factforge/logical-statement].

So Aschlafly, why don't you need a reference to confirm a logical statement? Just because a statement is logical doesn't mean that it is true. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

: It would be helpful to have a more modern reference. GPS switched to a system of daily updates to the satellites. Maybe those relativistic formulas cause errors that require daily clock synchronizations to correct. Not likely. But to prove the point we ought to find a reference that says that the satellites still use the 38 ns/day relativistic adjustments, and that the daily corrections are much smaller than that. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:18, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::The best I've found so far is [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf] from Physics Today, May 2002. This confirms the initial adjustment and mentions further on page 7: "Additional small frequency offsets arise from clock drift, environmental changes, and other unavoidable effects such as the inability to launch the satellite into an orbit with precisely the desired semimajor axis. The satellite clock frequencies are adjusted so that they remain as close as possible to the frequency of the Naval Observatory's clock ensemble." Unfortunately it doesn't give the actual size of the adjustments, thought the word 'small' does indicate it as being much less than the initial adjustment. I rather like the last sentence of this paper: "Ordinary users of the GPS, though they may not need to be aware of it, have thus become dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time." [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:26, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::The lack of evidence, amid so much political pressure to prove it, is indicative that no proof can be found. Notice how no [[Nobel Prize]]s have been given for GPS confirming the [[Theory of Relativity]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:01, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::If you want to use the [[Nobel Prize]] as evidence against relativity, might I direct you to:
:::http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/relativity/
:::Where the official Nobel Prize website discusses various experiments related to relativity, and the relevant [[Nobel Prize]]s awarded for them.
:::--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:32, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::::GPS is not even on that overly broad list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, I've tried to confine my evidence to items which not even you can claim as 'hearsay'. A simple Google search turns up hundreds of references linking GPS and relativity, but in view of your earlier dismissal of such as hearsay, I thought I'd better stick to indisputable items. At least there is some fairly convincing evidence linking GPS with relativity (including all the relevant equations and the result of applying these equations), unlike your assertion linking GPS with quantum mechanics, where you have produced precisely zero evidence. You still haven't responded to my comments and question re 'logical statements' above. So, where is the evidence for your assertion? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 02:46, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:::There is no credible evidence that the [[Theory of Relativity]] had anything to do with the development of GPS. In addition, not even the pro-Relativity [[Nobel Prize]] [[liberals]] say that GPS proves the theory.

:::My comment about [[quantum mechanics]] was in response to a question about why synchronization is needed. Unless someone thinks that [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible (have you answered my question about that?), then synchronization will be needed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:00, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Could you please clarify what the connection between synchronisation, quantum mechanics and perpetual motion machines is? From what I've learned, clock synchronisation between the satellites is necessary because any signal between them travels at a finite speed, namely the speed of light. Do you deny that? The claim is that in order to compute the signal travel time and thus to synchronize the clocks correctly, the relative velocities and the differences in gravitational potential due to the different altitudes of the satellites (and Earth's surface) have to be taken into account. Do you think that is wrong? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:56, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

Lets stick to the subject (GPS and relativity); perpetual motion is a complete red herring, and I'm not sure how Nobel prizes come into the picture (we're debating science, not prizes).
On the basis of '''actual evidence produced''' in this discussion so far, I think that we can confidently state four facts:
#Prior to launch, the clock in a GPS satellite is set to run about 38 nanoseconds/day different from an otherwise identical clock on the earth's surface.
#When in orbit the GPS clock then appears to tick at the same rate as an identical clock on the earth's surface.
#Equations based on the theory of relativity accurately come up with this figure of around 38 nanoseconds.
#No evidence has been produced to show how quantum mechanics is involved.

If anyone disagrees with any of the above, they need to bear in mind ('''emphasis''' added):
:from Conservapedia:Commandments 1 Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''.
:from Conservapedia:Commandments 2 '''Always cite''' and give credit to your sources.
:from Conservapedia:Guidelines/Reliability 4 A major difference between Liberalism and Conservatism is how much each group is willing to have its pronouncements checked, its actions reviewed and evaluated.

Hope this summary helps. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:41, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

: That is the story as I have heard it. Except that I heard that the 38 ns/day adjustment was remotely switchable, because of relativity skeptics who did not believe that it would be necessary. I also don't agree that GPS is "dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time." The GPS system has the ability to measure the daily adjustments that it needs. So even with any relativity theory or Einstein conception, it could just make those 38 ns/day adjustments and GPS would have all the accuracy it has today. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:19, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::In the summary I was careful to stick to facts supported by evidence, and to avoid saying "GPS is dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time", even though the two main references I have quoted do in fact say this. All I said was that the adjustment calculated according to relativity agrees with the actual adjustment, from which one might reasonably conclude, in this instance at least, that relativity is consistent with reality. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 15:44, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::I note that no one has proposed any credible alternative theory as to why the orbiting clocks tick at a different speed from surface clocks, so until some better theory comes along I'm quite happy to stick with relativity. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:00, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:In the last week, apart from one clarification question from [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], no one has challenged the 'four facts' summary I provided above. According I will shortly move a copy of this summary along with the relevant references in to the talk pages of other relevant articles, and will then update those articles to match. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 13:36, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

::Beware: in your fact #1, the correction is 38 '''micro'''seconds, not '''nano'''seconds. See [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html]. My own rough calculations also agree that it's microseconds. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 15:05, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

::Well spotted, Judy. I've gone back to one of the sources and it is indeed 38 microseconds. Thank you for the correction. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:10, 21 April 2012 (EDT)
All right, can Andy Schlafly explain how adjusting the exponent in the law of gravity accounts for the orbits of the other planets? You know the reason why no one considers that as an alternative? Are you ready?! '''Because it doesn't work!''' And can you tell me why Einstein came up with GR? Was it to explain the orbit of Mercury? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 21:36, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

:::In response to your first question, the reason is purely political. Any grad student who suggests that tweaking the exponent in Newtonian mechanics is an interesting approach worth more attention will thereby eliminate his chances for obtaining a PhD.

:::In response to your second point, GR was tweaked to explain the Mercury perihelion precession, but now the more precisely observed data fail to match the theory. Grad students and Nobel Prize wannabes are clever enough to keep quiet about it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:56, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

Andy: You make an interesting point about people not thinking that the Newcomb/Hall theory of planetary precession is an interesting approach—I hadn't thought about that aversion. I'm not sure why you think that people who take an interest in that theory would eliminate their chances of getting a PhD—people take an interest in historical aspects of science all the time. I can think of a few discarded scientific theories that are commonly discussed in science classes: The Ptolemaic theory of the solar system, the "plum pudding" model of the atom, and the phlogiston theory of combustion come to mind. The first two are very commonly taught in science classes. I think this is because they do a very good job of illustrating the scientific method and the value of careful analytical thinking. The phlogiston theory also illustrates careful thinking, but it isn't discussed in science classes nearly as much. My guess is that this is because it's harder to visualize. You can easily make a diagram in a textbook of the epicycles of Ptolemy and the ellipses of Kepler. And the model of electrons circling the nucleus, as per the Rutherford atom, is pretty much the logo for all things atomic. Lavoisier's (and others') experiments with combustion don't make for as dramatic an illustration.

The Simon Newcomb / Asaph Hall theory of planetary precession, unfortunately, seems to be even less photogenic. The effect being explained, 43 arcseconds per century, may be hard to get sudents excited about. But I doubt whether anyone jeopardizes their academic or research careers by being interested in it.

Idea: How about if I write some articles about the 4 theories (Ptolemy/Kepler, pudding/Rutherford, phlogiston/oxidation, and Newcomb/Einstein)? We could create a category for discarded scientific theories.

But I won't get to it any time soon. I'm very busy at Ameriwiki.

By the way, I have to thank you for the "E=mc^2" article. It really sharpened my thinking about the issues involved in special relativity, and it contributed to the outline of the articles I'm writing at Ameriwiki.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:40, 2 May 2012 (EDT)

::: Ugh, the reasons GPS devices don't contain the "rigorous transformations" that relativity "would seem to require" is very simple. The satellites are in geosynchronous orbits, and the difference in time that relativity causes only need to be calculated once. From then on, it's simply a case of adding a few ns every day to the satellite clocks to account for this. I would've thought that was obvious to an expert. And only an expert should be attempting to write authoratively on the theory of relativity! A certificate in physics does not an expert make. [[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 15:09, 11 July 2012 (EDT)

== Logic and the GPS ==

*Atomic watches work on the Earth quite fine
*[[Quantum mechanics]] describe the physics of ''very small length and energy scales''
*Satellites are macroscopic objects.
*Even a precision of 1cm on the surface of the Earth isn't a very small length.

So which kind of logic tells us that quantum mechanical effects influence the synchronization of the clocks? Why are not only the scientists involved lying, but also their calculations?

For me it seems to be a logical conclusion that you, Aschlafly, are even more knowledgeable of Greek than of Science! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:He's trying to apply the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle to satellites? Are you kidding me? That principle is used for things at the ATOMIC LEVEL! Using ANYTHING with regards to quantum mechanics in an argument about satellites is absurdism and/or ignorance of the subject matter! Seriously Andy, I know you hate the Theory of Relativity, but you should really leave science to those who understand it. [[User:JanSmuts|JanSmuts]] 16:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::For someone who thinks that Brownian motion is about motion at the sub-atomic level your suggestions of scientific superiority ring hollow.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 10:15, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

== Newtonian explanation of Mercury's precession ==

I removed the phrase "[precession can be understood by] factoring in the gravitational pull due to other planets". The first sentence of that paragraph says the opposite, that the extra precession cannot be understood "even after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets". Unless I'm reading it wrong, it sounded like a contradiction. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 16:51, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:Where is the contradiction? If the exponent in Newtonian gravity is slightly adjusted, then it predicts the Mercury precession.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:01, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::I'm curious as to the justification for changing a formula in Newtonian gravity. Do you change it for every situation, or just for this one special case? Can you give us the adjusted formula, and specify the exact change? For such a change in physics which has been in use for over 250 years I would like to see a reference, preferably several good references. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:25, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
:::The old Newcomb-Hall hypothesis. [http://books.google.at/books?id=oKGlHjDzGjQC&lpg=PA379&dq=newcomb%20hall%20precession&pg=PA379#v=onepage&q=newcomb%20hall%20precession&f=false This book] says that it contradicts the observations of the orbit of the moon, which rules out a change of exponent of of the required magnitude. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 18:30, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
::The contributors to this section might be pleased to see that the issue has been discussed, at great length, right here at Conservapedia. An entire debate page was created for it: [[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity%3F]] This was a discussion that spilled over from [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness]].

::Furthermore, the subject was discussed on the relativity page itself, in the section [[Theory_of_relativity#Experimental_Verification_of_Relativity]]. There is a large chart showing the precessions of the planets under the Newcomb-Hall theory and under general relativity. They are the last two columns of the chart. The actual observations match the last column very well (see [http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm], taking into account that it's very hard to get accurate reading on the outer planets, since their precession is so small.

::One can see that the last two columns of the chart match only for Mercury. That is, Newcomb and Hall "tweaked" the exponent to the value of 2.000000157 in order to get Mercury's precession correct.

::Under the Newcomb-Hall theory, the precession of any orbiting body would be .000000078 revolutions per orbit. This works for Mercury, but is too high for the other planets, and way too high for the Moon. This is why the theory was discarded. With modern artificial satellites, such as the International Space Station, an orbit takes only an hour and a half, and the precession would be enormous. The clearly wrong value for the Moon is why the Newcomb-Hall theory was quickly discarded.

::Under general relativity, we know that the precession per orbit is proportional to the square of the planet's orbital velocity. Mercury has the highest velocity, so it has readily measurable precession. Artificial satellites are much slower, and the Moon is slower still.

::I personally don't see accepting the possible truth of such a thoroughly discredited theory as evidence of open-mindedness, but open-mindedness is admittedly a very tricky issue. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 18:11, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

::::"Mathematical physicists" (an [[oxymoron]] - I'll add it to the list) insisted that it was impossible for the exponent in Newtonian gravity to be anything other than '''''precisely''''' 2 (or -2). With the political push to promote the [[Theory of Relativity]], the influence of the mathematical physicists rose too, and that is what shut down the valid inquiry into whether the Newtonian exponent should be '''''precisely''''' 2 (or -2). But any logical inquiry must admit the possibility, or even the likelihood, that it would not be exactly 2 (or -2).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:31, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

The issue here is not whether the exponent is precisely two or not but that you have to have a model which explains all (or at least as many as possible) observations. To get the precision of Mercury right you produce a model which then fails to explain the observed precession of every other body in the solar system. This seems to be a good experimental demonstration that Newcomb-Hall is wrong (or least inadequate as a model). [[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:32, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:I'm not sure how [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] got us on the subject of the Newtonian exponent. My comment makes no mention of it. I'll answer his original question "where's the contradiction?": I quoted two sentences, both containing the phrase "other planets". One sentence said the precession '''can''' be understood by including the effects of the other planets, whereas the other said the precession '''cannot''' be understood that way. It is just rhetoric. The contradiction has little to do with physics. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 12:06, 16 April 2012 (EDT)

OK, how do you explain that adjusting the exponent in Newtonian gravity doesn't account for the orbits of the other planets? You say it has to do with politics. It has nothing to do with politics--the other theory just doesn't work! [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:33, 11 May 2012 (EDT)

:I doubt the minor tweak in the exponent would affect the other orbits. The orbit of Mercury would be far more sensitive to such a tweak than anything else.

:The broader question remains: isn't the [[censorship]] of any alternative to the [[Theory of Relativity]] obvious? If the theory were correct, then there would be no need for [[liberals]] to censor debate or alternative theories.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

::*''I doubt the minor tweak in the exponent would affect the other orbits.'' Do you have any calculations which would affirm this belief of yours? AFAIK, Simon Newcomb's and Asaph Hall's idea was discarded when excellent measurements for the Moon were made by Ernest W. Brown which didn't fit the predictions of Newcomb and Hall. This was in the early 20th century...
::*Today Computer simulations allow for an easy test of alternatives to Newton's exponent. Any student should be able to create one and see for himself that it doesn't work out.
::*The influence of the exponent on ''apsidal angles'' was discussed be Newton himself. It's still of interest today: a central system in which the exponent is 1 is easily imaginable (swing a weight on a spring around your head). And you will find publications on these subjects still today.
::That said:
::*Why don't you run a simulation for yourself?
::*''Alternative theories'' are discussed - and mostly discarded. That's the way physics works. Theories doesn't become true because you ''believe'' in them, they become more and more trustworthy when their predictions are verified over and over again.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:40, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

:::The Newcomb-Hall theory doesn't need anyone, liberal or otherwise, to censor it. It censors itself, by being wrong. It has been shown to be wrong many times, including Ernest Brown's observations, and some data published right here at [[Theory of relativity#Experiments that Fail to Prove Relativity|Conservapedia]].

:::Probably the best refutation at present is with artificial satellites, since their orbital period is so short. If you want to argue for the Newcomb-Hall theory, your best bet would be to find data showing that the periapsis of the International Space Station precesses by .013 degrees per month. That is an enormous precession, easily observed. The orbital eccentricity is only .001, but, since the ISS is so close and is in constant contact by radio and radar, there should be extremely good data. You should probably contact the author of the [http://www.heavens-above.com/ Heavens Above] web site. It has a huge amount of information on things like this.

:::I think that you will find that what you are up against is not liberals, but facts. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 12:44, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

== First sentence of article contradicted by the rest ==

Given that main body of the article now largely deals with the things GR can explain (including the precession of Mercury) should not the first sentance be changed?[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:37, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:GR is '''disproven''''' now by the precession of Mercury. See [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:22, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

I checked [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] and the number for the observed precession in the note are unreferenced. To be credible there has to be a reference for this number.[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 12:11, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

== Nobel Committee Criticism ==

That section of the article criticizes the Nobel Committee for not awarding a prize to a scientist who questions relativity, then immediately notes that no awards have been given for work related to relativity. Perhaps it'd be better to remove this contradiction; pick a poison and stick to it, so to speak. Alternatively, it may be more honest just to remove the section. --[[User:PaPatriot|PaPatriot]]

:What's contradictory about that? It's similar to how the Obama Administration won't appoint anyone who is [[pro-life]], and yet Obama won't campaign on being pro-[[abortion]]. That's not a contradiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:07, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

== Bending of light in Newtonian gravity ==

All right, can someone show me exactly how light is bent by gravity in Newtonian gravity? Photons have zero mass, so, according to Newtonian gravity, they should not feel gravity. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:56, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

:*Newton's Corpuscular theory of light didn't state that the mass of the photons is zero. It was just obvious that it is very tiny
:*For the actual calculation, the mass of the photon cancels out
:*[[Johann Georg von Soldner]] did the calculations in 1801 - Newton's theroy was still going strong, then. ([http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Ueber_die_Ablenkung_eines_Lichtstrals_von_seiner_geradlinigen_Bewegung Über die Ablenkung eines Lichtstrals von seiner geradlinigen Bewegung] English: ''On the Deflection of a Light Ray from its Rectilinear Motion''). The predicted effect was to tiny to be observed accurately in his time
:*Newton's corpuscular theory became unpopular since the 1820s, so this line of thought wasn't followed up.
:*Here is a modern re-calculation [http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.1031v6 Bending of light: A classical analysis]
:From Sendler's essay: ''Hoffentlich wird es niemand bedenklich finden, daß ich einen Lichtstral geradezu als schweren Körper behandle. Denn daß die Lichtstralen alle absoluten Eigenschaften der Materie besitzen, sieht man an dem Phänomen der Aberration, welches nur dadurch möglich ist, daß die Lichtstralen wirklich materiel sind. – Und überdies, man kann sich kein Ding denken, das existiren und auf unsere Sinne wirken soll, ohne die Eigenschaft der Materie zu haben. –''
:''Hopefully no one will take offense that I looked at a ray of light as an object of mass. That every ray of light has the absolute properties of matter is seen from the phenomenon of aberration, which is only possible because the rays are really material. — and furthermore, one can think of no thing which exists and interacts with our sense without having the properties of matter.''
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:45, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
::Yeah, I've heard of that. But the photon has zero mass. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:20, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Newtonian physics doesn't know about zero-mass particles, hence it doesn't make a unique prediction. One possible interpretation is to say "zero mass -> zero gravitational force -> no bending". Another interpretation is to take the mathematical limit of the equations for ''m''->0. Since ''ma = GMm/r2'', the mass of the photon cancels and you get ''a = GM/r2'', even in the limiting case ''m=''0. This leads to bending by half the amount as predicted by relativity (and observed). --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 22:47, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

== Conflation of Relativity and Relativism & Robert H. Dicke & Barack Obama ==

There appears to be significant resistance to relativity that is largely unfounded. The theory is in no way contradictory to Christian beliefs, or religion in general. As a conservative, right wing encycloepdia, I expect resistance to moral relativism.

From reading the article, it appears many of the authorship appear to conflate Einstein's relativity with moral relativism. The two concepts are entirely and utterly unrelated other than both containing the word "relativ". Newton's model of gravity as a simple inverse square law is a very close approximation to Einstein's model. The difference is Newton's is very slightly inaccurate and cannot be used where extreme accuracy is needed. Relativity can.

What's the difficulty with relativity here? The central premise is very basic and seems pretty self evident upon a little thought. There is no absolute frame of reference in a universe in which everything moves relative to everything else. Something can only be defined as moving with respect to (relative to) something else. And there you have it, general relativity.

There is also a problem with the section on Robert H. Dicke. He wasn't a major critic of relativity. Indeed, he developed some of the most stringent tests (relativity is highly falsifiable). It passed them. All.

I tracked down and read the article regarding relativity and law (Obama, etc.). It is quite a nice analogy, and is no way an attempt to use relativity to justify anything. The analogy is more closely related to the uncertainty principle - you cannot measure a particles position without changing or influencing it. You cannot just observe, as you have to intervene in order to do so. The same is true in American law (with a much stronger reliance on test cases, etc, than in say, English law). You cannot deal with one case without it having vast implications for others. That is all the paper is saying. Again, there is no agenda against conservatism or religion in this paper.

[[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 23:45, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== Clocks on Trains - alternative theory ==

Someone better come up with a really good explanation as to why a clock on a train will show a different time to a clock next to the track, after the train has travelled for a length of time. This has been done, and relativity predicted the difference (due to time dilation). If relativity is definitely un-true (the premise of this article), then what IS causing the difference in times?

The above GPS argument makes a similar case, but trains are easier to understand. The difference in time on these clocks has nothing at all to do with quantum physics. Noone try and claim it is, and that they don't have to prove it because it's a logical statement. Anyone who thinks they can logically infer QM (which is inherently illogical by human perception) needs to see a shrink.

[[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 23:51, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== Counterexamples to Recent Experiments ==

Recently, experiments have been published in Science, directly measuring general relativistic time dilation effects using atomic clocks placed about a metre apart. Do we have any idea how to refute this? The reference I provide is to a newspaper summary of the findings [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/einsteins-theory-is-proved--and-it-is-bad-news-if-you-own-a-penthouse-2088195.html]. I have also read the paper and see no loopholes.
--[[User:DanPW|DanPW]] 12:49, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

::We don't need to, and can't, refute this; it is true. This appears to be an update, over a much shorter distance, of the Pound-Rebka experiment of 1960 or so. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 08:27, 15 July 2017 (EDT)

:Probably our best bet is personal attacks on the researcher, Chou, or possibly [[NIST]]. I suspect Chou was not born in this country. He may have an agenda to confuse American citizens. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 14:35, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

== Information and Relativistic Time Dilation? ==

The question is this: are laws of physics the results of predetermined relationships, or are they result of using information?

This seemingly has nothing to do with time dilation, mass increase and such. But it does. Read more about this important question:

[http://www.msg2act.com/physics/ch/index.shtml]

It turns out, there is a connection between information processing and SR/GR time dilation.

In a simplified way, the more information there is, the slower the rate of physical processes.

Antecedent to first concept of physics, main SR/GR results can be derived out of thin air, without postulates.

== Edit of 29 Oct 2014 ==

I think [[User:Dossas]] was right in having the article say what it is before criticizing it. Most pages on science have at least a sentence or two, at the beginning, saying what the subject is.

I have moved the bulk of the criticism (Louis Essen, etc.) up a few paragraphs. The link to his article ''The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis'' was a dead link, but I found two other links that are equally fiery. And I put the "wouldn't get tenure" line into a better contextual place. That is, in with the paragraph about Essen. In fact, his ''Relativity and Time Signals'' paper has a quote at the top: "The theory is so rigidly held that young scientists dare not openly express their doubts" that you might want to put in, illustrating the "wouldn't get tenure" line. Though I haven't done that.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:10, 30 October 2014 (EDT)

== An argument against relativity ==
I think I have a strong (theoretical) argument against the theory of relativity. Is there anyone who could help me by reviewing my stuff, by giving me a professional opinion? May email address: laszlogm@admarc.hu {{unsigned|Laszlogm}}

::I think things like this would be best played out in public. After all, this is a wiki, and Conservapedia has a long history of debating relativity issues openly. But if you really do want to promulgate it in private, my email is near the top of my user page. However, if you go that route, I very well may decide, based on what I see, to make it public somewhere here on CP.
::Your next choice might be simply to publish it directly, either on your own user or talk page, or at the bottom of this page (Talk pages are appended at the end, so they are in forward chronological order).
::Perhaps your best bet, if you are feeling really confident, is to add it to the [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] page. But I should advise you in advance: The bar for counterexamples is rather high, and, unless you really have a correct counterexample, your argument will be figuratively ripped to shreds, the way all the others have been.
::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 13:33, 11 January 2015 (EST)
== Einstein’s Relativity and Relativism: Why Einstein’s theory of relativity is actually a powerful argument for absolute truth. ==

Please read the article [http://evangelicalfocus.com/blogs/1297/Einsteins_Relativity_and_Relativism Einstein’s Relativity and Relativism: Why Einstein’s theory of relativity is actually a powerful argument for absolute truth.] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:55, 11 February 2016 (EST)

== New heading ==

I have rarely laughed out loud as often as I did while reading this article. This must be satire, no? If not then I weep for humanity. {{unsigned|Nikib}}

:Yeah, sure you do. You might weep for closed-mindedness too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 15:15, 2 July 2017 (EDT)

::You may consider it to be satire, but it is not. The story is more complicated than that. Conservapedia is probably the most prominent place on the internet where relativity is treated this way. There is probably no one on the planet that disparages and denies relativity more ferociously than Andy Schlafly. The [[counterexamples to relativity]] page is world-famous, has over 2 million page views, and dominates, by a wide margin, Google searches for the subject. If you think that all of us at CP are anti-relativity, you are wrong.

::You should know that there is sort of a custom at CP, for pages like this, that parts of pages above the table of contents are not to by edited except by Aschlafly, but the material below the table of contents is the consensus (in the usual way for a wiki) of the editor base, and that most editors try to have that part of the page be a factual exposition of the subject. If you would like to contribute to that, feel free. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 15:37, 2 July 2017 (EDT)

== Gravitational time dilation ==

Each rising sun is a synchronization of time, every eclipses synchronize altitudes together from one eclipse to the other. Synchronization of events is incompatible with desynchronization of clocks. I prefer to believe in synchronization of eclipses than in desynchronization of clocks. But that is a choice. If you believe eclipses are desynchronized, it is God will, but you are not in the truth. If there were some (nano)seconds more at high altitudes between eclipses (slower rate), it would mean events happen quicker at low altitude (quicker rate of events in a time dilated frame???). What is your opinion? {{unsigned|Geocentric}}
:My opinion is that the English language is a beautiful and expressive language, and that science is a beautiful and useful pursuit. What I reverted showed a level of English and scientific literacy lower than that of a reasonable 10-year-old.
:Relativity is about fundamental physical truths about space and time, not trivialities about eclipses and sunrises. In any case, the phenomenon of sunrise is known, to anyone with a primary-school education, to be nothing but a manifestation of the rotation of the Earth (relativity!)
:I still do not know whether this person is a willful troll/vandal or is just monumentally ignorant. We certainly have our share of scientific nonsense at Conservapedia, such as [[Gravitation demystified]] and [[Hydroplate Theory]]<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/]</ref>. We don't need any more. I would recommend that this person go away. If this stuff persists, I will recommend that the administrators review this issue and block this user. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 20:27, 21 August 2017 (EDT)

== "Household name" claim ==

What made someone a "household name" is not of scientific interest. The [[fake news]] of the 1919 eclipse, and how media ran with it, hardly seems to be of encyclopedic value in a scientific entry. The implication that [[fake news]] must be true if people believe is not enlightening.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 16:46, 3 September 2018 (EDT)

:Information about Einstein's rise to fame is admittedly not appropriate for an actual science textbook. A physics textbook would describe Galileo's accomplishments in mechanics (leading to what we now call "Galilean relativity") and astronomy (telescope, moons of Jupiter, etc.) but would probably not discuss in any detail his problems with the Catholic Church.

:However, this an encyclopedia, not a physics textbook, and a certain amount of "fluff" or societal material appears in many CP articles. For example, the articles on Madonna Ciccone, Taylor Swift, Elvis Presley, Johannes Kepler, Stephen Hawking, Marie Curie, William Herschel, Wolfgang Mozart, and Ludwig van Beethoven, to name just a minuscule fraction of our articles, all have "soft" material on why they are famous.

:Like it or not, Einstein is a household name. If it weren't, would you be fighting so hard against him? And he got that way in 1919 because of the eclipse. I happen to disagree that that's his signature achievement. But it's the achievement that, for better or worse, got the headlines and made him a superstar.

:If the eclipse observations had been wrong, that fame would have been taken away. But Eddington's result was right while his methods were wrong.<ref>''Einstein's Luck'', John Waller, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-860719-9</ref> Eddington lucked out and got away with it, and the flaws in his analysis weren't discovered until decades later with the advent of more rigorous methods for analyzing experiments. By then, extremely precise and properly analyzed data had gotten the same result—the angle of deflection was 1.75 arcseconds.

:It is far better to say that people believed the eclipse news (else how could we explain how Einstein became a household word?) but Eddington's methods were wrong (And this is exactly what our article says!) than to censor that information and leave people in the dark about Einstein's fame.

:Wrong things get said all the time. In the extremely early years of computers, some famous person (can't be bothered to look it up, but you've probably read it too) said that the whole world would have a need for about 5 computers. And don't forget that the US Patent Office was once closed down because nothing more would be invented.

:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 19:05, 3 September 2018 (EDT)

== Numbers for claims about Mercury's precession. ==

ASchlafly compares the relativistic prediction for the precession of Mercury's orbit with observed values and states that "the conflict is greater than the margin of error." However, he does not show what these values are or provide a link to an external reference. Elsewhere on the same page some numbers for observed and predicted anomalous precession are provided, and they appear to be in agreement: the uncertainties overlap. For example, a predicted value of 42.98 ±0.04 arcseconds per century is provided, which does overlap with the provided observed value of 43.13 ± 0.14 arcseconds per century. Interestingly, there is no reference for the predicted value of 42.98 ±0.04. There are values in tables that do not match the values in the references that seem to be associated with the tables as well. Lastly, a formula for the approximation of precession under GR is provided in two places which is off by a factor of 2Π, in the reference frame of the orbiting body in question. Use of that formula as stated provides neither the correct predicted precession per orbit, nor the correct predicted precession per 100 Earth years (which is how the precession is normally presented). It's unclear when the incorrect formula was added to the page or for what purpose. 
If ASchlafly would cite or report the specific numbers that he is comparing, or point to his source for those numbers, his argument could be evaluated. Currently, his claim is in clear conflict with the numbers provided elsewhere on the page. The issue of the incomplete/incorrect formula and possible errors (or incorrect references) in the tables should probably be addressed by a more senior party than myself.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] ([[User talk:Brossa|talk]]) 14:14, 4 September 2018 (EDT)
:Ummm, yeah. I may have gotten the two "approximations" wrong. The one in footnote 46 or so was the approximation in Einstein's paper. The other one was just put together by me as an ''extreme'' back-of-the-envelope rough approximation designed to show how the precession depends on the planet's speed relative to the speed of light, without fussing over the orbital eccentricity. I'll go look at that again. It's made confusing by the need to choose really consistent units (what exactly is the Schwartzschild radius? Are we using c=1 units?). And the standard "theoretical" formulas are in Mercury years, whereas we traditionally describe this in Earth years.
:But keep in mind that the real test is whether the precession ''as observed through telescopes'' and the precession ''as precisely calculated from the Einstein field equations and the Schwartzschild metric'' agree. That's what the error bars are about. The two approximations are just that. You need to solve the equations, and (unlike for Newtonian/Keplerian gravity) that has to be done by computer.
:So I'll look at that and try to clean it up. And not have one of the approximations in the text while another is in a footnote. That's just dumb. Thanks for pointing out the problem. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 16:32, 4 September 2018 (EDT)
::I've looked it over, and I "sort of" stand by my original formulas. I think things are confused by the symbol "a". In modern relativity textbooks that's the Schwartzschild radius, (also know as the "gravitating radius") but in Einstein's paper it was the semi-major axis of the ellipse. (You remember a and b being the semi-major and semi-minor axes of an ellipse from high school, right? That's what Einstein was using.) Now the reason I say "sort of" is that my supposedly nice approximation of <math>\frac{3GM}{c^2 a(1-e^2)}</math> was already simplified, by me, from what was in Einstein's paper. And that was an approximation in any case. The only way to get the really precise theoretical prediction is to solve numerically for a geodesic, by computer. Thet's what the Pijpers paper is comparing with the experimental measurements. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:17, 5 September 2018 (EDT)

:::Not even top relativists claim that the advance of the perihelion of Mercury proves the General Theory of Relativity anymore. Once the divergence between more accurate measurements and the theory began occurring nearly 15 years ago, relativists stopped reporting data about this. The Wikipedia entry on this displays a style of everything except confirmation by the data of the theory. Instead, it talks about historical motivation and uses [[liberal style]] like "consistent with" rather than "confirms". Its citations are then more than a decade old. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 12:13, 5 September 2018 (EDT)
::::My question for you was just what the specific numbers you are comparing are, in support of your statement that the conflict is greater than the margin of error. For example: are you comparing the calculated vs. observed numbers for the anomalous precession only from the Pijpers paper, or some other numbers from the Wikipedia article, or some third source? You mention 15 years ago, so are you referring to some data from 2003 or thereabouts? As I said above, the numbers presented on the page here are ''not'' in conflict, so if you are operating with a different set of numbers we should know what those are. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] ([[User talk:Brossa|talk]]) 23:03, 5 September 2018 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

Talk:Theory of relativity

2018-09-04T18:14:37Z

Brossa: new section re: numbers claimed for Mercury precession

Fallacy of analogy

2018-09-02T15:59:01Z

Brossa:

The '''fallacy of analogy''' is a [[logical fallacy]] that argues that because one thing resembles another in some aspects, they must resemble each other another aspect. In general, an argument by analogy takes the following form: 

'''A''' is like '''B''' (they share properties '''X''','''Y''', and '''Z'''). 

'''B''' also has property '''Q''' 

Therefore, '''A''' has property '''Q''' as well. 

The strength of such an argument depends upon the strength of the analogy; it may actually be the case that '''A''' is not much like '''B''' at all. If '''A''' and '''B''' have more differences than shared properties, the argument is weakened. It may also be true that '''A''' is like '''B''' in many ways, but still differs from '''B''' in terms of the specific property '''Q'''. If the analogy is too weak or irrelevant to the conclusion that is drawn, then a fallacy of weak analogy has been committed. An analogy itself is never true or false; it is only weak or strong. Consider the following examples: 

A tomato is like an apple. 

Apples grow on trees. 

Therefore, tomatoes grow on trees. 

Here, the analogy between tomatoes and apples is weak; they may have similar size and color, but these similarities are superficial and there are many more ways in which they differ. Therefore the conclusion is not well supported. 

Mike and his twin Chris are the same height and weight, have similar jobs, identical political beliefs, are fans of the same sports teams, and attend the same church. 

Mike is male. 

Therefore, Chris is male also. 

In this example, Mike and Chris may be virtually identical in almost all ways, and yet these similarities are not relevant to whether they are two brothers or brother and sister.

Fallacious or weak analogies are frequently used in [[prejudice]]d accusations against [[ethnic group]]s, and in [[polemic]] against [[religions]] and religious practices, and by prosecutors in courts of law to persuade judges and juries of the guilt of the accused.

A classic [[joke]] says, "If it walks like a duck, talks like a duct, and acts like a duck, it must be a duck—unless it's a [[politician]] seeking the duck vote."

See [[Specious reasoning]]

[[category:logic]]
[[category:law]]
[[category:apologetics]]

Fallacy of analogy

2018-09-02T15:56:01Z

Brossa:

The '''fallacy of analogy''' is a [[logical fallacy]] that argues that because one thing resembles another in some aspects, they must resemble each other another aspect. In general, an argument by analogy takes the following form:

'''A''' is like '''B'''(they share properties '''X''','''Y''', and '''Z''').
'''B''' also has property '''Q'''
Therefore, '''A''' has property '''Q''' as well.

The strength of such an argument depends upon the strength of the analogy; it may actually be the case that '''A''' is not much like '''B''' at all. If '''A''' and '''B''' have more differences than shared properties, the argument is weakened. It may also be true that '''A''' is like '''B''' in many ways, but still differs from '''B''' in terms of the specific property '''Q'''. If the analogy is too weak or irrelevant to the conclusion that is drawn, then a fallacy of weak analogy has been committed. An analogy itself is never true or false; it is only weak or strong. Consider the following examples:

A tomato is like an apple.
Apples grow on trees.
Therefore, tomatoes grow on trees.

Here, the analogy between tomatoes and apples is weak; they may have similar size and color, but these similarities are superficial and there are many more ways in which they differ. Therefore the conclusion is not supported.

Mike and his twin Chris are the same height and weight, have similar jobs, identical political beliefs, are fans of the same sports teams, and attend the same church.
Mike is male.
Therefore, Chris is male also.

In this example, Mike and Chris may be virtually identical in almost all ways, and yet these similarities are not relevant to whether they are two brothers or brother and sister.

Fallacious or weak analogies are frequently used in [[prejudice]]d accusations against [[ethnic group]]s, and in [[polemic]] against [[religions]] and religious practices, and by prosecutors in courts of law to persuade judges and juries of the guilt of the accused.

A classic [[joke]] says, "If it walks like a duck, talks like a duct, and acts like a duck, it must be a duck—unless it's a [[politician]] seeking the duck vote."

See [[Specious reasoning]]

[[category:logic]]
[[category:law]]
[[category:apologetics]]

Michael Bisping

2018-08-12T23:20:24Z

Brossa:

'''Michael Bisping''', nicknamed "The Count" because of his [[British]] heritage and his capacity for knockouts, is an actor and retired [[mixed martial artist]], having fought in the [[UFC]]'s light heavyweight and middleweight divisions. He won the Light Heavyweight championship on [[The Ultimate Fighter]] 3, and was the coach of the U.K. team on The Ultimate Fighter 9: Team UK vs. Team USA. His career MMA record was 30-9.

==References==
<references />

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bisping, Michael}}

[[Category:Mixed Martial Artists]]
[[Category:UFC Middleweights]]

Meteoroid

2018-08-12T23:06:39Z

Brossa:

A '''meteoroid''' is a small, natural, rocky object, between 30 micrometers and 1 meter in diameter, traveling through space. Larger objects are called [[asteroid]]s.
When a meteoroid enters the earth's atmosphere it is called a ''[[meteor]]''. The majority of meteoroids in the [[Solar System]] come from the [[Asteroid belt]].

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Red Envelope Project

2018-08-12T22:49:48Z

Brossa:

The '''Red Envelope Project''' was a 2009 [[Christian]] grassroots project consisting of flooding the mail with red letters, symbolizing the blood of [[Christ]] and the blood of abortion victims. Red envelopes were sent to the White House, in protest against President [[Obama]]'s pro-[[abortion]] and embryonic [[stem cell research]] positions.

==Resources and References==
*http://www.redenvelopeproject.org/
*http://www.lifenews.com/nat4837.html
*[http://www.envelopesexpress.com/categories/viewcolor Great bulk price, immediate shipment]

[[Category:Christian Organizations]]

West Nile Virus

2018-07-22T04:24:48Z

Brossa:

The '''West Nile Virus''' is a potentially deadly [[disease]] transmitted by [[mosquitoes]], which first entered the [[United States]] in 1999 from [[Israel]]<ref>https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/12/4/05-1379_article</ref><ref>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10600742</ref><ref>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11585528</ref>. No antiviral treatments are available. First identified in the West Nile district of Uganda in 1937, West Nile Virus is endemic across Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Australia, and West Asia. Since being introduced to the New World in 1999 in New York State, it has spread from Canada as far south as Venezuela. West Nile Virus is primarily a disease of birds, with humans, horses, alligators, and even killer whales being 'dead end hosts' - that is, hosts which can sicken from West Nile infection but which do not produce enough virus in their bloodstream to perpetuate transmission of the disease.

The [[CDC]] explains:<ref>https://www.cdc.gov/westnile/symptoms/index.html</ref>
{{cquote|About 1 in 5 people who are infected develop a fever with other symptoms such as headache, body aches, joint pains, vomiting, diarrhea, or rash. Most people with this type of West Nile virus disease recover completely, but fatigue and weakness can last for weeks or months. Serious symptoms in a few people. About 1 in 150 people who are infected develop a severe illness affecting the central nervous system such as encephalitis (inflammation of the brain) or meningitis (inflammation of the membranes that surround the brain and spinal cord).}}
== References ==
<references/>

[[category:Diseases]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2017-11-26T20:34:50Z

Brossa: /* Yup, he's gay */

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

==Obama's claim to being a Christian==
The article briefly states Obama converted to Christianity as an adult. There is no indication Obama had any inclination to converting to Christianity ''prior'' to his marriage to Michelle Robinson Obama. It may be even his conversion was a concession, or matter of convenience in an agreement on child rearing.

This indeed, is a first: no American President in history ever attested to ''not'' having a Christian background in their youth, or converting in later life. More emphasis should be placed upon Obama's non-Christian, and possibly anti-Christian (be it secular atheist, Marxist, or Islamic) upbringing and early youth.

2000 year old Christian communities are being exterminated, black Christian girls abducted, enslaved, and raped while Obama is more concerned about his golf swing. The time for speculation about Obama is over. He is now building his legacy. [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 17:28, 24 August 2014 (EDT)

::He has been seen eating during daylight hours of ramadan (fourth pillar of Islam), ate pork at the White house Easter egg hunt, has not been on Hajj (Fifth pillar), has never been seen praying during salat times (Second pillar), has a pet dog (banned by Hadiths), has been seen consuming alcoholic beverages at state dinners, and said he is not a Muslim. (Violates first pillar:Shahadah. Muslims must give declaration of their faith and only of their faith. Saying "I'm not a Muslim" automatically makes on an apostate) He was sworn in on a Bible, not the Koran or Hadiths. If he is a Muslim he is probably the worlds worst Muslim.--[[User:IluvAviation|IluvAviation]] ([[User talk:IluvAviation|talk]]) 21:23, 1 March 2017 (EST)

I agree with [[User:IluvAviation|IluvAviation]]. Quite a few things he's done violate Islam's rules. [[User:Whiterose|Whiterose]] ([[User talk:Whiterose|talk]]) 18:21, 22 April 2017 (EDT)[[User:Whiterose|Whiterose]] ([[User talk:Whiterose|talk]]) 23:20, 22nd April 2017 (BST)
:Just because he's not a very "good" Muslim doesn't make him anythnig else. On a side note, the Liberals are all mad because Trump put a stop to the times of silence in the White house corresponding to the Muslim times or prayer. I'm sure Obama just wanted the quite so he could focus on his work... (Of course, all the liberals strambled to cover it up and call it all a joke.) --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 18:32, 22 April 2017 (EDT)
:He's done things that violate God's commandments too, so saying he's a Christian because he has violated Islamic commands is a logical fallacy. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] ([[User talk:DMorris|talk]]) 18:34, 22 April 2017 (EDT)
::Technically, I'm not entirely sure if Reverend Wright's parish would truly be Christian. At most, it's Christian-in-name-only due to adhering to Liberation Theology. And I don't know about others, but I most certainly doubt Obama's Christian either (like I said about his "adherence" to Islam below, he most likely only used the label of Christian in a cynical manner to gain votes). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 18:40, 22 April 2017 (EDT)
:::Obama claimed to be a Christian and was sworn in a bible. You get to keep your healthcare plan, too. It doesn't mean anything. We are the ones who must suffer for eternity because of his lies. By their fruits ye shall know them. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters are going down'']] 18:51, 22 April 2017 (EDT)
::::Yeah, and he also claimed to be a Muslim as well, and even a gay man. That's not going to mean much when he's willing to put on appearances in a cynical attempt to grab votes. I might as well also point out there have been plenty of Marxist infiltrators into the Church during the 1960s, and considering one of the requirements of Marxism is that one must be an atheist, it's pretty obvious those infiltrators do not even believe in God and were faking it. The exact same is to be said about Obama being sworn in via the Bible. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 19:19, 22 April 2017 (EDT)

== "Faith" ==

I would content that Obama is more of an atheist with islamic tendancies than a muslim. He shows distinct islamic traights and atheistic traits which are ruining are great country . [[User:FFAF|FFAF]] 09:42, 15 January 2015 (EST)
:I agree with that. Muslims dont support abortion or gay marriage like Obama does.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 11:41, 15 January 2015 (EST)
==Ironic Misspellings==
It's rather ironic that the article mocks Obama for misspelling "Respect" and "Ohio" when it spells "consensus" incorrectly in the preceding paragraph. [[User:BrodyJorgenson|BrodyJorgenson]] 18:31, 9 April 2015 (CST)

:Leftists are experts in spelling the word consensus given that they so often engage in groupthink! :)[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:47, 9 April 2015 (EDT)

==Proposal==
I propose all the material on his pre-Presidential careers, and the two election cycles, be spun off to other or new articles, and we focus the damage he's done and legacy in two broad subsections, Domestic and Foreign policy. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:25, 14 June 2015 (EDT)

==Here's a problem...==
This page took the "Obama is a Muslim" theme and went overboard. '''Now we know that line originated with [[Sidney Blumenthal]] and [[Hillary Clinton]].''' That's why Obama banned Blumenthal from working in the government. I suggest culling ''some'' of it out; while I've no doubt Obama was influneced by both his father and step-father's Islamic heritage and growing up in Indonesia, using what essentially was Blumenthal's trash now not only (1) is counterproductive, and (2) makes CP look foolish while Blumenthal & Hillary skate away unscathed. There is an important lesson here. Comments? And trust me, if Hillary wins, Blumenthal will be her chief advisor ''for years to come''. Do want those idiots dictating anymore CP content? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 14:42, 28 June 2016 (EDT)

:The line didn't originate with Blumenthal, although he contributed to it and passed on e-mails about it. But anti-Obama people were spreading the "Obama is a Muslim" thing before Blumenthal got to it. Debbie Schlussel was blogging about it before Blumenthal got his hands on it, and she claimed her article was in response to "e-mail questions". It's sort of a perfect storm of a rumor...it mixes fear of Islam with the idea that Obama is somehow "foreign" or "un-American". So I don't think it's going away. It's easier to slander somebody with made up rumors if you don't care about the facts than it is to criticize actual stuff that President Obama believes and does. So while it lowers the tone of the website, and honestly, is antithetical to what Conservapedia says it stands for, it's not going away any time soon, I don't think.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] ([[User talk:Whizkid|talk]]) 23:35, 28 June 2016 (EDT)

::
[[File:Screenshot 2015-06-24-01-23-04-1.png|400px]]

It's easy to conclude Obama is a Muslim by his name. Though the narrative to hit Obama with it is first and foremost propagated by the Clintons. Possibly taking a cue from talk radio.--Jpatt 07:01, 29 June 2016 (EDT)
:Some of it ought to be culled; it makes CP look stupid to march to Blumenthal & Hillary talking points. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 08:29, 29 June 2016 (EDT)
::Please see: [[Counterexamples to Obama being a Muslim]] and http://www.conservapedia.com/Obama%27s_Religion#Counterexamples_to_Obama_being_a_Muslim
:::By the way, many apostates (like his father) keep Muslim names out of tradition. Obama told TIME that while his father was born a Muslim, his father left Islam before he met his mother.<ref name="spiritual journey">{{Cite news| author=Obama, Barack | title=My Spiritual Journey | url=http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1546579,00.html | work=TIME | accessdate=September 26, 2008 | quote=My father was almost entirely absent from my childhood, having been divorced from my mother when I was 2 years old; in any event, although my father had been raised a Muslim, by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist, thinking religion to be so much superstition. | date=October 16, 2006}}</ref>Regardless, he has been seen eating during daylight hours of Ramadan (fourth pillar of Islam), ate pork at the White house Easter egg hunt, has not been on Hajj (Fifth pillar), has never been seen praying during Salat times (Second pillar), has a pet dog (banned by Hadiths), has been seen consuming alcoholic beverages at state dinners, and said he is not a Muslim. (Violates first pillar:Shahadah. Muslims must give declaration of their faith and only of their faith. Saying "I'm not a Muslim" automatically makes on an apostate) He was sworn in on a Bible, not the Koran or Hadiths. If he is a Muslim he is probably the worlds worst Muslim--[[User:IluvAviation|IluvAviation]] ([[User talk:IluvAviation|talk]]) 21:30, 1 March 2017 (EST)

::I don't believe Obama is a Muslim. The evidence does not support it and there is evidence pointing to him not being a Muslim. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 09:42, 29 June 2016 (EDT)
:::It doesn't matter, I'm saying the amount if space given to speculation and assertion is out of balance. More importantly, Conservapedia should be more careful about taking the bait dangled by Democrat talking points and making a fool of itself. Unless you're content spinning your wheels and marginalizing yourself as extremist. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 13:44, 29 June 2016 (EDT)
I don't agree with how Conservapedia handles the Obama/Muslim issue.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:50, 29 June 2016 (EDT)

:What difference, at this point, does it make? A sizable chunk of the population believes, right or wrong, that Obama is a secret Muslim. So it trends toward conspiracy and doesn't look flattering to the beholder. The bonus, Conservapedia draws traffic. There is much here that would upset the senses of millions. Oh and Cons, ever since the ape was shot at the Cincinnati Zoo...Rush Limbaugh has been hitting [[Evolution]] on a regular basis. Good stuff. --Jpatt 21:50, 29 June 2016 (EDT)
::Jpatt, I was thinking the same thing. Obama is a lame duck. I don't think Andy would be very upset if the "Obama is a Muslim" material is stripped out of the article. On the other hand, he is very sympathetic to Islam so that should remain in the article. He is also not a friend of Israel. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:19, 29 June 2016 (EDT)

:::Obama is a Muslim theme makes headlines on Drudge today [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3678209/Bill-O-Reilly-reveals-pictures-young-Obama-Islamic-wedding-claims-emotional-attachment-Muslim-world-hurt-USA.html] Americans are interested in this stuff. --Jpatt 09:32, 7 July 2016 (EDT)

::::He has been seen eating during daylight hours of ramadan (fourth pillar of Islam), ate pork at the White house Easter egg hunt, has not been on Hajj (Fifth pillar), has never been seen praying during salat times (Second pillar), has a pet dog (banned by Hadiths), has been seen consuming alcoholic beverages at state dinners, and said he is not a Muslim. (Violates first pillar:Shahadah. Muslims must give declaration of their faith and only of their faith. Saying "I'm not a Muslim" automatically makes on an apostate) He was sworn in on a Bible, not the Koran or Hadiths. If he is a Muslim he is probably the worlds worst Muslim--[[User:IluvAviation|IluvAviation]] ([[User talk:IluvAviation|talk]]) 21:30, 1 March 2017 (EST)

== Frank Marshall Davis ==

Barack Sr.'s papers were recently released. The letters cover 1958 to 1964, but "Barack Obama Sr. never mentioned his new wife and son, not even in his scholarship applications," as the ''[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/nyregion/letters-by-and-about-barack-obamas-father.html?_r=1 New York Times]'' puts it. On Barack Sr's student loan application, the section concerning family was left blank. He already had a wife and children back in Kenya when he married Ann Dunham, so it's possible the marriage was a sham. [http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/kincaid/160623 This article] makes the case that communist writer Frank Marshall Davis was Obama's biological father. From the pictures given, the president certainly looks a whole lot more like Davis than he does like Barack Sr. None of the reasons for suspecting Davis actually nail the thing down, but it's the most plausible theory I am aware of. The article implies that it's a political cover up, but surely no one expected little Obama to go into politics when he was born. Davis was already married and single motherhood was a scandal. The sham marriage protected Barack Jr from bastard status. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 21:51, 19 July 2016 (EDT)

== Birth location "reportedly" ==

A suspicious Hawaii "Certificate of Live Birth" (''not'' the same as a birth certificate), with a ''Connecticut'' Social Security number (a SSN to my knowledge is always from the birth state) and airline records which seem to indicate Barry ("Barack") Obama's mother came to Hawaii three days ''after'' his birth all make the statement of his birth location suspicious at best. I believe that it is being generous to Obama to say that he was "reportedly born" there, so I don't think this word should be removed. If there is proof that he surely was born here, then sure, take it out. For now, let's not be arbitrary when it isn't clear. I apprecate your contributions, but with controversial issues like this, please provide sufficient reliable proof when making such an edit. Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 16:10, 26 July 2016 (EDT)

Long form birth certificate can be found here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf. No social security number on it, because that is assigned from the SSA, not the hospital. I'm not sure where the information on the flights come from. What proof is required?

:The process of concealing, concealing, concealing and then releasing something widely criticized as being inadequate creates enough doubt to let the readers decide. A pattern of [[liberal denial]] on other issues, such as [[Obama's Religion]], undermines credibility of the [[liberal media]] as it cheerleads for Obama.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 09:24, 27 July 2016 (EDT)

::The cartoon image inserted in the upper right of this talk page is actually a pretty good checklist. As far as the birth certificate issue goes, this is an certificate of live birth. As [http://thelawdictionary.org/article/difference-between-birth-certificate-and-certificate-of-live-birth/ this article] explains, a certificate of live birth is largely unverified by the government. It is simple a record which states a person is alive, and parent information. In many cases, this document is enough for personal identification and passport application, but it is not really verified. These can be registered after birth, so Mrs. Obama could have easily registered it after his birth in another country. Additionally, there is still question as to whether his certificate of live birth is actually genuine. [http://www.infowars.com/new-obama-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery] [http://beforeitsnews.com/obama-birthplace-controversy/2015/01/obama-birth-certificate-a-forgery-mathematical-proof-2-2485352.html] Some in fact believe that he was first an Indonesian citizen [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/11/05/was-obama-once-an-indonesian-citizen-heres-what-we-found-when-we-went-there-looking] He has reported having been born in a hospital, which would have seen to getting him an official birth certificate, but yet this did not happen. And actually, he can't make up his mind which hospital he was born in since he has named two different ones. [http://www.obamacrimes.com/p/obamas-birth-history.html]
::As for the airline records, apparently someone reported this discrepancy, but when officials went to look, they found that the immigration records for that week [http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/immigration-records-missing-for-week-of-obamas-birth/ mysteriously vanished].
::There are other factors worth considering, such as an article which Barack Hussein Obama published as U.S. Senate hopeful in 2004 in which he self-identified as having been born in Kenya. Newsmax has another list [http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/Barack-Obama-Citizenship-Scandal-Birth-Certificate/2015/01/28/id/621307/ here], if you want to do a little further reading.

::As for what proof I would like to see, I would say:
::*An authenticated Birth Certificate
::*The missing immigration records
::*The hospital records
::...and any other records available which would prove this claim.

::I'm not trying to attack you by saying all this, but I'm just saying that there is still significant question in this matter. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 09:38, 27 July 2016 (EDT)

::Also, there are sworn affidavits of [http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/PROJECTS/Obama/Evidence/AFFIDAVIT-Bishop.pdf Bishop Ron McRae] and [http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/PROJECTS/Obama/Evidence/AFFIDAVITexhibit2.pdf Kweli Shuhubia] which further indicate he was born in Kenya. Kweli Shuhubia's affidavit includes partial transcript of an audio recording of Obama's grandmother stating she attended Obama's birth in Kenya. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 09:46, 27 July 2016 (EDT)

David, this birther stuff is just a big steaming pile of garbage. No one believes it any more, except utter nutcases. I know you are a smart and productive person. If you have gotten caught up in this, you need to re-evaluate / recalibrate your mental processes of deciding what is true.
''No one'', except total fruitcakes, believes any of this stuff. Absolutely convincing evidence has been out there for years by now.
If you want to investigate the issue on your own, I suggest that you start with:
*The "Barry Soetoro" nonsense. Do you see the absurdity underlying it?
*The "E.F. Lavender" / "You've been punked" document. If you have investigated the issue, you are no doubt familiar with this.
*The forged picture of the sign "Welcome to Kenya, birthplace of Barack Obama", along with the picture of the actual sign. (I don't remember the exact wording.) These pictures were making the rounds of the internet a few years ago. The forged one was actually uploaded to Conservapedia a few years ago, with no awareness of irony, and appeared in one of the articles. I was about to upload the correct sign, and put it next to the forged one, with a caption of "The issue of Obama's birth location inflames passions so much that people even forge pictures of signs, such as the one on the right." But, alas, more sensible heads prevailed at Conservapedia, and the whole thing was taken down before I could get to it.
*Sherrif Arpaio's investigation. What became of that? What did WND have to say about it?
*The disposition of case 8-cv-04083, alluded to above. It was dismissed "on the grounds that [plaintiff] lacks standing and failed to state a cognizable claim".
*The well-financed investigation that a very wealthy person said he was conducting. What became of that? Over the last few years, this person ahs repeatedly said, when asked about it, the he doesn't want to talk about it.
David, you can do better than getting caught up in an incredibly nonsensical conspiracy theory like this.
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 11:36, 30 July 2016 (EDT)

:You're right, there is evidence against this as well as for. It's not my intention to make a big deal about it, since it it irrelevant at this point, but there is still suspicion surrounding this. I don't have much time, but wanted to post a brief response. Since I haven't time to put my disjointed thoughts into paragraph form, here are my points:
:*Not sure what you are referring to as the "E.F. Lavender" / "You've been punked" document
:::I didn't expect you to know about it. It's about the weird ways these "facts" make their way into the birthers' heads. It was a photograph (cropped, but the originator didn't say that at first) that someone planted as evidence that BHO was born in Kenya. It was obviously fraudulent—it listed the birth city as a place not in Kenya at the time. (Mombassa? I don't remember the details.) It was signed by "E.F. Lavender", which was apparently an old brand of laundry detergent or something. None of that stopped the birthers from latching onto it as "evidence". The prankster then released an uncropped version of the same photograph—I believe it was laid out on a bed or something—with a sign below it saying "You've been punked!"
:*I probably know about the case 8-cv-04083, but I don't know it by the number.
:::It was the case involving the affidavit of a transcript of a statement from the grandmother or whatever. You can Google the case number.
:*Sherrif Arpaio's investigation ended when all the evidence became unavailable
:::How convenient that he was able to end his "investigation" so cleanly.
:*I hope that most people would realize that for Kenya to make a sign like that is...a stretch, at best
:::Yes, it's utterly incredible. But it was displayed here at Conservapedia for a while.
:*The released birth certificate contains digital layers and frames, even though it is supposedly a scanned-in document. That simply can't happen with a scanner alone. (This can be verified by view the officially published certificate, as linked to above)
:::Have you downloaded the alleged document from the white house source and analyzed it, or are you willing to take the word of a birther?
:*As I mentioned before, a S.S. number always comes from your birth state. Some real monkey business would be required for someone to have a Certificate of Live Birth from one state, and a S.S. number from another.
:::Do you know what BHO's social security number is? I believe they are confidential, even when you are President. Isn't it convenient that people can nevertheless claim that they know it and that it is fraudulent?

:::The indented interleaved comments in the above paragraph were written by me, SamHB. It is a common practice on wikis to use this kind of indented reply format when replying to specific points in another person's post. That's really what wiki indentation is for, and wiki users know that. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 13:27, 31 July 2016 (EDT)

:I'll concede in this case, but I can't agree with what the liberal media has declared about this. It is almost pointless though, since he has already gotten all he wants from the race card, and he's set for life. I will agree that the left tried to make his critics look like fools by withholding then releasing the certificate. I wasn't going to fall for it then, but now that it is out, anyone with [[Photoshop]] or [[Paint.NET]] can see that something's fishy about the "document."--[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 13:42, 30 July 2016 (EDT)
::Is it any surprise that SamHB (who actually agrees with what the liberal media says and condescends to anyone who doesn't agree with his POV - notably in calling those who legitimately question where Obama was born "birthers", "nutcases" and "fruitcakes" and calling the question itself a "nonsensical conspiracy theory" in [[Liberal Style#Debate and rhetorical tactics|typical liberal fashion]]) is yet again attempting to impose a liberal viewpoint on this website (and in this case, on both the main page and the talk page of this article) by pulling legit doubts about Obama's birthplace from the main article without justifiable reason, then also broke up the flow of DavidB4's previous post on the issue on the talk page by not only inserting his own liberal POV in between each of David's points (per [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&curid=9967&diff=1267762&oldid=1267703 this post]), but not even bothering to sign his post (both actions in poor form)? Such actions as those typically smack of desperation on the part of the Obama defenders to keep their "messiah" looking squeaky-clean when plenty of evidence provided over time (including Obama's own well-documented actions) says otherwise. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 07:53, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
::::Well, that was indeed one long sentence you've got there, 839 characters. But it can't beat my 1054 character sentence in [[Talk:Rugby_School]]. AlanE and I were joking around.
::::I was only commenting about the Obama birthplace issue, not about whether to keep a "messiah" looking squeaky-clean. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 13:27, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
:::::Ridicule is a form of [[Saul Alinsky#The Alinsky Method|Alinskyism]] (a favorite fallback of liberals when they can't refute the truth or formulate rational arguments) and only makes the one doing the ridiculing look foolish. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 22:21, 31 July 2016 (EDT)

:::Might as well add something to the bit. I remember there being a PDF of some documentation from Kenya that actually confirmed that Obama was born in Kenya. I'll try to dig it out. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 11:01, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
:::I haven't found the PDF yet, but I think I may have found an even bigger smoking gun, something not even SamHB could possibly deny: http://thepowerhour.com/news4/obama_kenyan_birth_certificate.htm [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 11:05, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
::::YES!! You found it! Congratulations. It's as I remembered it. Laid out on a towel or bedspread or whatever on a bed. I had assumed that this bit of history was long gone. But the internet is forever! The writing in this picture is hard to read; a cleaner copy may be found at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/kenyacert.asp. Though that copy has Orly Taitz's (Remember her? Probably the original birther) web site superimposed on it. You can clearly see the "E.F. Lavender" name.
::::Whatever you may think of the political views of the Snopes people, the article makes fascinating reading. They even found the person (an Australian named David Jeffrey Bomford) whose birth certificate provided the basis for the forgery. I believe the later "You've been punked" picture came out on the long-defunct ''Top 10 Conservative Idiots'' website.
::::Ah, yes. Orly Taitz. Birthers. The whole thing is entertaining. That is, the fact that people still believe this stuff is entertaining. But those intelligent and sensible people at Conservapedia (meaning DavidB4 and Pokeria1) should move on. Donald Trump has. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 13:04, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
:::::Wasn't Snopes.com filled with errors, though, at least, that's what this site's article stated when it said, and I quote, "Snopes.com is a website devoted to collecting and debunking urban legends. It was started in 1997, run by husband and wife team Barbara and David Mikkelson. '''It is filled with numerous, intentionally inaccurate information because the Mikkelson's have no formal background or experience in investigative research.'''"?
:::::And honestly, why is a liberal like SamHB on a site like Conservapedia? Shouldn't there be some form of a vetting process for new members to make sure they aren't liberal? [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 13:57, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
::::::To me, the test of being a "conservative" or a "liberal" is a philosophy of government and how it applies to economic and social issues. The location of President Obama's birth is a fact that is proven with evidence. Your conclusion on this issue has nothing to do with whether you can be labelled as a conservative or liberal. To be fair, SamHB is not "a new member" of Conservapedia and has been around for many years. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 14:25, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
:::::::Maybe not, but if it walks, talks, and quacks like a duck - it's a duck. Same thing with liberals (which SamHB has shown himself to be time and again). [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 22:21, 31 July 2016 (EDT)

I can't speak for the photo of a supposed birth certificate. It seems a little convenient, but I won't discount it. Snopes is certainly wrong at times. Just because they put a red circle with an "X" on it next to a claim doesn't make the claim false. To unquestioningly accept this would be as much an error as to accept everything in the newspaper. 
There are many reports which are hard to verify, and even more telling, the lack of many records which should exist. (For example, why does no school have a record of him attending much less graduating their institution, even though he claims he did? There are liberal institutions, so they would not attempt to harm him by burying such records.) I still maintain that the official birth certificate is its own poof of fraud. Anyone with photo editing skills can see that it is composed of multiple image layers. These layers are generated with modification of a digital image, and can never be created by scanning in a document. The "scan," therefore, is clearly more than just a scan. 
Pokeria1, Conservapedia does allow liberal members, as long as they do not undermine the conservative point of view of CP. SamHB has made many helpful contributions, so I don't think it's entirely fair to question whether he should even be allowed to be here. Although I disagree with him on this, I think his suggestion still is worth listening to--move on. He's already deceived the public, trashed the country, and proven that the system has become a joke. Complaining about it now will not help, but we will need to be all the more vigilant in the future. He's proved it can be done, so who will be the next to try? --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 12:38, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

==This one's in the can==
I'm gonna start structuring this artic!e for posterity now that Obama's riding off to the rendering plant. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 02:33, 22 November 2016 (EST)
:Obama is a relatively young and healthy man who will probably do much more in his career. Look at Jimmy Carter's post-Presidency. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 05:28, 22 November 2016 (EST)
::Yep. He started with an apology tour and ended preaching American excrptionalism in Peru the other day. I guess he has grown. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 08:19, 22 November 2016 (EST)
As one pundit summed it up with a classic baby boomer idiom: ''"Obama was like a nine year bad trip on bad drugs."'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 10:24, 10 January 2017 (EST)

== If he is a Muslim, he is not a very good one ==

He has been seen eating during daylight hours of ramadan (fourth pillar of Islam), ate pork at the White house Easter egg hunt, has not been on Hajj (Fifth pillar), has never been seen praying during salat times (Second pillar), has a pet dog (banned by Hadiths), has been seen consuming alcoholic beverages at state dinners, and said he is not a Muslim. (Violates first pillar:Shahadah. Muslims must give declaration of their faith and only of their faith. Saying "I'm not a Muslim" automatically makes on an apostate) He was sworn in on a Bible, not the Koran or Hadiths. If he is a Muslim he is probably the worlds worst Muslim.--[[User:IluvAviation|IluvAviation]] ([[User talk:IluvAviation|talk]]) 21:19, 1 March 2017 (EST)
:Obama's religion is self-worship. He once defined sin as, “Being out of alignment with my values.” To thine own hype be true. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 21:39, 1 March 2017 (EST)

::He is at the very least a sympathizer. Don't forget, though, that it is permitted to lie to infidels to further the cause. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:54, 1 March 2017 (EST)

:::Eating bacon and having a pet dog aren't exactly acceptable to further the cause. If he was a true Muslim he wouldn't eat pork out of fear because it is considered unclean. The Koran gives a short list of excuses for not fasting during Ramadan (Pregnant, menstruating...) but trying to prove one is not a Muslim is not on the list.--[[User:IluvAviation|IluvAviation]] ([[User talk:IluvAviation|talk]]) 16:46, 2 March 2017 (EST)

::::Yeah, and besides, considering his birth father was pretty blatantly a Marxist, it's extremely unlikely that either Barack Obama Sr. OR his son would have adhered to Islam. More likely than not, Barack Obama just cynically adopted the "religion" for votes. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 17:27, 2 March 2017 (EST)
:::::If we go by Obama's memoirs, he was brought up as a non-religious Marxist, a so called "red diaper baby," and was converted to Christianity by Jeremiah Wright. After Wright criticized Obama, Obama "threw him under the bus" and prosecuted the man's daughter.[http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/daughter-jeremiah-wright-convicted-fraud-scheme-n47841] As I understand it, they worshiped together at the First Church of Getting Even. As for Obama's birth father, I assume that was married party member Frank Davis. Obama Sr. already had a family back in Kenya. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 21:12, 2 March 2017 (EST)
You don't have to be a church going Muslim to be a Muslim. All you have to do is reject the idea [https://www.al-islam.org/principles-shiite-creed-ayatullah-ibrahim-amini/lesson-6-god-one-and-has-no-partner God has partners] like Jesus, and reject the notion of [[national sovereignty]] as evil, Satanic, and blasphemy. That any law or government that purports to rule over you and your Christ-rejecting brethren, is an enemy of Allah and Allah has decreed to destroy using any means necessary, including lies, deciet, and fraudulent oaths to gain their confidence. These attitudes is all it takes to be a Muslim and do Allah's will. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|CIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win?]] 22:26, 3 March 2017 (EST)
::::: "You don't have to be a church going Muslim to be a Muslim. All you have to do is reject the idea [https://www.al-islam.org/principles-shiite-creed-ayatullah-ibrahim-amini/lesson-6-god-one-and-has-no-partner God has partners]" So what if somebody does not believe in a god or diety at all, would that make them a muslim? No, Islam has a strict set of rules (Primarily declaring that the only god is Allah and Muhammed was his messenger)--[[User:IluvAviation|IluvAviation]] ([[User talk:IluvAviation|talk]]) 15:35, 4 March 2017 (EST)
::::::One of those strict rules is the doctrine of ''takfirism'', or 'once a Muslim always a Muslim', with the threat of death hanging over would-be defectors. This is why so few, if any, alleged Muslim socialists and atheists publicly foreswear Islam. So yes, it is possible for a Muslim secularist, atheist, or socialist to still be considered or identified as a Muslim. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|CIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win?]] 18:17, 4 March 2017 (EST)
:::::::I'm pretty sure that if you adhere to Atheism, you automatically cut off ties to your religion just for adhering to it, whether it be Christianity or Islam. That's why I'm not so sure about whether ''takfirism'' truly applies. I know if I were a Muslim and someone did become an atheist, I'd target them all the same even when they haven't openly renounced their faith precisely because I view even becoming an atheist as meaning you gave it up regardless if it isn't explicitly stated. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 18:59, 4 March 2017 (EST)
:::::::::No, they would not be automatically cutoff from the body of believers. First, the imams would have to investigate. Then, after being found in sin, the wayward Muslim is supposed to be admonished and given time to repent. Then finally, if they continue in sin, the execution is ordered.
:::::::::However today, since bin Laden revolutionized things, the scholars and religious authorities can be by passed, and low level rank and file Muslims can expedite the whole process without consulting higher-up religious authorities. But as ever, if a Muslim socialist or atheist knows in the end he will be found guilty of sin and rejecting the truth of Islam, and knowing he's surrounded by 1.2 billion true believers, he has no interest in denying or rejecting his Muslim identity.
:::::::::Furthermore, Muslims are granted license to lie and deceive non-Muslims, denying the faith to non-Muslims being an example.[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|CIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win?]] 22:50, 4 March 2017 (EST)
::::::::::Yeah, I know about taqqiya, but I'm pretty sure in this particular case, even being an atheist at all, even if you still lay claim publicly that you are a muslim, would be reason enough to get your head removed. I know if it were me, I'd been muslim, and someone became an atheist even in secret, I wouldn't even care if he's still publicly a muslim, I'd still kill him under the reason of him adhering to atheism at all. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:30, 5 March 2017 (EST)
:::::::::::Just because somebody had a Muslim father that was barely present doesn't make them a Muslim. Remember, he was raised by his mother, who was not a Muslim. And regardless of Islamic law, one can be an ex-Muslim without going through the ''takfirism'' process: one merely has to stop all praying, stop all fasting, and live a normal secular life. Many people leave Islam without shouting from the rooftops that they are not a practicing Muslim anymore: a gallup poll showed 5% of Saudis are atheists. (Remember, prayer upon the call the prayer is mandatory in the KSA, apostacy is punishable by death. It is a dishonor to 1,441,500 atheists in the KSA some have a habit of calling Muslims in ordinance of Islamic law, when they self-admit to being atheists.) There are documented cases of Muslims converting to Christianity without going through the takfirism process. Takfirism is for if you live in an Islamic nation with an Islamic criminal code. The US does not on the preise of your argument that Obama was ever a Muslim; most American Muslims who become atheists just stop going to masjid, stop praying, stop fasting. After all, if you are an atheist, why would you testify before the congregation of your masjid that you are an atheist an face humilitaion and worse when you could just cut of all contact and move? Does the atheist who quietly leaves their masjid qualify as "still a Muslim" to you?--[[User:IluvAviation|IluvAviation]] ([[User talk:IluvAviation|talk]]) 19:45, 6 March 2017 (EST)

Muslims don't go to churches. They go to mosques. :) I think all the wrangling about Obama's religion will largely cease once the dust settles about the fate of ObamaCare. I think the public's interest in Obama will wane if large changes happen to ObamaCare or it its repealed and replaced.

But I could be wrong. Liberals are often more active in politics than conservatives and maybe Obama will still crave the power/spotlight since he is a egotist/narcissist and take actions to retain the spotlight. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:13, 4 March 2017 (EST)

==Footnotes==
{{reflist}}

== Title ==

Why is the page title "Barack Hussein Obama" when even George W. Bush's page title is just "George W. Bush"
:My best explanation is that his middle name is known or used, like how our page title for L. Frank Baum isn't Lyman F. Baum or L. F. Baum because that's what he was called. By the way, please try to sign your comments with the signature tool above.--[[User:Abcqwe|Abcqwe]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 20:05, 31 March 2017 (EDT)
:: Same reason Hilary Rodham Clinton is named what it is - so CP doesn't have to compete with Wikipedia for results. I'm for Barack Hussein "Piece o' Crap" Obama as more befitting his legacy, however. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''CIA v Trump updated score'':CIA 3, Trump 2]] 20:48, 31 March 2017 (EDT)

== Yup, he's gay ==

Now that Obama is no longer president, we can finally say the obvious. This author is no birther or conspiracy theorist. He wrote a Pulitzer-prize winning MLK bio: "[http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/26/new-biography-young-obama-considered-gayness-amazon1/ New Biography: Young Obama ‘Considered Gayness’]." [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 10:19, 27 April 2017 (EDT)
:Take a look at the picture of Obama and Branson and tell me they aren't gay:[http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2017-02-07T153633Z_1_LYNXMPED160Y8_RTROPTP_4_PEOPLE-BRANSON-OBAMA-e1493240389754.jpg] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 22:56, 27 April 2017 (EDT)
::I suspect in coming months as we get more tell-books, more will come out. It's never been a secret in Chicago or Washington. What prevents both of them. <s>Michael</s> Michelle and Barack from coming out is how the public will react. No problem. Let's play along. Wait and see. If the two wish to continue being ashamed of themselves, leave them alone. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters won, for now'']] 01:10, 28 April 2017 (EDT)
:::Cool story, Rob. Thanks to Trump, the Obamas' stock is so high with liberals, they could both come out as pan-galactic reptilian shapeshifters and still receive ticker tape parades in every major east coast and west coast city.

:::Hell, even Dubya's looking good in comparison to the straw-thatched self-publicist you voted for in November. Buckle up for the mid-terms, my man. It's not going to be pretty. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 15:55, 28 April 2017 (EDT)
::::An Obama speech is worth more than a Clinton speech-he's lucky she lost, he'd be picking up cans right now for a living. Midterms are a long long way off. Trump critics take what he say's literally but not seriously; Trump supporters take him seriously but not literally. Never mind tho, he's already a captive of the [[Deep State]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters won, for now'']] 17:42, 28 April 2017 (EDT)
::::Yeah, JohnZ, it won't be pretty, alright - for the Democrats, as their supporters' (the liberal media, Hollywood celebs, Antifa, etc.) current antics end up losing them even more governorships, Congress and Senate seats, mayors' offices, etc. to the GOP. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 18:48, 28 April 2017 (EDT)
Obama is not some evil genius who is hiding being a homosexual. At best, he is a bisexual. Last time I checked, he is married with two children.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:46, 25 November 2017 (EST)
:You need to check closer. The Obama's aren't just the first Black First Family, their the first gay married First Family and gay adopted First kids. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 04:36, 26 November 2017 (EST)
:To be fair, Conservative, Elton John was married to a woman and had kids with her once, yet he most certainly was gay, so him being married and having children isn't necessarily something that would rule him out as being gay. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 06:34, 26 November 2017 (EST)
::Those kids aren't sisters. Look closely. Their skin tones don't match and the shape of their heads is entirely different. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 08:38, 26 November 2017 (EST)
::::One of the many limitations of the internet is the difficulty in conveying sarcasm or satire unambiguously in text form; of course this is not a new problem, as Jonathan Swift well knew. So I'm not clear as to whether you consider this tale a lighthearted bit of satire that no one should take seriously, like the leftists who claim that Ted Cruz was the Zodiac Killer despite his being born after the murders, or whether this is a sincere belief of yours, or whether you believe that this is a narrative that is useful to promulgate in retaliation for narratives promulgated against others, e.g. "(y)ou backoff your scandalmongering nonsense and I'll backoff mine" as you said in the Pizzagate discussion. I realize that explaining a joke usually destroys it, and I wouldn't normally step on another person's joke, but it does seem that an admin here has taken your argument at face value and may suffer embarrassment as a result. On the other hand, it may be I who should be embarrassed, mistaking genuine sentiment for sarcasm or tactical scandalmongering nonsense.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] ([[User talk:Brossa|talk]]) 15:34, 26 November 2017 (EST)
:::These are the letters Obama wrote to his college girlfriend.[https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/10/20/letters-barack-obama-wrote-his-college-girlfriend/783438001/]

:::Obama is not an evil genius who cleverly covered up being a homosexual. See also: [[Fallacy of exclusion]] Obama's bio suggests someone who was arrogant, corrupt and lacked competence for the office of the presidency. Not some evil genius.

:::If you read the Conservapedia's [[homosexuality]] article you will see that a person's sexual behavior is not caste in stone. Hence, the existence of bisexuals and [[ex-homosexuals]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 09:46, 26 November 2017 (EST)

::::Okay, fair enough. Still... considering his radical left-leaning views, I'm doubtful he's going to be an ex-homosexual (IF he's gay anyways) in any case, being too far to the left to even consider renouncing it. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 10:01, 26 November 2017 (EST)
Elton John said he was a [[bisexual]] (Bisexual refers to a person with both heterosexual and homosexual desires.).[http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/the-25-boldest-career-moves-in-rock-history-20110318/elton-john-comes-out-of-the-closet-20110323] He did not say he was a [[homosexual]] who exclusively had sex with males.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])

== Sheila Miyoshi Jager ==

Here's a picture of the live-in girlfriend Obama broke up with because a white gal would hold him back politically: [http://celebrityinsider.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Sheila-Miyoshi-Jager.jpg]. She's a bit on the manly side, as you might expect. Based on what Jager has to say, we can now nail down exactly when Obama got on the road to the White House: "I remember very clearly when this transformation happened, and I remember very specifically that by 1987, about a year into our relationship, he already had his sights on becoming president."[http://perezhilton.com/2017-05-02-barack-obama-first-lady-michelle-obama-sheila-miyoshi-jager-ex-girlfriend-biography-book#.WQyGJdKGPcs] This was when he was a community organizer in Chicago. It was also right around the time Obama joined Wright's church, which makes it less likely that he joined for religious reasons. He entered Harvard in 1988. ''Dreams from My Father'' came out in 1995 and is thus a campaign bio in this timeline. ''Dreams'' doesn't mention Jager or O's presidential ambitions. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 20:58, 5 May 2017 (EDT)

Talk:Roy Moore

2017-11-19T16:24:54Z

Brossa: is there an official Conservapedia position?

"(T)hese accusations mirrored the Access Hollywood recording The Washington Post released one month and two days prior to Donald Trump's election." The wording of this appears unfortunate, in that nobody disputes the truth of the Access Hollywood tape, just its implications vis à vis Trump's purported sexism. The wording here suggests that the accusations against Moore are also true (in the same way that Trump did engage in locker-room talk), but that their truth should not be read as a disqualifying failure of character, as with Trump. Moore says that the accusations are false, while Trump's position was that his comments were taken out of context and blown out of proportion, but not falsified. This problem is compounded in my opinion by the later sentence "Moore, like Trump before him, stayed strong and refused to step down" in that it draws a parallel between a true but overblown report in Trump's case, and a denied report in Moore's case. I doubt that it is Conservapedia's intention to imply that Moore did engage in the reported contact, but that said contact does not represent a disqualifying failure of character - but then again there is the statement here that three of the accusations "did not even involve lewd acts", which implies that even if they were true (which Moore denies), they are immaterial in Conservapedia's view. "Moore says that the accusations are false" should be sufficient. If you wish to draw a parallel to some other accusation against a politician, it would be better to choose a known false accusation rather than an accusation that was true in its particulars but overblown in its interpretation.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] ([[User talk:Brossa|talk]]) 13:02, 10 November 2017 (EST)
:You're right, I have no intention of-of implying that these *''accusations''* are true. When I compared the two events, I was also thinking about the many accusations of sexual assault that popped up against Trump around the same time (interesting that they've all disappeared now).

:However, even when just including the Access Hollywood tapes, there are several similarities that make this story against Moore very suspicious:
:*Both stories were released by ''The Washington Post'', which endorsed Moore's far-left Democrat opponent
:*This story was released 1 month and 3 days before the special election (by contrast, the Access Hollywood tape was released 1 month and 2 days before the presidential election -- coincidence? I don't think so)
:*Both stories are accusations of sexual misconduct that did not involve intercourse (but yes, one is true and on tape, while the other is unproven)

:I doubt that this story is true because of the timing and source, but even if it does happen to be true, it would not change my vote if I were an Alabama resident. Not only are these accusations 34 years ago -- when Jimmy Carter was still president -- but they are significantly less serious than what we've been seeing in Hollywood in the past few months (and those actors have admitted to their acts). Also, even if this story is true, Moore would still be one of the most moral people in Washington D.C. (and how do we know he was already a Christian back in 1979?). '''More importantly,''' Moore is still the most conservative candidate with excellent political views facing off against a candidate who is very left-wing even by national Democrat standards. These leftists, including the GOP establishment, hate Moore and are trying to bring him down, just like they tried to bring Trump down. The RINOs are even OK with losing AL's Senate seat to accomplish this. I have '''zero''' sympathy for those RINOs (including McCain, McConnell, Romney, and Kasich).

:Still, I will try to improve the article based on your constructive criticisms. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:05, 10 November 2017 (EST)

::Also, I encourage everyone to [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hndo6WlZdw0 watch Sean Hannity's segment last night on this story], the first 24 minutes of this video. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:47, 10 November 2017 (EST)

:I had my suspicions straight away the moment the accusations came out, as they appeared well-timed and very convenient (coinciding with the Alabama Senate seat Moore is running for and looks to be on the verge of winning). This whole thing reeks of Democrat/RINO/liberal media collusion to me (and, considering what is now being exposed about the Democrats and those in the entertainment industry and the liberal media associated with them, makes the Democrats and their confederates hypocrites). [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 02:09, 11 November 2017 (EST)

== Accusers ==

One of Moore's accusers happens to be a Hillary Clinton campaign worker who is also associated with other well-known Democrats and opposes Trump.[http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/10/roy-moores-accuser-did-work-for-joe-biden-other-democrats/][http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2017/11/10/alabama-accuser-deletes-anti-moore-postings-facebook-rants-removing-trump-office/][http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/10/roy-moore-accuser-worked-for-clinton-campaign-as-interpreter-reports-say.html][http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/_one_of_roy_moores_accusers_wo.html] If I'm correct, another accuser has stated she is a Republican that voted for Trump. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 00:31, 11 November 2017 (EST)

== Thoughts: people can change ==

Not only is the leftist media jumping to conclusions and already condemning him for acts that are currently unknown whether he did or not (and most of the accusations are not even that serious--several people I've spoken to don't see how *most* of these examples are that big a deal if true), but the media also is trying to portray Moore as a hypocrite for doing these things despite his beliefs. However, they miss the fact that people can change -- just because someone is a biblical Christian today doesn't mean they always were. I don't know when Moore was saved (assuming he's saved), but let's remember that these alleged incidents happened before he moved to Australia in the 1980s to essentially find himself and be mentored by a Christian if my knowledge is correct. People change -- and Moore is still the conservative candidate in the race.

P.S. -- here's an article I found interesting: [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/roy-moore-and-jeff-sessions-two-problems-and-a-solution/article/2640460] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:24, 12 November 2017 (EST)

==Trial by media==

Whatever happened ''[[innocent until proven guilty]]'', as in the [[14th Amendment]]? This used to be a sacred principle in U.S. law. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:13, 17 November 2017 (EST)

== How Roy Moore can still win ==

Things have started to look grim for Moore with the latest poll showing Jones eight points ahead.[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/16/fox-news-poll-jones-leads-moore-by-8-points-in-alabama-senate-race.html] But ''[https://spectator.org/al-franken-to-the-rescue/ The Amercian Spectator]'' has a brainstorm to turn it around. Moore can offer to resign his senate seat as soon as Bob Menendez and Al Franken are expelled. What happens to Menendez is anyone's guess, but Franken is unlikely to ever get expelled. What better way to appeal to southern voters than to blame it all on misbehaving Yankee senators? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 01:49, 19 November 2017 (EST)
:Breitbart [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/16/democrat-oversample-fox-news-poll-claims-roy-moore-losing-despite-faulty-numbers/ has criticized] the Fox News poll for its small sample size and for oversampling Democrats. The poll may be accurate, but I see room for doubt. Personally, I think Moore could still win if he energizes his base without seeing the Democrats energized. If the Democrats think this will be an easy victory for Jones, many of them will decide to stay home, and because Moore's voters are very loyal, they would bring him to victory. Either way, I'm just glad that these allegations were "revealed" four weeks before the election, rather than one week, and I'm also glad that Moore is very strong and refusing to let politicized sexual misconduct allegations from about 40 years ago ruin his career. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:44, 19 November 2017 (EST)
::I think the best defense of Moore is that he was looking for a wife, not a victim or a good time. Several of the accusations are not consistent with that, but they come from accusers with credibility issues. Liberals have apparently decided to dump Weinstein and Clinton. But they've rallied to protect Franken. So I guess we as a nation are settling on a "Franken standard". That is to say, a politician can be as creepy as Franken and keep his job. Just don't take it to the Weinstein-Clinton predator level. Moore passes this standard with flying colors. Franken has been quite a creep in public for a long time, and unashamedly up to this point. His "comedy" act was to pull girls from the audience, dance with them, and repeatedly grab their asses: "[https://spectator.org/shall-we-dance-al-franken-what-about-that-time-in-montana/ Shall We Dance, Al Franken? What About That Time in Montana?]." [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 10:21, 19 November 2017 (EST)

==Does Conservapedia have a single position on the accusations against Moore?==

I ask because the article and talk pages here and elsewhere on Conservapedia continue to equivocate between several positions, in decreasing order of acceptance: 1) The accusations are all false. 2) The accusations of criminal activity are false, while the others are just descriptions of behavior that was acceptable at the time, if not still acceptable. 3) Moore has not been found guilty at trial (truth of claims is unknowable until then). 4) The accusations only represent a misdemeanor, or were from too long ago to be relevant, or are not as bad as things that others have done. 5) Moore has redeemed himself through his subsequent career and actions. 6) Moore is still a better choice than his opponent.
Only positions 1 and 2 deny the criminal charges in the accusations; 3 withholds all judgement until after a criminal trial; the rest in effect concede that they are "true, but..." with that last position seeming to accept the accusations on their face without excuse. Moore himself appears to take position 2, in that he denies inappropriate or illegal activity but does recall appropriate courting of young women with their parent's permission(s), which is the essence of most of the 'accusations'. Different individuals who post here seem to have different beliefs about the matter, which continue to be reflected in the article and I feel that causes confusion. Moore himself continues to deny any illegal or morally inappropriate behavior, so I don't see why so much of the discussion seems to be of the "true, but..." variety. Given Andrew Schlafly's continued active support of Moore and interest in the matter, I wonder if there is or should be a single Conservapedia position represented here that does not undercut Moore's statements?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] ([[User talk:Brossa|talk]]) 11:24, 19 November 2017 (EST)

Talk:Roy Moore

2017-11-10T18:02:12Z

Brossa: " – these accusations mirrored the Access Hollywood recording The Washington Post released one month and two days prior to Donald Trump's election"

Talk:Roy Moore

2017-11-10T18:00:54Z

Brossa: " – these accusations mirrored the Access Hollywood recording The Washington Post released one month and two days prior to Donald Trump's election"

Harry Whittington

2017-09-25T23:14:19Z

Brossa: expanded

'''Harry Whittington''' is an American lawyer from Texas who has been an active longterm Republican supporter, managing John Tower's 1961 Republican Senate campaign. He also worked on the campaign of [[George H. W. Bush]] for Senate in 1964, and rented office space to [[Karl Rove]] for his first mailing firm. He was appointed to serve on a variety of Texas state agencies, including a six-year stint on the Texas state prison board. While on that board, he exposed corruption in the prison system, and advocated for mentally disabled inmates.

In February of 2006, Whittington was accidentally shot by Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] while hunting quail. Whittington was hit in the face, neck, and chest by approximately 200 shotgun pellets, and was knocked unconscious and suffered a collapsed lung. Pellets had also lodged near his right eye and carotid artery, and one penetrated his larynx. Whittington was treated at the scene by Secret Service agents and by medical personnel that were traveling with Cheney. He was quickly transported by an ambulance which was already present on scene for possible use by the vice president. Several days later, while recovering in the hospital, a pellet lodged in his heart caused an arrythmia and minor heart attack. Whittington has since made a complete recovery except for permanent voice changes from the larynx injury. Following a police investigation, Cheney was officially cleared of any criminal wrongdoing, but both he and Whittington were issued warnings for not having the proper hunting stamps for quail. Whittington apologized to Cheney a week after his release from the hospital for what Cheney had to go through. As of 2010, Cheney had offered no public or private apology to Whittington for the accident.<ref name="test">{{cite news |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/13/AR2010101307173.html |title=Since Dick Cheney shot him, Harry Whittington's aim has been to move on |publisher=[[Washington Post]] |first=Paul |last=Farhi |date=October 14, 2010 |page=5}}</ref>

==References==
<references />
{{DEFAULTSORT:Whittington, Harry}}
[[Category:Political Figures]]
[[Category:Lawyers]]

Talk:Alternative for Germany

2017-09-25T21:25:51Z

Brossa:

What evidence is there for Weidel being bisexual rather than homosexual? Is she even the biological mother of the children she is raising with her female partner, or are they the partner's children? Either way, were the children conceived during a (presumably previous, but who knows) heterosexual relationship? The mere existence of children in a homosexual relationship does not imply that either partner is bisexual (cf. adoption, surrogacy, artificial insemination, fostering, etc.). Even being married and conceiving a child in the traditional way before subsequently embracing a homosexual lifestyle does not 'prove' that the person in question was actually heterosexual or bisexual at the time of the earlier relationship, or remains so later. Self-reporting seems to be the only way to be 'sure' about such cases (a parallel can be drawn with members of the ex-gay community), so is there some evidence for Weidel calling herself bisexual rather than homosexual?
Alternatively, the entire discussion could be removed as immaterial, unless it is felt that her sexual orientation is relevant to her leadership role in the AfG. I will admit to seeing some incongruity there.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] ([[User talk:Brossa|talk]]) 16:36, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

:I removed the info. I don't see why we need to note it there, especially due to the disagreement over its accuracy. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:04, 1 August 2017 (EDT)
::I see that the claim that Weidel is bisexual has been reinserted, first by TrueTory and then removed but subsequently replaced by 1990'sguy. Is there some new information that supports the accuracy of that claim that was not present in August? For the record, I believe she identifies herself as a lesbian. If her sexuality is pertinent, why is she being described as bisexual?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] ([[User talk:Brossa|talk]]) 17:25, 25 September 2017 (EDT)

Conjunction fallacy

2017-08-25T20:14:11Z

Brossa:

The '''conjunction fallacy''' is an informal error of reasoning in which one assumes that more specific conditions are more likely than more general ones. It generally occurs because people believe that additional detail makes a statement more believable, while less detail makes a statement more vague and thus less believable.

In probability, the conjunction rule states that the probability of two events A ''and'' B occurring cannot be greater than the probability of ''either'' A ''or'' B occurring. To believe otherwise represents the conjunction fallacy.

The conjunction fallacy is sometimes referred to as the "Linda problem", based on a famous example of the fallacy in action. Given the information that a woman, Linda, is 31 years old, married with three children, and active in the local Republican party, respondents are asked which scenario is more probable:

:1) Linda works at a bank.
:2) Linda works at a bank and is a Christian.

Most respondents select scenario 2, but this is an error. The probability that Linda works at a bank (less than 100%) must be multiplied by the probability that she is a Christian (also less than 100%) to arrive at the probability of her being both Christian ''and'' a bank employee. This will always be less than the probability of her being simply a bank employee with her religion unspecified.

The conjunction fallacy can have significant implications in criminal justice. Given the fact in a criminal case that the defendant has prior convictions for smuggling antiquities, studies have shown that potential jurors are more likely to agree with the statement "the defendant committed murder to prevent an accomplice from talking to the police" than the statement "the defendant committed murder", in the absence of any other evidence. This is because of the bias to favor more specific statements as more probable than less specific statements. Thus an eloquent prosecutor or defense attorney can make an unsupported hypothesis more appealing by adding details even when logically this should make the hypothesis less likely.

[[Category: Logical Fallacies]]

Conjunction fallacy

2017-08-25T20:13:49Z

Brossa: new page

Fallacy of division

2017-08-24T22:50:20Z

Brossa:

The '''fallacy of division''' is a logical error in which one claims that the parts of a whole must have the same characteristics as the whole.

An example would be to claim that because a team is undefeated, each of the members of the team must be unbeatable individually.

In economics, if one sector of the economy is doing well it does not follow that each company in that sector is doing well; to claim otherwise would be a fallacy of division.

If all the parts of a whole must share in a property in order for the whole to have that property, then it is not a fallacy to note that any individual part has that same property as the whole. As an example, ''if'' all of the parts of an object must be invisible for the object as a whole to be invisible, one can assume that a part of an invisible object is itself invisible.

The opposite of the fallacy of division is the '''fallacy of composition'''.

[[Category: Logical Fallacies]]

Fallacy of division

2017-08-24T22:49:30Z

Brossa: new page

Fallacy of composition

2017-08-24T22:14:49Z

Brossa: new page

The '''fallacy of composition''' is a logical error in which one claims that because the parts of a whole have a particular attribute, the whole must also have that same attribute.

An example would be the claim that because everyone in a particular town has a younger sister, then the town also has a younger sister. A town cannot have family relationships even though all the citizens of the town have families.

A different version of the fallacy would be to say that because all of the individual parts of an engine are properly constructed, it follows that the engine as a whole is properly constructed. In this case, the interactions ''between'' the individual parts introduce a new level of complexity and possibility for error above and beyond that which applies to the individual parts.

In economics, the fallacy of composition explains the benefits of division of labor. An individual worker my benefit by specializing in a particular task, but it does not then follow that the economy as a whole would benefit if every worker specialized in that same task.

The inverse of the fallacy of composition is the '''fallacy of division'''.

[[Category: Logical Fallacies]]

Ernst Röhm

2017-08-22T16:32:10Z

Brossa: This specific claim not supported by the reference cited; see talk page

[[File:362px-Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1982-159-21A, Nürnberg, Reichsparteitag, Hitler und Röhm.jpg|thumb|[[Adolf Hitler]] with Ernst Röhm.]]
'''Ernst Röhm''' (November 28, 1887 – July 1, 1934) - was a friend of [[Adolf Hitler]] and an early member of the [[Nazi Party]]. He was co-founder of and later became Supreme Commander of the ''[[Sturmabteilung]]'' ("Storm Battalion") or [[SA]].<ref>The SA was also known as ("brownshirts") in reference to the color of their uniforms.</ref> He was also one of the many [[homosexual]]s who made up the higher echelons of the Nazis.<ref>Lively, Scott & Abrams, Kevin. ''The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party'', 4th Edition.</ref>

Röhm had been in the military since 1906. During [[World War I]] he was twice wounded in combat and later was awarded the Iron Cross First Class. After World War I he was a member of the Socialist terror organization known as the Iron Fist. In 1919, Röhm joined the German Workers' Party, which soon became known as the ''Nationalsozialistche Deutsche Arbeiterpartei'' ([[National Socialist German Worker's Party]] - Nazi Party).<ref>Kershaw, Ian. ''Hitler: A Biography'' (2008).</ref> Many of the first party meetings took place in a beer hall that catered to homosexuals, the Bratwurstgloeckl.<ref>Lively, Scott & Abrams, Kevin. ''The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party'', 4th Edition.</ref>

Röhm also formed a para-military [[nationalist]] group known as the ''Reichskriegsflagge'' (Imperial War Flag). In November 1923, the ''Reichskriegsflagge'', in which [[Heinrich Himmler]] was a member, joined with the Nazi Party in the [[Beer Hall Putsch]]—the unsuccessful attempt by Hitler to seize power in Munich. In the aftermath, Röhm, Hitler and several others were tried, and convicted of treason.<ref>Weale, Adrian. ''The SS: A New History'' (2010).</ref> However, Röhm's sentence was suspended. In 1927, German Communists leaked some of Röhm's letters which revealed his sexuality to the public and caused some loss of popularity for the Nazis at that time.<ref>Lively, Scott & Abrams, Kevin. ''The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party'', 4th Edition.</ref>

During the early 1930s, Röhm's SA, with 2.9 million members, was a much larger and more powerful part of the Nazi Party than Himmler's [[SS]] ("blackshirts"). That suddenly changed in June 1934 as a result of a power struggle between the SA, which had a more radical vision than Hitler would tolerate, and a coalition of Himmler, [[Hermann Göring]], the army and [[big business]] (see [[Military industrial complex]]). In particular, Röhm, a noted anti-Capitalist and hardline Socialist, desired for permanent, continuous revolution<ref>Shirer, William L. ''Rise and Fall of the Third Reich''. "The Nazification of Germany: 1933-34; 'No Second Revolution'" ''"A tremendous victory has been won. But not an absolute victory! The SA and the SS will not tolerate the German revolution going to sleep and being betrayed at the half-way stage by non-combatants. Not for the sake of the SA and SS but for Germany's sake. For the SA is the last armed force of the nation, the last defense against communism. If the German revolution is wrecked by the reactionary opposition, incompetence, or laziness, the German people will fall into despair and will be an easy prey for the bloodstained frenzy coming from the depths of Asia. If these bourgeois simpletons think that the national revolution has already lasted too long, for once we agree with them. It is in fact high time the national revolution stopped and became the National Socialist one. Whether they like it or not, we will continue our struggle - if they understand at last what it is about - with them; if they are unwilling - without them; and if necessary - against them."''[http://spartacus-educational.com/GERroehm.htm]</ref> (in a manner similar to [[Trotskyist]] ideology). The army feared the SA would absorb it into its ranks; which is what Röhm wanted to do. Himmler and [[Reinhard Heydrich]] prepared the list of Röhm's SA associates who were executed or imprisoned in the "[[Night of the Long Knives]]" which took place between June 30 and July 2, 1934.<ref>Kershaw, Ian. ''Hitler: A Biography'' (2008).</ref> Hitler had Röhm killed as well, for fear that he would be a rival in the near future. Himmler and his SS gained enormously from the killings; the SS became its own branch and Himmler reported only to Hitler.<ref>Weale, Adrian. ''The SS: A New History'' (2010).</ref>

== Notes & sources ==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Nazi Germany and homosexuality]]

[[Category:Nazis]]
[[Category:Homosexuals]]
[[Category:Socialists]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Röhm, Ernst}}

Talk:Ernst Röhm

2017-08-21T01:14:18Z

Brossa: Source for claim of Hitler personally executing Rohm?

"Hitler also proceeded to personally execute Röhm after catching him and his driver sleeping together in a hotel room during the culmination of the Night of the Long Knives." Is there a better source for this claim? The source cited (The Pink Swastika) does not appear to support it. Hitler certainly ordered his assassination, but according to most sources the killing was carried out by SS-Brigadeführer Theodor Eicke and/or SS-Obersturmbannführer Michael Lippert after Röhm refused to commit suicide while under arrest.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] ([[User talk:Brossa|talk]]) 21:14, 20 August 2017 (EDT)

Varicella

2017-08-14T03:52:25Z

Brossa: scaring =/= scarring

'''Varicella''' is an 18th century term for the disease now called chickenpox. According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it is "an acute [[contagious]] disease characterized by papular and vesicular lesions."<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/about/terms/glossary.htm#v</ref> In English that means that it causes small red bumps and blisters on the skin. These bumps itch, which can lead to scratching and scarring. People who contract varicella are at risk of developing the condition called [[Shingles]] later in life. There is currently a vaccine against varicella.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Medicine]]
[[Category:Diseases]]

Elah

2017-08-14T03:32:35Z

Brossa: remove sarcasm

'''Elah''' ([[Aramaic]] for [[God]]) (r. 930-929 BC by [[James Ussher]],<ref name=Ussher>[[James Ussher]], ''[[The Annals of the World]]'', [[Larry Pierce]], ed., Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2003 (ISBN 0890513600), pgh. 501</ref> or 886-885 BC by [[Edwin R. Thiele|Thiele]]<ref name=Wood>Leon J. Wood, ''A Survey of Israel's History'', rev. ed. David O'Brien, Grand Rapids, MI: Academie Books, 1986 (ISBN 031034770X), p. 261</ref>) was the fourth king of the [[Northern Kingdom]] of [[Israel]].<ref>{{Bible ref|book=I_Kings|chap=16|verses=8-11}}</ref> He reigned for two years. His reign was remarkable only for how it ended.

His father was [[Baasha]], and Elah's death fulfilled a baleful prophecy given Baasha toward the end of his reign because of his idolatry. Elah's general, [[Zimri]], surprised him while he was intoxicating himself in the home of his steward, Arza. Zimri killed Elah, took his throne, and killed all of Baasha's remaining male relatives and associates.
== References ==
<references/>

== See also ==
* [[Northern Kingdom]]
* [[Biblical chronology dispute]]

[[Category:Kings of Israel]]
{{nb Kings}}

Metaphase

2017-08-14T03:06:45Z

Brossa:

'''Metaphase''' is the time period during [[eukaryote|eukaryotic]] cell division in which chromosomes line up along the equatorial plane of the cell before being drawn apart to opposite poles of the cell. Metaphase occurs once during [[mitosis]] but twice during [[meiosis]] (in meiosis these phases are called metaphase I and metaphase II). Metaphase is preceeded by Prometaphase and followed by Anaphase. Because metaphase chromosomes are highly condensed, scientists use these chromosomes for gene mapping and identifying chromosomal aberrations.

== Sources ==
http://www.genome.gov/glossary.cfm?key=metaphase

[[Category:Genetics]]

Metaphase

2017-08-14T03:05:56Z

Brossa: clearer wording

'''Metaphase''' is the time period during [[eukaryote|eukaryotic]] cell division during which chromosomes line up along the equatorial plane of the cell before being drawn apart to opposite poles of the cell. Metaphase occurs once during [[mitosis]] but twice during [[meiosis]] (in meiosis these phases are called metaphase I and metaphase II). Metaphase is preceeded by Prometaphase and followed by Anaphase. Because metaphase chromosomes are highly condensed, scientists use these chromosomes for gene mapping and identifying chromosomal aberrations.

== Sources ==
http://www.genome.gov/glossary.cfm?key=metaphase

[[Category:Genetics]]

Heber J. Grant

2017-08-14T02:39:14Z

Brossa: Heber Grant polygamy

[[Image:HeberGrant.jpg|right|200px|thumb| LDS Prophet Heber J. Grant]]
'''Heber Jeddy Grant''' (November 22, 1856 – May 14, 1945) was prophet and seventh President of the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]. Heber would enforce the ban on plural marriages and excommunicated member Churches that refused loyalty to the directive. He developed The Avenues section of Salt Lake City. In 1936, Heber established the LDS Welfare Program and administered the LDS health code known as the ''Word of Wisdom''. Due to the Church's expansion, Heber created a new group of General Authorities, Assistants to the Twelve Apostles. His authority conveyed strength and resolution. He repeatedly spoke of the need for charity, duty, honor, service, and work. Heber was the last surviving member of the church's Council of Fifty. His 26-year administration would be the second longest in Church history.<ref>[http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/people/heber_j_grant.html Heber J. Grant] Light Planet</ref> He was the last LDS President to practice polygamy, being married first to Lucy Stringham in 1877, then adding wives Augusta Winters, and Emily Wells on successive days in May of 1884. At the time of his assumption of the Presidency, only Augusta was still living.

==Early life==
Heber was born to Jedediah M. Grant and Rachel Grant in Salt Lake City, in the [[Utah]] Territory. His father had served as Brigham Young's counselor in the First Presidency. He grew up without his father who died nine days after his birth. Heber and Rachel moved to a "widow's cabin" on Main Street. Rachel supported the family by sewing and taking in boarders. Many evenings, a young Heber would help his mother by pumping the sewing machine treadle. Heber was enrolled in good private schools, beginning with Brigham Young's school. Following frontier practice, he left school at age 16. In 1875, Grant was called as a counselor to the president of the Young Men's Mutual Improvement Association at age nineteen. He became an insurance business man. In addition to the insurance agency, he was owner or principal investor in leading agricultural entities, a livery stable, a leading Salt Lake City newspaper, a bank, the famed Salt Lake Theatre, and the Utah Sugar Company.<ref>[http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/g/GRANT,HEBER.html HEBER J. GRANT] University of Utah</ref> His hard work paid off, Heber would earn ten times what the average Utah salary was. He was appointed by [[Brigham Young]] as assistant cashier of Zion's Savings Bank. Before the age of 24, he received his church's call to preside over the [[Tooele Stake]]. Twice he proselytized among the dangerous Yaqui Indians in [[Mexico]], and his many tours to the Southwest earned him the title "the [[Arizona]] Apostle." <ref>[http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/people/heber_j_grant.html Heber J. Grant] Light Planet</ref> At age 26, President [[John Taylor]] appointed him to the Council of Twelve Apostles. The hard times of the 1890s and his subsequent mission calls to [[Japan]] and [[Great Britain]] ended his business career.

==Seventh President==
Heber was made president of the [[Quorum of Twelve]] in 1916 and in 1918 became Church President. Utah agriculture and farming had suffered during the [[Great Depression]]. President Grant maintained the financial solvency of Mormonism. He managed to alter long-standing negative stereotypes about Utah and her people. He frequently spoke to influential national groups and businesses. He visited U.S. presidents [[Warren G. Harding]], [[Calvin Coolidge]], [[Herbert Hoover]], and [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] in [[Washington, D.C.]] During his administration, Heber helped in the [[Hollywood]] production of the Union Pacific and Brigham Young. President Grant would dedicate three new temples and sixteen new missions. During his leadership, Mormon population increased twofold. He succeeded in putting the Church and the Utahn people in a positive light from a misunderstood pioneer religion to a vibrant respected religion of the twentieth century.

==Death==
He died in Salt Lake City 1945 and was eulogized by a friend, "He was a valiant pioneer and a great fighter," "He wrote his own epitaph in the achievements that caused the desert to blossom as a rose." In the book ''Go Forward with Faith: The Biography of Gordon B. Hinckley'' it was written that "He was a giant of a man whom I loved.” Joseph Anderson, President Grant’s secretary, wrote: “No one will ever know how many mortgages on homes of widows he paid out of his own funds. Time and again he would inquire as to his bank balance. He had no special interest in the accumulation of money except for the good he could do with it.” <ref>[http://www.ldsces.org/inst_manuals/pres-sm/pres-ch-07-09.htm Heber J. Grant] ldsces.org</ref>

==Quotes==
*“No matter in what land we may dwell the Gospel of the Lord [[Jesus Christ]] makes us brothers and sisters, interested in each other, eager to understand and know each other.”

==References==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Grant, Heber J.}}
[[Category:Mormon Prophets]]

Talk:Alternative for Germany

2017-08-01T20:36:18Z

Brossa: Alice Weidel - bisexual/homosexual?

Jim Gray

2015-01-19T21:23:02Z

Brossa:

'''Jim Gray''' was the 2012 candidate for [[Vice President]] on the [[Libertarian Party]] ticket. He ran with [[Gary Johnson]].

[[Category:Third Party Politicians]]

Rot

2015-01-19T17:25:29Z

Brossa:

'''Rot''' is the gradual decomposition of organic objects due to the multiple factors, such as chemical changes caused by exposure to air or sunlight, structural changes due to weathering or freeze/thaw cycles, and the action of enzymes and living organisms. Bacteria, fungi, single and multicellular animals also contribute to rot by breakingg down the organic matter for food or shelter. Rot is the pathway by which the resources once bound up in iving material are recycled back into the environment. The tern is sometimes applied to the breakdown of non-organic material as well (rotten stone, or 'metal rot' as a synonym for rusting).

Figuratively, '''rot'''' can also refer to a state of breakdown or collapse, as in 'moral rot', or a state of general neglect ('he was left to rot in jail').

[[Category: Biology]]

Trisomy

2015-01-09T18:45:17Z

Brossa:

'''Trisomy''' is a genetics term meaning the possession of three copies of a particular [[chromosome]] in species which normally possess two copies of each chromosome. It is caused when either a sperm or egg fail to become completely [[haploid]] prior to fertilization. The risk of trisomy increases with increased maternal, and to a lesser extent paternal, age at the time of [[conception]]. The risk of having a child with trisomy rises gradually with maternal age until the early 30's, at which point it rises sharply every year thereafter. The combined rate of all forms of trisomy in humans is approximately 1 in 800 live births, but trisomy also results in many miscarriages. Trisomy 16 (extra copy of chromosome 16), for example, is reported to occur in 1% of all human pregnancies but results in miscarriage before 12 weeks of pregnancy.

In humans, trisomy typically causes characteristic anatomic and developmental abnormalities. Some examples include:

:[[Down Syndrome]], caused by trisomy of human chromosome 21, which produces a characteristic group of facial, cardiac, and gastrointestinal abnormalities as well as variable degrees of developmental delay.

:''Edwards Syndrome'', caused by trisomy of chromosome 18, usually results in miscarriage, but also produces facial and cardiac abnormalities in infants who survive to term.

:''Patau Syndrome'', caused by trisomy of chromosome 13, results in microcephaly and cleft palate and a number of cardiovascular defects. It is frequently fatal soon after birth.

There can also be trisomy of human sex chromosomes, which can also result in abnormalities of growth and development.

:''Klinefelter Syndrome'' or 47XXY is caused by the addition of an extra X chromosome to the normal male XY pattern. The main effect is sterility and subtle developmental delays.

:''XYY Syndrome'', in which there is an extra Y chromosome in addition to the normal male XY pattern, is by contrast associated with little if any anatomic or developmental abnormality in affected men. Similarly, ''XXX Syndrome'' representing a third X chromosome in addition to the normal female XX pattern is rarely diagnosed because of lack of symptoms in affected women.

'''Trisomy''' should not be confused with [[triploid]], in which there are three copies of ''all'' chromosomes.
== Sources ==
http://www.genome.gov/glossary.cfm?key=trisomy

[[Category:Genetics]]

Ashcan School

2015-01-09T17:47:37Z

Brossa:

The '''Ashcan School''' was an art movement which lasted from 1908 to 1913 in New York City. It earned its name from critics who deemed its art fitting for the "Ash can". The Ashcan School portrayed urban scenes in a realistic, sketch-like manner and is recognized as the first uniquely American art movement. While it is best known for its subject matter of urban and lower-class activities, it is also known for its loose, spontaneous style and its dark, subdued palette. Prominent Ashcan School artists were [[Henri]], [[Sloan]], and [[Bellows]].
==References==
*[http://www.artmovements.co.uk/ashcanschool.htm Ashcan School]
[[Category:Artistic Movements]]

Saint Dorothea

2015-01-09T17:41:02Z

Brossa:

'''Saint Dorothea''' is an apocryphal [[Catholic]] [[saint]], held to have been [[martyred]] 311 A.D. in Caesarea Mazaca, in modern-day Turkey.

Tradition states that both her parents were martyred for being Christians under the persecution of the emperor [[Diocletian]]. In the simplest version of her legend, Dorothea refused to renounce Christianity and marry, and as a result she was tortured and executed by the Roman authorities. On her way to be executed, a young pagan lawyer, Theophilus, mocked her and demanded that she send him a gift of fruit and flowers from the [[Garden of Eden|Garden of Paradise]] - they would have been unavailable otherwise as her execution took place in February. After her death, her headdress was delivered to Theophilus by a young child. Theophilus noticed that it smelled of roses and apples, and that the child was an angelic messenger; he immediately converted to Christianity as well and was martyred the same day. In other versions of the legend, the angel appeared before her death bearing apples and roses to comfort her, and Dorothea directed the angel to deliver them to Theophilus instead. In the most elaborate versions, Dorothea was subjected to prolonged abuses by the Roman authorities but was miraculously healed time after time, and many public miracles surrounded her imprisonment which led to thousands of witnesses converting to Christianity.

Her Catholic feast day was February 6th, and she was venerated as the patron saint of gardeners and florists.

The first historical account of St. Dorothea appears in the ''Martyrologium Hieronymianum'' from about 600 A.D., which notes only the date and place of the deaths of Dorothea and Theophilus. Veneration of Dorothea spread rapidly throughout Europe in the seventh century A.D., and her expanded legend inspired many artists and writers over the centuries. Dorothea is usually portrayed with a basket of fruit and flowers (usually apples and roses) or with a crown of flowers.

Dorothea was removed from the [[General Roman Calendar]] in 1969 due to the lack of any non-legendary knowledge about her.

==Source==
Who’s Who in Christianity, Lavinia Coh-Sherbok, 1998

{{DEFAULTSORT:Dorothea, Saint}}

[[Category: Martyrs]]
[[Category: Saints]]
[[Category: Early Christians]]

Imprecatory prayer

2015-01-09T06:10:48Z

Brossa:

'''Imprecatory prayer''' is asking God for relief from hostile treatment at the hands of enemies. Imprecatory prayer takes the form of calling for the death or punishment of one's enemies (to ''imprecate'' is to utter a curse upon or invoke evil against someone or something).

Examples of imprecatory prayer can be found in Psalms 55:15 "Let death steal over them; let them go down to Sheol alive; for evil is in their dwelling place and in their heart", and Psalms 109:8 "May his days be few; may another take his office!"

==Controversy==

Some people feel that imprecatory prayer isn't always Christian:
*A blogger writes, "some of them seem to go against Christian teaching (e.g. the psalmist asking God to smite his enemies in Psalm 69" [http://www.conversiondiary.com/2009/06/talk-to-me-about-psalms.html]

Others say:
*"[[David]] prayed for deliverance because he was surrounded by implacable enemies." [http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-psalm-35.htm]

==External links==
*[http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-psalm-35.htm Expository Files] - Jay Horsley
[[Category:Prayer]]

User talk:Brossa

2015-01-09T05:33:23Z

Brossa: /* Project */

"Your insulting tone (any other "reputable" journal) discredits yourself, but I'll respond this one time to you below.--Aschlafly 22:22, 27 July 2008 (EDT)"

How dare you insult Aschlafly and all who are contributing to his letter by restricting the dialog to "reputable" journals. By insisting on using only ''appropriate'' venues to the exclusion of other possible arenas, you demonstrate your close-minded liberal bias toward professionalism.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 17:03, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

==Please don't remove information from articles==
Please don't remove information from articles without discussing it on the talk page first. Godspeed, --[[User:Annie|Annie]] 21:58, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

==[[Amputation]]==
I couldn't find any citations to support your claim that severed fingertips spontaneously regenerate. They can be "regrown" under laboratory conditions, but other than that I have found nothing. If you can find a citation, I welcome you to reinsert it. --[[User:LautRN|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:LautRN|Discussion]] 10:37, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Done.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 12:25, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks for the quick response.--[[User:LautRN|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:LautRN|Discussion]] 23:18, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

==New articles==
Thanks for the new articles, but can I ask a mall request? When you write new articles, could you begin them by writing the subject of the article? Like "The '''bregma''' is the point..." Thanks. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 14:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Anchorite

2014-12-23T18:09:28Z

Brossa:

An '''anchorite''' (pronounced ANG-kuh-right) is someone who lives in self-imposed physical isolation for [[religious]] reasons. As opposed to a ''hermit'', who generally seeks isolation from society in a remote location, an '''anchorite''' isolates him- or herself physically in a populated area, and denies his- or herself the freedom of movement. Typically, an anchorite would be walled up in a small room, a ''cell'' or ''anchorhold'', attached to the outside of an existing church building. A small opening in the outer wall of the cell would allow for food and waste to be passed in and out, and an opening in the inner wall (called a [[hagioscope]] or ''squint'') would allow the anchorite to observe the [[Mass]] and receive [[Communion]]. Some anchorites would allow themselves freedom of movement inside the church as well, but would not leave the church building. The anchorite was therefore dependent on the larger community to provide them with food, clothing, and other necessities. While physically isolated, anchorites would typically still interact with people outside the cell. The anchorite might take requests for prayers, or offer advice or comfort to outsiders. Some anchorites became the equivalent of tourist attractions, drawing distant visitors eager to hear their words of wisdom.

The anchorite's time would be spent in personal prayer and [[intercessory]] [[prayer]], devotional reading, doing what acts of [[charity]] they could (such as mending the clothes of the poor or copying religious manuscripts), and in some cases on consultation with ecclesiastical authorities. The goal of the anchorite's separation from the world was to remove as many temptations to [[sin]] as possible. For female anchorites in particular, the physical barrier of bars or a walled-up doorway served as the visible evidence of their sexual [[purity]].

The tradition of anchorites extends from the third century A.D. through the late Middle Ages. The tradition extended throughout Europe, but was particularly popular in [[England]]. Historically, there were more female anchorites than male anchorites. The tradition ended in England in the 1500s when [[Henry VIII]] disbanded the monasteries there. Although very rare, there are still anchorites in the 21st century.

The term "anchorite" comes from the Greek word ''anachōrētēs'', meaning ''one who withdraws or leaves a place'' (as from a battle). This sounds similar to the Greek ''ánkura'', meaning 'hook or anchor'. In English the two terms blended, and the anchorite came to be referred to as the anchor, being physically anchored in place and serving as a spiritual anchor to the church where they lived as well as having withdrawn from the world.
[[category:Religion]]

Augustus III

2014-12-22T02:26:26Z

Brossa: expand

'''Augustus III''' (1696 - 1763) was the only legitimate son of [[Augustus II]] ''the Strong'', King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania. He inherited the duchy of [[Saxony]] (as [[prince-elector]] ''Frederick Augustus II'') upon his father's death in 1733. With the support of troops sent from the [[Russian Empire]] and [[Holy Roman Empire]], he was elected King of [[Poland]] and [[Grand Duke]] of [[Lithuania]] by a minority of electors in late 1733, and was crowned in 1734, becoming the second and last [[Wettiner]] to occupy the Polish throne. Augustus III's installation with the aid of foreign troops was the inciting event of the War of Polish Succession, which involved numerous European powers who wished to expand their spheres of control. This war ended with the Treaty of Vienna in 1738 which confirmed Augustus III as King of Poland but offered concessions to the rival claimant to the throne, [[Stanisław Leszczyński]].

Augustus III spent less than three years of his thirty-year reign living in Poland, residing instead in Dresden Castle in Saxony. He delegated the management of the [[Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth]] to his Prime Minister, Heinrich von Brühl. Under Augustus III, Poland was involved in the War of Austrian Succession and the [[Seven Year's War]], aligned with Austria against Prussia in both conflicts. It was during the Seven Year's War, when Prussia occupied Saxony, that Augustus III was forced to briefly flee to Poland. Augustus III was a patron of the arts, adding many artworks to Dresden Castle, and appointed [[Johann Sebastian Bach]] as his court composer in 1736.

Augustus III married Maria Josepha of Austria, daughter of [[Holy Roman Emperor]] Joseph I in 1719, after seven years of negotiations and Augustus III's conversion to [[Catholicism]]. They had fifteen children together. One of his daughters, Maria Josepha of Saxony, was the mother of three French kings: Louis XVI, Louis XVIII, and Charles X. Another daughter, Maria Amalia of Saxony, became Queen Consort of Spain. Augustus III's eldest surviving son, Frederick Christian of Saxony, succeeded him as Elector of Saxony but died of smallpox after a reign of only 74 days.

By the time of Augustus III's death in 1763, Russian influence over Polish affairs had strengthened, and Russian support had shifted to [[Stanisław August Poniatowski]], a lover of [[Catherine the Great]]. The Russians instituted a coup which resulted in Poniatowski being elected King of Poland in 1764. Augustus III's legacy is considered to be one of diminishing power and influence of the Polish-Lithuanian Union, and increased internal disorder. By 1772, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had weakened to the point that it became a Russian protectorate and its territory was partitioned between Russia, Prussia, and Austria.

Source: [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/43134/Augustus-III Britannica Online Encyclopedia]
[[Category:Electors of Saxony]]
[[Category:Kings of Poland]]
[[Category:Grand Dukes of Lithuania]]

Catholic Views On Creation

2009-02-14T00:14:34Z

Brossa:

'''Catholic views on creationism''' have undergone change over time. [[Roman Catholicism]] has always tried to reconcile the best scientific knowledge with the [[Bible]]. Some other branches of [[Christianity]] accept a straightforward reading of [[creationism|creation]] as presented in the [[book of Genesis]] in the [[Bible]], which is not contradicted by [[Natural science#Types of science|operational science]]. Currently, the Catholic church has taken no official position on evolution.

==Evolution==
In 1909, the Pontifical Biblical Commission ruled that the historical sense of the creation account in Genesis 1-3 cannot be excluded.

In 1950, [[Pope Pius XII]] forbade the [[theory of evolution]] being taught as true, although said that evidence for and against evolution should be considered.<ref>Keane, 1991, p.170.</ref> In the ''[[Humani Generis]]'', the Pope forbade any Catholic from teaching anything contrary to the existence of one [[Adam]] and [[Eve]] as the parents of all mankind.<ref>Keane, 1991, p.177</ref>
The theory of evolution, as it is commonly taught today, denies the existence of one Adam and Eve and thus undermines the concept of [[original sin]] that made necessary the [[Passion of Christ]].

On October 23rd 1996, Pope [[John Paul II]] made a speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and said:
<blockquote>
"Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the Encyclical Humani generis considered the doctrine of 'evolutionism' a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from Revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return. ...

 Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory. ...

 Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person." <ref>http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html</ref></blockquote>

This statement has sometimes been translated as saying that evolution is "more than a hypothesis",<ref>James Akin [http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/whatsaid.htm]</ref> and used to support the claim that the Pope has recognized the truth of evolution. Regardless of which translation is better, the Pope was certainly not saying that evolution was a single hypothesis that must now be accepted. He was saying that scientific advances have made the situation more complicated than was previously recognized. He went on to say that "we should speak of several theories of evolution". Some of these theories are compatible with Catholic teachings, and some are not.

In an interview that was published in 1997, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) stated:
<blockquote>
Part of faith is also the patience of time. The theme you have just mentioned - Darwin, creation, the theory of evolution - is the subject of a dialogue that is not yet finished and, within our present means, is probably also impossible to settle at the moment. Not that the problem of the six days is a particularly urgent issue between faith and modern scientific research into the origin of the world. For it is obvious even in the Bible that this is a theological framework and is not intended simply to recount the history of creation. In the Old Testament itself there are other accounts of creation. In the Book of Job and in the Wisdom literature we have creation narratives that make it clear that even then believers themselves did not think that the creation account was, so to speak, a photographic depiction of the process of creation. It only seeks to convey a glimpse of the essential truth, namely, that the world comes from the power of God and is his creation. How the process actually occurred is a wholly different question, which even the Bible itself leaves wide open. Conversely, I think that in great measure the theory of evolution has not gotten beyond hypotheses and is often mixed with almost mythical philosophies that have yet to be critically discussed.<ref>Interview by Peter Seewald with Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in Munich, F.G.R. (Aug. 15, 1996) ''reprinted in'' Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Salt of the Earth: Christianity and the Catholic Church at the End of the Millennium 31 (Adrian Walker trans., Ingnatius Press 1997) (1996).</ref></blockquote>

===2007 speech===

While speaking with priests in July 2007, Pope Benedict XVI appeared supportive of [[intelligent design]] in saying, "There is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such," but "it does not answer the great philosophical question 'where does everything come from?'" The speech also stressed the importance of [[environmentalism]].<ref>http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22136550-5002700,00.html</ref>

This remains, as of August 2008, the most recent clear statement of Pope Benedict XVI's personal views on the subject. He has not delivered an official address on behalf of the [[Catholic Church]] on the topic.

==Intelligent Design==

The position of cardinals in the Church on [[intelligent design]] are nearly as diverse as the cardinals themselves. The Cardinal archbishop of Vienna has spoken out in support of intelligent design. The director of the [[Vatican observatory]], Father George V. Coyne, has been critical of it.

The Vatican itself has never taken an official position on the issue.<ref>http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503</ref>

==2009 Conference==

The Vatican announced in early 2009 that it would host an international conference in Rome in March of 2009 titled "Biological Evolution: Facts and Theories." The symposium will bring together scholars from a number of diverse fields, including not only molecular biology, paleontology, and anthropology, but natural philosophy and theology as well. At a press conference introducing the event, Fr. Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, professor of fundamental theology at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, expressed his personal opinion that "from the perspective of Christian theology, biological evolution and creation are by no means mutually exclusive..."<ref>http://www.dfwcatholic.org/international-conference-biological-evolution-facts-and-theories2450/.html</ref>

== Bibliography ==
* Keane, Gerard J., "Creation Rediscovered", Credis, 1991, ISBN 0 646 04291 2.
* Keane, Gerard J., "Creation Rediscovered: Evolution & the Importance of the Origins Debate", Tan, 1999, ISBN 978-0895556073. Chapter 13 (''The Position within Catholicism'') on-line: [http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/gjkeane/1chap13.html part 1]; [http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/gjkeane/2chap13.html part 2].

==References==

<references/>

[[category:Catholic Church]]
[[Category:Creationism]]
[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-02-11T00:08:40Z

Brossa: /* "Ancient humor" */

==Dark Ages==

I have to ask: does this really qualify as a "mystery?" Most people who have actually taken the time to study European history, I would suggest, would say that there's a clear and simple answer: "No, the so-called "Dark Ages" weren't really so backwards." Significant advances were made during the period generally termed the "Dark Ages" in many fields: music, agriculture, metallurgy, and philosophy spring to mind immediately. Historians today generally avoid using the term "Dark Ages" for precisely that reason.

Should it really be termed a "mystery" just because some people continue to hold misconceptions about it? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:11, 28 December 2008 (EST)
: Yes, it's not a mystery at all. Renaissance humanists hated the "dark ages" with a passion. Now we know just how much science and culture were developed during those centuries. Not so much a mystery as a myth, really (liberals love to claim early Christian Europe was fruitless) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 14:14, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::Perhaps a better question would be "Why are the advances of the early Middle Ages frequently overlooked or dismissed?" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:19, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:::My question is: ''What specific non-warfare scientific/technological advances were made in Christian Western Europe between the fall of Rome and AD1000?'' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:36, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::There were some important scholars, notably Isidore of Seville (6th century Spain), Bede (7th century England) and Alcuin of York (8th century England). But, with these possible exceptions, European scholarship is overshadowed by India, China and the Muslim Caliphate in this period. The first European renaissance started when Christian scholars visited Spain and Sicily to benefit from Arab learning.

::::However, the so-called Dark Ages weren't nearly as obscure are the name suggests. There was significant trade with Byzantium and the Caliphate and the most important monasteries had access to classical Latin texts. There were major building projects, especially of monasteries, particularly from the late 8th century onwards. The standard of craftsmanship was exceptional - you couldn't say it declined at all during the "Dark Ages". Witness the jewelry at Sutton Hoo or the illustrated manuscripts produced by Anglo-Saxon scriptoria. The Anglo-Saxon kings, notably Alfred, Athelstan and Edgar, laid the basis of English government which was formalised by the coronation oath of Henry I.

::::Bear in mind that the setback to civilisation was only in Western Europe. Culture flourished in the Eastern Empire, also in the Arab Caliphate, while the Tang and Song Dynasties represent in many ways the peak of Chinese culture. Also, much of the foundations of mathematics were discovered in India in this period. Universities were first founded in Arab lands (Fez was the first, I think) in the 10th century, before spreading to Spain and thence to Christian Europe. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::The operative words in my question above were ''scientific/technological''. I know of Bede and Alcuin and have had occasion to look into Isadore in the last few months. Yes they were scholars, and they shine like beacons. I am also aware of the "Benedictine reformation" and the wonders done by St. Dunstan. But these are beacons in the gloom. Was it Dunstan who had the Benedictine rules translated into "English" because Latin had been largely forgotten? And I love the jewellery of that age. I have had occasion to read much of the [[Anglo-Saxon Chronicle]] a number of times last year...and it really was a dark and dangerous age. Only Christianity kept western society together (and I know of no historian that denies the good the Church did in those times) but as for science and technological advances, really there was very little, if any at all.
In another context the age is also called ''the great interruption''. Cheers [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::::Science and technology: almost nothing, I think. The great advances in science during the so-called Dark Ages were in India and the Muslim countries. The West only started to turn the corner in terms of scientific learning when Gerbert (Pope Sylvester II) visited the Muslim universities in Spain, c.1000 (see R.W. Southern, ''The Making of the Middle Ages''). [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 17:59, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:Yes! Now all we have to do is get people to agree to it on [[Essay:Liberal Denials about History]] item (10) under "Specific truths that history books deny".[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

==Humor==
Perhaps this entry could be clarified: is there a particular form of humor that the author had in mind? There are examples of jokes, riddles, puns, comic figurines/images, anthropoligical notes of humorous conversations, etc. from both pre-Christian times and from post-Christian 'first contacts' with cultures that had had no previous exposure to Christianity.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:37, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:Brossa: Can you provide some? --[[User:AbnerY|AbnerY]] 21:51, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:I'd like to see Brossa's alleged examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 8 February 2009 (EST)

::How about Greek and Roman comedy? that way predated Christianity. Andy, what kind of claim are you making here? on what basis would you allege that humor does not predate Christianity? it seems pretty far-fetched. I'd like to see some evidence. --[[User:DaveClark|DaveClark]]

::: You misunderstand what a Greek "comedy" was. It was not a humorous performance as meant by the term today (after the onset of Christianity).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Yes. It was. The intention was to make people laugh. Otherwise, what on earth do you mean by "humor"? Also.. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7536918.stm [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 09:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Aschlafly is right in saying that the term "comedy" did not mean exactly what it does today, but KimSell is right that the works of playwrights such as Aristophanes certainly included humorous elements such as wordplay, farce and grotesque exaggeration (often surprisingly coarse by our standards). I'd also cite the episode where the children mocked Elisha in 2 Kings 2:23-24 as an example, albeit fairly base, of pre-Christian humor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: As a side-note, in the past there have been bitter disputes where people have taken the polar opposite position to Mr Schlafly, ie that all humor is un-Christian. This is touched on in Umberto Eco's ''The Name of the Rose'', which I recommend.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: The pre-Christian examples don't withstand scrutiny. Mockery or crude comments are not quality humor, and may not be humor at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::::Sorry Mr. Schlafly. While you may not consider crude comments humorous, it is still defined as humor. you are yet to back up the claim you're making with any specific evidense. even if greek comedy didn't qualify as humor (and it does) there would still be no evidence that the advent of christianity brought the advent of humor.

::::This will be easier if you define precisely what ''you'' mean by 'humor' or 'comedy' so that we can determine if in fact it did or did not exist before Christianity. As the essay stands now, it implies that there was no ''humor'' before Christianity, not that, say, stand-up comedy as practiced in the United States today did not exist in the ancient world. The Greek comedy tradition was well-established by the sixth century BC and contains aspects of sexual farce, parody of 'serious' literary styles, and mockery of specific political and public figures. Comic performers wore characteristic costumes that included fat suits, huge genitalia, and grotesque masks that are still in use in modern comic performances. Greek vases depict these comic characters engaged in antics; I recall in particular a vase depicting two grotesque dwarves helping a third dwarf up a ladder or ramp - Three Stooges level humor.
::::Isaac in the Bible got his name from the laughter of Abraham and Sarah; does this not indicate a sense of humor? Elijah mocks the prophets of Baal, including the suggestion that Baal cannot hear his priests because he is on the toilet.
::::Egyptian papyri show exaggerated caricatures of dishevelled older men engaged in sexual relations with young women, including humorous captions (in heiroglyphics!) detailing the women's commentary on the situation. Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity. A foreign queen is depicted as being so fat that she stands next to an ass with the caption 'the ass needed to carry the queen'.
::::Sumerian scatological humor is recorded (in cuneiform) on a tablet dated to 1900 BC.
::::Many Native American groups had oral traditions that include the 'Trickster' figure, who gets involved in humorous scrapes and mocks authority figures. Many of these stories also include punning wordplay and practical jokes; another dimension of humor.
::::Nineteenth century Australian ethnographers, coming into first contact with an isolated Aboriginal group, noted that the Aboriginals told stories among themselves and laughed during an otherwise stressful time - in this case, a terrible thunderstorm.
::::I'm sure that others could contribute examples from Sanskrit or Asian cultures.
::::So scatological humor, sexual humor, puns, riddles, slapstick, political satire, parody of 'serious' art forms, practical jokes, and others are all documented in pre-Christian or non-Christian cultures.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: To one with an open mind, your vulgar "examples" tend to reinforce the basic observation: (real) humor was lacking before Christianity. Crudeness or vulgarity or mockery is not true humor, and Greek "comedies" were not attempts at humor in today's sense.

::::: If you had evidence of writings about humor itself, or books of humor, or truly comedic performances, or anything remotely similar to quality humor today, then that could help your argument. But the above examples, if they are the best you have, simply underscore the insight in this essay.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:54, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: It would have been simpler for you to have simply started with the statement that no 'true humor' existed before Christianity, so that we would have known what sort of Scotsman we were dealing with in the first place. At any rate, the Japanese had [http://www.conservapedia.com/Noh_theater#What_is_Ky.C5.8Dgen.3F mature forms of theater] designed to "draw rich laughter from the audience" before Christianity was introduced to Japan.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::Have you ever watched an ancient Greek comedy? Because I have, and in parts, they are downright hilarious. As people keep saying, you have not explained what you mean by "humor" and so, this conversation would seem to be pointless. However, Aristotle speaks of the history of Greek comedy, including the fact that it was funny! [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:39, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: May I ask what is the earliest example of true humor that you know of? While I respect the viewpoint that the above examples are not real humor, I don't know of any new form that emerged very soon after the establishment of Christianity.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:30, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::If you are so adament about so called "genuine humor" mr. Schlafly, then please define it for us.

::::::::Clearly there is a distinction to be made between things that are funny and things that are 'humor'. If it was intended to make people laugh, it qualifies as humor, whether it was funny or not. No doubt plenty of movies made by the Zuckers and the Farrelly brothers aren't funny, but they're still comedies. I don't find Groucho Marx very funny but he still counts as a comedian. What you seem to mean is that you don't find pre-Christian humor amusing. That's fine but it hardly counts as one of the 'greatest mysteries of world history'.[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 12:09, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: I agree with Mr Achalfly in that for something to be humorous it needs to have a certain amount of taste and refinement. For example, the article mentions a man getting hit in the crotch by a ball. While some people may find this funny, I daresay there are very few people in the world whi would call this humor. The article also mentions the Jackass movie; again, while a few people may find it amusing, I doubt very many people would define it as humorous. What do these two examples have in common? A lack of taste and refinement. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::Surely someone with an open mind would find such taste and refinement in ancient Greco-Roman political satire (e.g. from Aristophanes). Humor undeniably existed before Christianity. Let's just put this behind us as a misunderstanding (or even a disagreement over personal preference). [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 13:41, 9 February 2009 (EST)

For the elucidation of all: "''The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature''" describes Aristophanes as an "Athenian comic poet". Eleven of his plays survive. I know of at least one that has been performed in modern times - "''The Wasps''". I have a CD of it (2 CD set actually) Originally, it was produced in 422 B.C. and is a satirical comedy, poking fun at the Athenian jury system of the time and the state of contemporary politics. It is a comedy of manners, with elements of parody, occasional crudity and slapstick. Sounds like the Restoration writers to me. Or Voltaire. Even Shakespeare indulged in a bit of crudity at times. Modern productions, of course, update some of the scenes.

Aristophanes, who is still read and studied, is only one of many writers of comedies in those times. There was an annual competition for comedy. (''The Wasps'' came 2nd in its year.) Aristophanes' style has been copied by classically trained playwrights since...the Frenchman, Racine, for instance.

The above Oxford Companion devotes over 3 tightly printed pages to ancient Greek and Roman comedy, as well as many mentioned writers getting their own articles. Perhaps we today would not find as funny, but scenes in Shakespeare that had them rolling around in the aisles in 1600 do not quite have that power today. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:remove indent) ETundel, you are confusing "I find it funny" with "it is intended as Humor." I don't find Jackass funny myself, but it is still considered humour. It may be very low comedy, which it is and not everyone will like it, but the fact remains that something does not cease to be "humour" just because X amount of people don't find it funny. [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 16:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

The above discussion is interesting, and I'd like to learn more about "The Wasps." But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary: the "ludicrous" or (more importantly) the "absurdly incongruous."

There are dim-witted people who are amused by compulsive profanity or, as on this site, by mindless vandalism. Parody and sarcasm is also immensely entertaining to the easily amused. But this is not "humor" as defined by the dictionary, and I still haven't seen any compelling examples of pre-Christian humor. A performance like "Trading Places" would qualify, but it didn't exist.

It's interesting how strenuously some people object to the proposition that humor did not predate Christianity. Surely your minds are not so closed as to think the proposition to be automatically impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Here you go Andy, here is the full text of "The Wasps" for you to read at your leisure here[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/wasps.html]. You can judge for yourself if you find it humorous. Honestly, I'm surprised that you're surprised; you throw out a proposition that runs counter to even the most basic understanding of behavior and psychology, basically saying that before Christ nobody knew how to be genuinely funny, and are surprised when people question that? Having an open mind doesn't mean you accept everything to be true. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 18:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::(EC)"But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary"
::Presumably if ANY of the above is humor as defined by the dictionary, then there was humor that pre-dated Christianity. If Aristophanes wrote a political satire ("a satirical comedy, poking fun ... at the state of contemporary politics"), would that not make it a humorous piece of work by any normal definition?[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 18:28, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: ShawnJ and Sam99foster, please answer my question: are you saying that you believe the proposition to be automatically impossible??? It sure sounds that way from some of the closed-minded postings above. Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:42, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: No Andy, I don't find it automatically impossible, I find it impossible after brief consideration. That means I gave your question thought, and found it's position to be ludicrous. The question infers that somehow, before Christ, humans did not have access to the full range of their emotions. You can argue over how humor, like ethics and morality, have changed over the years, but it doesn't stop them from existing. Rejecting the notion that humor didn't exist before Christ is not an example of closed-mindedness any more than rejecting the notion that 2+2=76 is. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 23:22, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Sir, since you say parody is not humor, is [[Essay:Born_Outside_the_U.S.A.!|this]], therefore, not funny?

[[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 19:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Do you often speak in non sequiturs?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: How is that a non-sequitur? You argue that parody and satire are not humor, so I point you to something that you presumably wrote as a humorous piece. You certainly didn't reject the accolades that termed it funny.

::: You argue, ''"Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition."'' What dictionary are you using? [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humor According to Merriam-Webster's on-line dictionary], this is the definition of humor in the context with which we are concerned (the others definitions concern the dated usage referring to the human body):

* that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing

Parody and satire seem to fit both the first and third. If you disagree, please explain why.

So, what is your definition? You've not provided one yet; you've merely said "humor is not (fill in the blank)".

I view humor as a gift from God. It allows us to get through our most troubling times. The idea that humor only existed after Christ is as alien to me as the idea that romantic love only existed after Christ. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 20:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: I apologize to Mr. Schlafly in that I charged that he had not provided a definition of humor -- he had, and it was, embarrassingly enough, the same one I cited. This topic has become long, and I missed his definition.

::: However, I still ask this: how do parody and satire '''''not''''' fit that definition?

::: Mr. Schlafly also cites the film ''Trading Places'' as an example of humor. Well, Eddie Murphy was never one of my favorites, since, particularly during the time he made that movie, he was extraordinarily foul-mouthed. But... as I understand it, plot of the movie is two people from different worlds trade lives, and we see how they both handle it, or fail to do so.

::: That strikes me as something that has to be one of the oldest jokes imaginable -- laughing at the "fish out of water" concept. I can easily imagine two Egyptian peasants, toiling down in the Nile Delta, lightening their day by laughing at the thought of the Pharaoh having to do their jobs for a while. "He'd be worried about getting his robes dirty!" "He probably couldn't even fill ten bushels of reeds!" (Of course, "ten bushels of reeds" isn't funny to us, but it might be hilarious to the guy who could pick thirty bushels before a lunch break.)

::: Now, admittedly, I'm speculating, but so is Mr. Schlafly. And I think my speculation is quite reasonable -- ancient people laughing at a concept we still find funny. He, by contrast, apparently imagines humanity consisted of a collection of dour sourpusses and/or vulgarians who couldn't appreciate anything beyond a flatulence joke until somewhere between 1 and 30 AD.

::: He also charges those of us who don't see his viewpoint of being close-minded. Sorry, no -- it is not close-minded to expect extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim. If I said, "perhaps, until Christ was born, the sky was green and the grass was blue", you'd be justified in taking that with a huge grain of salt -- particularly if you presented me with some evidence that, in 200 BC, the sky was blue and the grass was green, and I responded with "well, that's not really ''blue'' and ''green'', that's ''cobalt'' and ''emerald''." [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:47, 10 February 2009 (EST)

I'm new here but I don't understand this one. What has Christianity got to do with humour? In any case, the answer is "yes" - as contributors above suggest, go and read (or even better, watch) Aristophanes. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::Whilst shopping just now I nicked into my local newsagency-cum-bookshop. There were Penguin Classics editions on the shelf of Aristophanes' ''Frogs'', ''The Birds'', ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. This not a big shop....so it seems old Aristophanes is alive and kicking, if only as part of a subject at university. (I must admit that I only have the ''Wasps'' CDs because of the wonderful RVW incidental music written for a Cambridge Uni dramatic society performance in 1909, but it shows that he is not completely out of date and that his wit can be applied to modern circumstance.) The word ''wit'' is what I keep coming across regards his plays.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

==="Ancient humor"===
One thing I think many of Mr. Schlafay's detractors are overlooking is the possibility that the works we refer to as "comedies" today might not have been intended as comedies in their own time. The word "[[comedy]]" is English (as are all the other words used to describe Aristophanes' work: [[joke]], [[humor]], etc.), so we are in effect relying on modern translators of Ancient Greek to tell us what the Ancient Greeks thought about their own literary works.

The other day I was looking out my [[window]] and saw two [[squirrel]]s chasing each other up and down a [[tree]] trunk. Suddenly the lead squirrel stopped and turned around so suddenly that the other squirrel bumped into its head and fell off the tree! (It was only six feet or so off the ground, so the squirrel was unharmed.) I laughed at this funny occurrence — but of course the two squirrels weren't ''trying'' to put on a funny show for me; they were just doing what comes naturally to animals. Perhaps when we look into our history books and see the funny things that were done by Aristophanes, we should keep these two squirrels in mind. I think Mr. Schlafay was speaking particularly about the ''conscious'' exercise of humor — the ''intention'' to do funny things, not simply the ''fact'' of having done funny things. Nobody can seriously argue that nothing funny ever happened in antiquity... but ''why'' did it happen? that's the question. --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 21:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: That's an excellent point. Some of the ancient vulgarity, for example, was probably not intended to be "funny" any more than compulsive profanity today is intended to be funny. Someone 1000 years from now may look at dialog between two public school students today as being absolutely hilarious, even though the students are not trying to be funny now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:: The City Dionysia, which is the festival where these plays were preformed had several highly established conventions, including that four plays were to be preformed by each group: three tragedies and then a comedy. Comedies by nature are funny. While vulgar humor was indeed used, they still fit the definition of comedy ("a drama of light and amusing character and typically with a happy ending" according to Merriam-Webster). Whether people find them funny is up to them (I happen to like Scrubs, while my brother despises the show. However, he likes Family Guy, which I dislike). But the original intent of the comedies was to make people laugh, which qualifies it as humor [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:45, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::That's very clever thinking, Garth. Fortunately, we have contemporary reviews of the work of authors like Aristophanes, which described them as being humorous (or in some cases not humorous enough!).
::I suspect that this debate might be in order to get people thinking outside the box while at the same time testing their composure. Of course, humor could have not predated Christianity and of course, that is not the case. But how are you going to react when someone doggedly pursues the contrary? How are you going to react when someone refuses to define their terms or moves the goalpost or shifts ground? Will you calmly research and respond? Or will you resort to liberal deceit and condescend to them. Not only should you survey the responses you see here, you should also be doing research of your own before you form your conclusions.
::If you do your research, you will probably find the evidence for pre-Christian humor that you find compelling. Either way, come back here and attempt to argue your point. Remember to stay calm, approachable and accommodating. I urge you to engage in this exercise and wish you the best. [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 22:53, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Garth, there were no "''funny things done by Aristophanes''" any more than there were ''funny things done by'' humorous writers of modern times. He wrote plays, in verse, using the formal dramatic restraints of his day. In 5th century Athens there were two distinct forms of stage performances. There were the Tragedies, the most famed writers of which are Euripides and Aeschylus; and the Comedies, represented today by our mate Aristophanes. Never the twain did meet. They probably both developed out of pre-Classical Dionysian ritual, but by Classical times they were distinct from each other. Unlike the tragedians, Aristophanes set out to make people laugh; and to do this he used many of the forms used today - funny or fantastical situations, plays on words, ridicule of people in power, etc., He is supposed to have been very witty. He had a way with words. He was also a serious man who was concerned at perceived faults in the society he lived in, and used humor as a weapon against these things. He is recorded as saying "comedy knows what is right." He brought the powerful down a peg or two. My "Dictionary of Greek Civilisation", a book set for university courses during the 1970s, called him "a comic genius". [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafay: Thank you. ENorman and "Fundie": It sounds like you are resorting to [[appeal to authority]] in this case. Remember that we do not actually have "contemporary reviews" of Aristophanes; what we have are ''modern translations'' of those works. I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review. "Fundie", I'm glad we agree about the value of exercise. AlanE: If Aristophanes never did anything funny, then in what sense was he a comedian? You describe him as a "serious man" who "ridicule[d] people in power"; this Aristophanes sounds like something of a [[liberal]] [[radical]]! :) --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 23:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:Who were the "liberals" - those in power or Aristophanes? Let's not bring today's concepts into describing someone who lived 2500years ago. He was not a comedian any more than Jonathan Swift was when he used ''Gulliver's Travels'' to lampoon the foibles of his age. Have you read him? The use of comedy to prick the inflated egos of the powerful, whether they be politicians, judges, or whatever, has a long and noble history, both for those on the left and on the right. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:49, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:Remember to do a little research! The first line of Aristophanes' ''[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/frogs.html The Frogs]'':
::<blockquote>XANTHIAS: Shall I crack any of those old jokes, master, At which the audience never fail to laugh?</blockquote>
:I'm almost positive there is some implication of humor somewhere in there! Form your own conclusions! [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 23:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Well done, Fundie! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:51, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::Having read this controversy with interest, I am forced to agree with Mr Schalfly. There is a difference between the theatre of cruelty - sarcasm and cruel raillery - that was the hallmark of the pagan Greeks, and true humour, which to be effective needs access to the depths of ones heart and soul, a perspective that only became real through the incarnation and suffering of Christ. Similarly, the coarseness of peasant nonsense such as was available to primitive peoples - the ancient equivalent of gurning through horse collars - has no right to be defined as humour. What Mr Schlafly is attempting to describe (albeit to a deliberately unreceptive audience) is something wiser, something altogether more refined and insightful. I wish him luck in persuading the unpersuadable. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 14:25, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::::Hi and welcome to CP, Regal! I'm interested in your view of my quote from ''The Frogs'' (above) in light of CP's definition of [[Humor]]:

:::::<blockquote>Humor is an act, statement, or other form of communication done to invoke laughter, amusement, or happiness in the audience.</blockquote>

:::::If you agree that Xanthias intended to invoke laughter by cracking jokes and continue to believe that this is not humor, please explain how you would like to see our definition of 'humor' changed. [[User:MattL|MattL]] 14:41, 10 February 2009 (EST)
::::::And G'day from me, Regal. Can you tell us what dictionary you use? All of mine say more or less the same things. What is refined humour,? Wise humour. Insightful humour. Can we have examples? BTW, all the things you find detestable in so-called ''pagan'' humour is found unabated in Chaucer and the ''Decamaron'' and the other medieval story-tellers. Shakespeare used it. Scatalogical humour was the rage through most of the reformation times and later. Mozart wrote scatalogical songs. The bedroom farce has always been popular - we had no senior churchmen refusing to go to ''The Marriage of Figaro''. The Greeks laughed at the dolt and so do we - hence the undying popularity of the Inspector Clouseau type character through history. Nothing changed. No one is denying that much pagan humour was coarse; but what I am saying is that it has never stopped being coarse, and I am also saying that before Christ there was humour of the kind that we find in Wodehouse or Wilde, and the one-liners of Groucho Marx or Dorothy Parker, which are clever because they manage to nail an aspect of the human condition in so few words. Aristophanes could do that.(Unlike I, who go on and on...:))[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:58, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::: It appears that discussing humor with [[atheists]] is a fool's errand because they, like the ancient Greeks, are unable (or refuse) to open their minds to what real humor is. I've defined it several times, as does the dictionary; it is something "ludicrous" or "absurdly incongruous." Vulgarities may amuse the simple-minded to no end, and so may slapstick comedy (which is all the "Frogs" is referencing in its opening line), but it's not humor.

::::::: We've learned something from this discussion. It's not just the pre-Christians who were without humor, but so are [[atheists]] today. It's unfortunate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::"Ludicrous": amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity; causing laughter because of absurdity; broadly or extravagantly humorous, resembling farce. All of these definitions are fulfilled in the examples that have already been stated in this discussion. For that matter, they are all fulfilled by the image on [http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/r/wine_bowl,_apulia.aspx this vase in the British Museum] from the fourth century BC.
::::::::::If your second paragraph is meant to imply that your whole premise behind claiming that there was no humor before Christianity was to poke fun of atheists - since only atheists are so humorless as to take such a ludicrous proposition seriously - then I am afraid that your Modest Proposal has been found lacking.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 18:48, 10 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Now that we've established that humor is a post-Christian phenomenon, we would do well to explore it's origins within Christianity. Do you have early Christian examples? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:03, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: In regards to something ludicrous or absurdly incongruous, from Plutarch's ''The Comparison of Demosthenes and Cicero'':

:::::::::<blockquote>So also we are told that when Cicero, being consul, undertook the defence of Murena against Cato's prosecution, by way of bantering Cato, he made a long series of jokes upon the absurd paradoxes, as they are called, of the Stoic set; so that a loud laughter passing from the crowd to the judges, Cato, with a quiet smile, said to those that sat next him, "My friends, what an amusing consul we have."</blockquote> We can plainly see that this is absurd. Now for the incongruity - A paradox, as defined by MW, is "a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true". Incongruous, as defined by MW, describes "something inconsistent with itself". Could this possibly be an example of humor? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:11, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Merriam-Webster also says that humor is "something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing." Doesn't that describe Aristophanes? [[User:BenjaminC|BenjaminC]] 17:38, 10 February 2009 (EST)

==Who was right - Catholics or Protestants?==

Can you explain what you mean by this question? It's a bit like asking - who is right, Christians of Buddhists? Do you mean, regarding Transubstantiation? Or do you mean celibacy? Or the infallibility of the Pope? Maybe you could phrase it a little more clearly? Finally, do you think it's helpful to the world to see the world like this? Doesn't every faith believe it's 'right'? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 17:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Surely you don't think that just because different people hold different views that each think are right, truth therefore does not exist. If I told that some cultures believe that 2+2 equals infinity, and are convinced they are right, would that change your view that 2+2=4 and not infinity?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:50, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::Well, yes, I do? Despite my own faith, I cannot in all sincerity tell a Buddhist that their faith is nonsense - I simply don't believe that's a way to get along with the rest of the planet, the pursuit of which is, after all, is our bounden duty here on this Earth. My own faith (Catholicism) has experienced many controversies, and although I hold fast to my faith, I acknowledge that it is not without its flaws and appalling mistakes. Jesus taught us to "love thy neighbour", after all. But to return to the question at hand - "who is right, Catholics or Protestants?". As an Irish Catholic married to an Irish Protestant, I'm sure you'll understand there's a great deal of sensitivity over this issue on our Island. And I'm certainly not about to tell my partner that her beliefs are 'wrong'. But what 'right' are you referring to? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 19:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)

To keep this conversation from devolving into an ideological argument, I thought I might try to clarify the original question: I interpret it as referring to the issues at the heart of the Protestant Reformation, namely the allegations of abuses of power within the Catholic Church, the selling of indulgences, the lack of reliance on Scripture, etc. Some of these are purely theological points, but I think historical discussion can bring light to the issue of whether or not the Protestants were justified in some of their more pragmatic claims. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 19:13, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: In reply to TadghOB, one thing about Jesus is indisputable: He did tell others they were wrong, and was very clear that He was divisive rather than uniting.

: In reply to Economist, there is the issue of how to deal with the problems, and what the subsequent centuries and today illustrate. I'm not yet taking a position on the question, but am pointing out how your list is incomplete.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Why did Islam grow so rapidly? ==

Not sure there's a lot of mystery here. The rise of Islam is well documented in both Arab and Byzantine sources. The "mystery", if there is one, is how Mohammed managed to convert a sizeable number of followers in his lifetime and how they became organised into a small but effective military force. Thereafter, Islam spread for several reasons. Initially, it was confined to Arab soldiers and their families and was something of an elite religion. But the Arabs were generally welcomed by the common people in the Byzantine territories because they imposed lighter taxes, their military levies were less oppressive and they didn't cut people's heads off because they disagreed with the Emperor's theological opinions. The same factors are reflected in the decline of the Byzantine empire, to the benefit of the Arabs in West Asia and North Africa: excessive taxation, too many able-bodied men from wealthy families joining the priesthood to evade military service, and continuous demoralisation of the population through religious disputes. Added to that was the over-centralisation of power in the Byzantine Empire, with the result that when the Emperor was out of action, there were few men with both the authority and the competence to wield power effectively. Such was the situation at the decisive Battle of the Yarmouk, in what is now northern Jordan, when the Emperor Heraclius was ill and unable to take the field, resulting in a decisive victory for the Arabs.

Islam spread in the territories conquered by the Arabs for similar reasons to the spread of Christianity in Europe: local rulers ingratiating themselves with their overlord (the Arab Caliph in this case), the prestige of being part of the official religion, the apparent evidence that God must favour the Muslims because he enabled them to win battles, and lower taxation for Muslims.

It's much harder to understand why the Byzantine Empire lasted as long as it did. Also, why did the Arabs not conquer most of the West? The post-Roman kingdoms in the West seem to have been more organised and effective than historians gave them credit for until recently.

See e.g. John Julius Norwich's history of Byzantium (three volumes but extremely - even addictively - readable). Also 'The Formation of Christendom' by Judith Herrin, the standard modern work on the interplay of Church and State in the Byzantine Empire; she shows that the church wasn't always a negative influence, as Edward Gibbon supposed. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:In addition to Fred's information above, Islam burst out of Arabia at a time when both the Byzantines and the Persians were completely exhausted from fighting each other interminably. There is also talk of a plague epidemic that wasted the so-called civilised powers but had little effect in the sparcely populated Arabian desert. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:52, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-02-10T23:48:33Z

Brossa: /* "Ancient humor" */

==Dark Ages==

I have to ask: does this really qualify as a "mystery?" Most people who have actually taken the time to study European history, I would suggest, would say that there's a clear and simple answer: "No, the so-called "Dark Ages" weren't really so backwards." Significant advances were made during the period generally termed the "Dark Ages" in many fields: music, agriculture, metallurgy, and philosophy spring to mind immediately. Historians today generally avoid using the term "Dark Ages" for precisely that reason.

Should it really be termed a "mystery" just because some people continue to hold misconceptions about it? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:11, 28 December 2008 (EST)
: Yes, it's not a mystery at all. Renaissance humanists hated the "dark ages" with a passion. Now we know just how much science and culture were developed during those centuries. Not so much a mystery as a myth, really (liberals love to claim early Christian Europe was fruitless) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 14:14, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::Perhaps a better question would be "Why are the advances of the early Middle Ages frequently overlooked or dismissed?" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:19, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:::My question is: ''What specific non-warfare scientific/technological advances were made in Christian Western Europe between the fall of Rome and AD1000?'' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:36, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::There were some important scholars, notably Isidore of Seville (6th century Spain), Bede (7th century England) and Alcuin of York (8th century England). But, with these possible exceptions, European scholarship is overshadowed by India, China and the Muslim Caliphate in this period. The first European renaissance started when Christian scholars visited Spain and Sicily to benefit from Arab learning.

::::However, the so-called Dark Ages weren't nearly as obscure are the name suggests. There was significant trade with Byzantium and the Caliphate and the most important monasteries had access to classical Latin texts. There were major building projects, especially of monasteries, particularly from the late 8th century onwards. The standard of craftsmanship was exceptional - you couldn't say it declined at all during the "Dark Ages". Witness the jewelry at Sutton Hoo or the illustrated manuscripts produced by Anglo-Saxon scriptoria. The Anglo-Saxon kings, notably Alfred, Athelstan and Edgar, laid the basis of English government which was formalised by the coronation oath of Henry I.

::::Bear in mind that the setback to civilisation was only in Western Europe. Culture flourished in the Eastern Empire, also in the Arab Caliphate, while the Tang and Song Dynasties represent in many ways the peak of Chinese culture. Also, much of the foundations of mathematics were discovered in India in this period. Universities were first founded in Arab lands (Fez was the first, I think) in the 10th century, before spreading to Spain and thence to Christian Europe. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::The operative words in my question above were ''scientific/technological''. I know of Bede and Alcuin and have had occasion to look into Isadore in the last few months. Yes they were scholars, and they shine like beacons. I am also aware of the "Benedictine reformation" and the wonders done by St. Dunstan. But these are beacons in the gloom. Was it Dunstan who had the Benedictine rules translated into "English" because Latin had been largely forgotten? And I love the jewellery of that age. I have had occasion to read much of the [[Anglo-Saxon Chronicle]] a number of times last year...and it really was a dark and dangerous age. Only Christianity kept western society together (and I know of no historian that denies the good the Church did in those times) but as for science and technological advances, really there was very little, if any at all.
In another context the age is also called ''the great interruption''. Cheers [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::::Science and technology: almost nothing, I think. The great advances in science during the so-called Dark Ages were in India and the Muslim countries. The West only started to turn the corner in terms of scientific learning when Gerbert (Pope Sylvester II) visited the Muslim universities in Spain, c.1000 (see R.W. Southern, ''The Making of the Middle Ages''). [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 17:59, 10 February 2009 (EST)

==Humor==
Perhaps this entry could be clarified: is there a particular form of humor that the author had in mind? There are examples of jokes, riddles, puns, comic figurines/images, anthropoligical notes of humorous conversations, etc. from both pre-Christian times and from post-Christian 'first contacts' with cultures that had had no previous exposure to Christianity.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:37, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:Brossa: Can you provide some? --[[User:AbnerY|AbnerY]] 21:51, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:I'd like to see Brossa's alleged examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 8 February 2009 (EST)

::How about Greek and Roman comedy? that way predated Christianity. Andy, what kind of claim are you making here? on what basis would you allege that humor does not predate Christianity? it seems pretty far-fetched. I'd like to see some evidence. --[[User:DaveClark|DaveClark]]

::: You misunderstand what a Greek "comedy" was. It was not a humorous performance as meant by the term today (after the onset of Christianity).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Yes. It was. The intention was to make people laugh. Otherwise, what on earth do you mean by "humor"? Also.. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7536918.stm [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 09:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Aschlafly is right in saying that the term "comedy" did not mean exactly what it does today, but KimSell is right that the works of playwrights such as Aristophanes certainly included humorous elements such as wordplay, farce and grotesque exaggeration (often surprisingly coarse by our standards). I'd also cite the episode where the children mocked Elisha in 2 Kings 2:23-24 as an example, albeit fairly base, of pre-Christian humor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: As a side-note, in the past there have been bitter disputes where people have taken the polar opposite position to Mr Schlafly, ie that all humor is un-Christian. This is touched on in Umberto Eco's ''The Name of the Rose'', which I recommend.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: The pre-Christian examples don't withstand scrutiny. Mockery or crude comments are not quality humor, and may not be humor at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::::Sorry Mr. Schlafly. While you may not consider crude comments humorous, it is still defined as humor. you are yet to back up the claim you're making with any specific evidense. even if greek comedy didn't qualify as humor (and it does) there would still be no evidence that the advent of christianity brought the advent of humor.

::::This will be easier if you define precisely what ''you'' mean by 'humor' or 'comedy' so that we can determine if in fact it did or did not exist before Christianity. As the essay stands now, it implies that there was no ''humor'' before Christianity, not that, say, stand-up comedy as practiced in the United States today did not exist in the ancient world. The Greek comedy tradition was well-established by the sixth century BC and contains aspects of sexual farce, parody of 'serious' literary styles, and mockery of specific political and public figures. Comic performers wore characteristic costumes that included fat suits, huge genitalia, and grotesque masks that are still in use in modern comic performances. Greek vases depict these comic characters engaged in antics; I recall in particular a vase depicting two grotesque dwarves helping a third dwarf up a ladder or ramp - Three Stooges level humor.
::::Isaac in the Bible got his name from the laughter of Abraham and Sarah; does this not indicate a sense of humor? Elijah mocks the prophets of Baal, including the suggestion that Baal cannot hear his priests because he is on the toilet.
::::Egyptian papyri show exaggerated caricatures of dishevelled older men engaged in sexual relations with young women, including humorous captions (in heiroglyphics!) detailing the women's commentary on the situation. Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity. A foreign queen is depicted as being so fat that she stands next to an ass with the caption 'the ass needed to carry the queen'.
::::Sumerian scatological humor is recorded (in cuneiform) on a tablet dated to 1900 BC.
::::Many Native American groups had oral traditions that include the 'Trickster' figure, who gets involved in humorous scrapes and mocks authority figures. Many of these stories also include punning wordplay and practical jokes; another dimension of humor.
::::Nineteenth century Australian ethnographers, coming into first contact with an isolated Aboriginal group, noted that the Aboriginals told stories among themselves and laughed during an otherwise stressful time - in this case, a terrible thunderstorm.
::::I'm sure that others could contribute examples from Sanskrit or Asian cultures.
::::So scatological humor, sexual humor, puns, riddles, slapstick, political satire, parody of 'serious' art forms, practical jokes, and others are all documented in pre-Christian or non-Christian cultures.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: To one with an open mind, your vulgar "examples" tend to reinforce the basic observation: (real) humor was lacking before Christianity. Crudeness or vulgarity or mockery is not true humor, and Greek "comedies" were not attempts at humor in today's sense.

::::: If you had evidence of writings about humor itself, or books of humor, or truly comedic performances, or anything remotely similar to quality humor today, then that could help your argument. But the above examples, if they are the best you have, simply underscore the insight in this essay.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:54, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: It would have been simpler for you to have simply started with the statement that no 'true humor' existed before Christianity, so that we would have known what sort of Scotsman we were dealing with in the first place. At any rate, the Japanese had [http://www.conservapedia.com/Noh_theater#What_is_Ky.C5.8Dgen.3F mature forms of theater] designed to "draw rich laughter from the audience" before Christianity was introduced to Japan.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::Have you ever watched an ancient Greek comedy? Because I have, and in parts, they are downright hilarious. As people keep saying, you have not explained what you mean by "humor" and so, this conversation would seem to be pointless. However, Aristotle speaks of the history of Greek comedy, including the fact that it was funny! [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:39, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: May I ask what is the earliest example of true humor that you know of? While I respect the viewpoint that the above examples are not real humor, I don't know of any new form that emerged very soon after the establishment of Christianity.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:30, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::If you are so adament about so called "genuine humor" mr. Schlafly, then please define it for us.

::::::::Clearly there is a distinction to be made between things that are funny and things that are 'humor'. If it was intended to make people laugh, it qualifies as humor, whether it was funny or not. No doubt plenty of movies made by the Zuckers and the Farrelly brothers aren't funny, but they're still comedies. I don't find Groucho Marx very funny but he still counts as a comedian. What you seem to mean is that you don't find pre-Christian humor amusing. That's fine but it hardly counts as one of the 'greatest mysteries of world history'.[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 12:09, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: I agree with Mr Achalfly in that for something to be humorous it needs to have a certain amount of taste and refinement. For example, the article mentions a man getting hit in the crotch by a ball. While some people may find this funny, I daresay there are very few people in the world whi would call this humor. The article also mentions the Jackass movie; again, while a few people may find it amusing, I doubt very many people would define it as humorous. What do these two examples have in common? A lack of taste and refinement. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::Surely someone with an open mind would find such taste and refinement in ancient Greco-Roman political satire (e.g. from Aristophanes). Humor undeniably existed before Christianity. Let's just put this behind us as a misunderstanding (or even a disagreement over personal preference). [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 13:41, 9 February 2009 (EST)

For the elucidation of all: "''The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature''" describes Aristophanes as an "Athenian comic poet". Eleven of his plays survive. I know of at least one that has been performed in modern times - "''The Wasps''". I have a CD of it (2 CD set actually) Originally, it was produced in 422 B.C. and is a satirical comedy, poking fun at the Athenian jury system of the time and the state of contemporary politics. It is a comedy of manners, with elements of parody, occasional crudity and slapstick. Sounds like the Restoration writers to me. Or Voltaire. Even Shakespeare indulged in a bit of crudity at times. Modern productions, of course, update some of the scenes.

Aristophanes, who is still read and studied, is only one of many writers of comedies in those times. There was an annual competition for comedy. (''The Wasps'' came 2nd in its year.) Aristophanes' style has been copied by classically trained playwrights since...the Frenchman, Racine, for instance.

The above Oxford Companion devotes over 3 tightly printed pages to ancient Greek and Roman comedy, as well as many mentioned writers getting their own articles. Perhaps we today would not find as funny, but scenes in Shakespeare that had them rolling around in the aisles in 1600 do not quite have that power today. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:remove indent) ETundel, you are confusing "I find it funny" with "it is intended as Humor." I don't find Jackass funny myself, but it is still considered humour. It may be very low comedy, which it is and not everyone will like it, but the fact remains that something does not cease to be "humour" just because X amount of people don't find it funny. [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 16:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

The above discussion is interesting, and I'd like to learn more about "The Wasps." But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary: the "ludicrous" or (more importantly) the "absurdly incongruous."

There are dim-witted people who are amused by compulsive profanity or, as on this site, by mindless vandalism. Parody and sarcasm is also immensely entertaining to the easily amused. But this is not "humor" as defined by the dictionary, and I still haven't seen any compelling examples of pre-Christian humor. A performance like "Trading Places" would qualify, but it didn't exist.

It's interesting how strenuously some people object to the proposition that humor did not predate Christianity. Surely your minds are not so closed as to think the proposition to be automatically impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Here you go Andy, here is the full text of "The Wasps" for you to read at your leisure here[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/wasps.html]. You can judge for yourself if you find it humorous. Honestly, I'm surprised that you're surprised; you throw out a proposition that runs counter to even the most basic understanding of behavior and psychology, basically saying that before Christ nobody knew how to be genuinely funny, and are surprised when people question that? Having an open mind doesn't mean you accept everything to be true. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 18:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::(EC)"But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary"
::Presumably if ANY of the above is humor as defined by the dictionary, then there was humor that pre-dated Christianity. If Aristophanes wrote a political satire ("a satirical comedy, poking fun ... at the state of contemporary politics"), would that not make it a humorous piece of work by any normal definition?[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 18:28, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: ShawnJ and Sam99foster, please answer my question: are you saying that you believe the proposition to be automatically impossible??? It sure sounds that way from some of the closed-minded postings above. Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:42, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: No Andy, I don't find it automatically impossible, I find it impossible after brief consideration. That means I gave your question thought, and found it's position to be ludicrous. The question infers that somehow, before Christ, humans did not have access to the full range of their emotions. You can argue over how humor, like ethics and morality, have changed over the years, but it doesn't stop them from existing. Rejecting the notion that humor didn't exist before Christ is not an example of closed-mindedness any more than rejecting the notion that 2+2=76 is. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 23:22, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Sir, since you say parody is not humor, is [[Essay:Born_Outside_the_U.S.A.!|this]], therefore, not funny?

[[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 19:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Do you often speak in non sequiturs?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: How is that a non-sequitur? You argue that parody and satire are not humor, so I point you to something that you presumably wrote as a humorous piece. You certainly didn't reject the accolades that termed it funny.

::: You argue, ''"Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition."'' What dictionary are you using? [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humor According to Merriam-Webster's on-line dictionary], this is the definition of humor in the context with which we are concerned (the others definitions concern the dated usage referring to the human body):

* that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing

Parody and satire seem to fit both the first and third. If you disagree, please explain why.

So, what is your definition? You've not provided one yet; you've merely said "humor is not (fill in the blank)".

I view humor as a gift from God. It allows us to get through our most troubling times. The idea that humor only existed after Christ is as alien to me as the idea that romantic love only existed after Christ. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 20:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: I apologize to Mr. Schlafly in that I charged that he had not provided a definition of humor -- he had, and it was, embarrassingly enough, the same one I cited. This topic has become long, and I missed his definition.

::: However, I still ask this: how do parody and satire '''''not''''' fit that definition?

::: Mr. Schlafly also cites the film ''Trading Places'' as an example of humor. Well, Eddie Murphy was never one of my favorites, since, particularly during the time he made that movie, he was extraordinarily foul-mouthed. But... as I understand it, plot of the movie is two people from different worlds trade lives, and we see how they both handle it, or fail to do so.

::: That strikes me as something that has to be one of the oldest jokes imaginable -- laughing at the "fish out of water" concept. I can easily imagine two Egyptian peasants, toiling down in the Nile Delta, lightening their day by laughing at the thought of the Pharaoh having to do their jobs for a while. "He'd be worried about getting his robes dirty!" "He probably couldn't even fill ten bushels of reeds!" (Of course, "ten bushels of reeds" isn't funny to us, but it might be hilarious to the guy who could pick thirty bushels before a lunch break.)

::: Now, admittedly, I'm speculating, but so is Mr. Schlafly. And I think my speculation is quite reasonable -- ancient people laughing at a concept we still find funny. He, by contrast, apparently imagines humanity consisted of a collection of dour sourpusses and/or vulgarians who couldn't appreciate anything beyond a flatulence joke until somewhere between 1 and 30 AD.

::: He also charges those of us who don't see his viewpoint of being close-minded. Sorry, no -- it is not close-minded to expect extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim. If I said, "perhaps, until Christ was born, the sky was green and the grass was blue", you'd be justified in taking that with a huge grain of salt -- particularly if you presented me with some evidence that, in 200 BC, the sky was blue and the grass was green, and I responded with "well, that's not really ''blue'' and ''green'', that's ''cobalt'' and ''emerald''." [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:47, 10 February 2009 (EST)

I'm new here but I don't understand this one. What has Christianity got to do with humour? In any case, the answer is "yes" - as contributors above suggest, go and read (or even better, watch) Aristophanes. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::Whilst shopping just now I nicked into my local newsagency-cum-bookshop. There were Penguin Classics editions on the shelf of Aristophanes' ''Frogs'', ''The Birds'', ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. This not a big shop....so it seems old Aristophanes is alive and kicking, if only as part of a subject at university. (I must admit that I only have the ''Wasps'' CDs because of the wonderful RVW incidental music written for a Cambridge Uni dramatic society performance in 1909, but it shows that he is not completely out of date and that his wit can be applied to modern circumstance.) The word ''wit'' is what I keep coming across regards his plays.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

==="Ancient humor"===
One thing I think many of Mr. Schlafay's detractors are overlooking is the possibility that the works we refer to as "comedies" today might not have been intended as comedies in their own time. The word "[[comedy]]" is English (as are all the other words used to describe Aristophanes' work: [[joke]], [[humor]], etc.), so we are in effect relying on modern translators of Ancient Greek to tell us what the Ancient Greeks thought about their own literary works.

The other day I was looking out my [[window]] and saw two [[squirrel]]s chasing each other up and down a [[tree]] trunk. Suddenly the lead squirrel stopped and turned around so suddenly that the other squirrel bumped into its head and fell off the tree! (It was only six feet or so off the ground, so the squirrel was unharmed.) I laughed at this funny occurrence — but of course the two squirrels weren't ''trying'' to put on a funny show for me; they were just doing what comes naturally to animals. Perhaps when we look into our history books and see the funny things that were done by Aristophanes, we should keep these two squirrels in mind. I think Mr. Schlafay was speaking particularly about the ''conscious'' exercise of humor — the ''intention'' to do funny things, not simply the ''fact'' of having done funny things. Nobody can seriously argue that nothing funny ever happened in antiquity... but ''why'' did it happen? that's the question. --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 21:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: That's an excellent point. Some of the ancient vulgarity, for example, was probably not intended to be "funny" any more than compulsive profanity today is intended to be funny. Someone 1000 years from now may look at dialog between two public school students today as being absolutely hilarious, even though the students are not trying to be funny now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:: The City Dionysia, which is the festival where these plays were preformed had several highly established conventions, including that four plays were to be preformed by each group: three tragedies and then a comedy. Comedies by nature are funny. While vulgar humor was indeed used, they still fit the definition of comedy ("a drama of light and amusing character and typically with a happy ending" according to Merriam-Webster). Whether people find them funny is up to them (I happen to like Scrubs, while my brother despises the show. However, he likes Family Guy, which I dislike). But the original intent of the comedies was to make people laugh, which qualifies it as humor [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:45, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::That's very clever thinking, Garth. Fortunately, we have contemporary reviews of the work of authors like Aristophanes, which described them as being humorous (or in some cases not humorous enough!).
::I suspect that this debate might be in order to get people thinking outside the box while at the same time testing their composure. Of course, humor could have not predated Christianity and of course, that is not the case. But how are you going to react when someone doggedly pursues the contrary? How are you going to react when someone refuses to define their terms or moves the goalpost or shifts ground? Will you calmly research and respond? Or will you resort to liberal deceit and condescend to them. Not only should you survey the responses you see here, you should also be doing research of your own before you form your conclusions.
::If you do your research, you will probably find the evidence for pre-Christian humor that you find compelling. Either way, come back here and attempt to argue your point. Remember to stay calm, approachable and accommodating. I urge you to engage in this exercise and wish you the best. [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 22:53, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Garth, there were no "''funny things done by Aristophanes''" any more than there were ''funny things done by'' humorous writers of modern times. He wrote plays, in verse, using the formal dramatic restraints of his day. In 5th century Athens there were two distinct forms of stage performances. There were the Tragedies, the most famed writers of which are Euripides and Aeschylus; and the Comedies, represented today by our mate Aristophanes. Never the twain did meet. They probably both developed out of pre-Classical Dionysian ritual, but by Classical times they were distinct from each other. Unlike the tragedians, Aristophanes set out to make people laugh; and to do this he used many of the forms used today - funny or fantastical situations, plays on words, ridicule of people in power, etc., He is supposed to have been very witty. He had a way with words. He was also a serious man who was concerned at perceived faults in the society he lived in, and used humor as a weapon against these things. He is recorded as saying "comedy knows what is right." He brought the powerful down a peg or two. My "Dictionary of Greek Civilisation", a book set for university courses during the 1970s, called him "a comic genius". [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafay: Thank you. ENorman and "Fundie": It sounds like you are resorting to [[appeal to authority]] in this case. Remember that we do not actually have "contemporary reviews" of Aristophanes; what we have are ''modern translations'' of those works. I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review. "Fundie", I'm glad we agree about the value of exercise. AlanE: If Aristophanes never did anything funny, then in what sense was he a comedian? You describe him as a "serious man" who "ridicule[d] people in power"; this Aristophanes sounds like something of a [[liberal]] [[radical]]! :) --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 23:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:Who were the "liberals" - those in power or Aristophanes? Let's not bring today's concepts into describing someone who lived 2500years ago. He was not a comedian any more than Jonathan Swift was when he used ''Gulliver's Travels'' to lampoon the foibles of his age. Have you read him? The use of comedy to prick the inflated egos of the powerful, whether they be politicians, judges, or whatever, has a long and noble history, both for those on the left and on the right. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:49, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:Remember to do a little research! The first line of Aristophanes' ''[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/frogs.html The Frogs]'':
::<blockquote>XANTHIAS: Shall I crack any of those old jokes, master, At which the audience never fail to laugh?</blockquote>
:I'm almost positive there is some implication of humor somewhere in there! Form your own conclusions! [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 23:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Well done, Fundie! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:51, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::Having read this controversy with interest, I am forced to agree with Mr Schalfly. There is a difference between the theatre of cruelty - sarcasm and cruel raillery - that was the hallmark of the pagan Greeks, and true humour, which to be effective needs access to the depths of ones heart and soul, a perspective that only became real through the incarnation and suffering of Christ. Similarly, the coarseness of peasant nonsense such as was available to primitive peoples - the ancient equivalent of gurning through horse collars - has no right to be defined as humour. What Mr Schlafly is attempting to describe (albeit to a deliberately unreceptive audience) is something wiser, something altogether more refined and insightful. I wish him luck in persuading the unpersuadable. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 14:25, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::::Hi and welcome to CP, Regal! I'm interested in your view of my quote from ''The Frogs'' (above) in light of CP's definition of [[Humor]]:

:::::<blockquote>Humor is an act, statement, or other form of communication done to invoke laughter, amusement, or happiness in the audience.</blockquote>

:::::If you agree that Xanthias intended to invoke laughter by cracking jokes and continue to believe that this is not humor, please explain how you would like to see our definition of 'humor' changed. [[User:MattL|MattL]] 14:41, 10 February 2009 (EST)
::::::And G'day from me, Regal. Can you tell us what dictionary you use? All of mine say more or less the same things. What is refined humour,? Wise humour. Insightful humour. Can we have examples? BTW, all the things you find detestable in so-called ''pagan'' humour is found unabated in Chaucer and the ''Decamaron'' and the other medieval story-tellers. Shakespeare used it. Scatalogical humour was the rage through most of the reformation times and later. Mozart wrote scatalogical songs. The bedroom farce has always been popular - we had no senior churchmen refusing to go to ''The Marriage of Figaro''. The Greeks laughed at the dolt and so do we - hence the undying popularity of the Inspector Clouseau type character through history. Nothing changed. No one is denying that much pagan humour was coarse; but what I am saying is that it has never stopped being coarse, and I am also saying that before Christ there was humour of the kind that we find in Wodehouse or Wilde, and the one-liners of Groucho Marx or Dorothy Parker, which are clever because they manage to nail an aspect of the human condition in so few words. Aristophanes could do that.(Unlike I, who go on and on...:))[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:58, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::: It appears that discussing humor with [[atheists]] is a fool's errand because they, like the ancient Greeks, are unable (or refuse) to open their minds to what real humor is. I've defined it several times, as does the dictionary; it is something "ludicrous" or "absurdly incongruous." Vulgarities may amuse the simple-minded to no end, and so may slapstick comedy (which is all the "Frogs" is referencing in its opening line), but it's not humor.

::::::: We've learned something from this discussion. It's not just the pre-Christians who were without humor, but so are [[atheists]] today. It's unfortunate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)
::::::::::"Ludicrous": amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity; causing laughter because of absurdity; broadly or extravagantly humorous, resembling farce. All of these definitions are fulfilled in the examples that have already been stated in this discussion. For that matter, they are all fulfilled by the image on [http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/r/wine_bowl,_apulia.aspx this vase in the British Museum] from the fourth century BC.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 18:48, 10 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Now that we've established that humor is a post-Christian phenomenon, we would do well to explore it's origins within Christianity. Do you have early Christian examples? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:03, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: In regards to something ludicrous or absurdly incongruous, from Plutarch's ''The Comparison of Demosthenes and Cicero'':

:::::::::<blockquote>So also we are told that when Cicero, being consul, undertook the defence of Murena against Cato's prosecution, by way of bantering Cato, he made a long series of jokes upon the absurd paradoxes, as they are called, of the Stoic set; so that a loud laughter passing from the crowd to the judges, Cato, with a quiet smile, said to those that sat next him, "My friends, what an amusing consul we have."</blockquote> We can plainly see that this is absurd. Now for the incongruity - A paradox, as defined by MW, is "a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true". Incongruous, as defined by MW, describes "something inconsistent with itself". Could this possibly be an example of humor? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:11, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Merriam-Webster also says that humor is "something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing." Doesn't that describe Aristophanes? [[User:BenjaminC|BenjaminC]] 17:38, 10 February 2009 (EST)

==Who was right - Catholics or Protestants?==

Can you explain what you mean by this question? It's a bit like asking - who is right, Christians of Buddhists? Do you mean, regarding Transubstantiation? Or do you mean celibacy? Or the infallibility of the Pope? Maybe you could phrase it a little more clearly? Finally, do you think it's helpful to the world to see the world like this? Doesn't every faith believe it's 'right'? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 17:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Surely you don't think that just because different people hold different views that each think are right, truth therefore does not exist. If I told that some cultures believe that 2+2 equals infinity, and are convinced they are right, would that change your view that 2+2=4 and not infinity?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:50, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::Well, yes, I do? Despite my own faith, I cannot in all sincerity tell a Buddhist that their faith is nonsense - I simply don't believe that's a way to get along with the rest of the planet, the pursuit of which is, after all, is our bounden duty here on this Earth. My own faith (Catholicism) has experienced many controversies, and although I hold fast to my faith, I acknowledge that it is not without its flaws and appalling mistakes. Jesus taught us to "love thy neighbour", after all. But to return to the question at hand - "who is right, Catholics or Protestants?". As an Irish Catholic married to an Irish Protestant, I'm sure you'll understand there's a great deal of sensitivity over this issue on our Island. And I'm certainly not about to tell my partner that her beliefs are 'wrong'. But what 'right' are you referring to? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 19:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)

To keep this conversation from devolving into an ideological argument, I thought I might try to clarify the original question: I interpret it as referring to the issues at the heart of the Protestant Reformation, namely the allegations of abuses of power within the Catholic Church, the selling of indulgences, the lack of reliance on Scripture, etc. Some of these are purely theological points, but I think historical discussion can bring light to the issue of whether or not the Protestants were justified in some of their more pragmatic claims. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 19:13, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: In reply to TadghOB, one thing about Jesus is indisputable: He did tell others they were wrong, and was very clear that He was divisive rather than uniting.

: In reply to Economist, there is the issue of how to deal with the problems, and what the subsequent centuries and today illustrate. I'm not yet taking a position on the question, but am pointing out how your list is incomplete.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Why did Islam grow so rapidly? ==

Not sure there's a lot of mystery here. The rise of Islam is well documented in both Arab and Byzantine sources. The "mystery", if there is one, is how Mohammed managed to convert a sizeable number of followers in his lifetime and how they became organised into a small but effective military force. Thereafter, Islam spread for several reasons. Initially, it was confined to Arab soldiers and their families and was something of an elite religion. But the Arabs were generally welcomed by the common people in the Byzantine territories because they imposed lighter taxes, their military levies were less oppressive and they didn't cut people's heads off because they disagreed with the Emperor's theological opinions. The same factors are reflected in the decline of the Byzantine empire, to the benefit of the Arabs in West Asia and North Africa: excessive taxation, too many able-bodied men from wealthy families joining the priesthood to evade military service, and continuous demoralisation of the population through religious disputes. Added to that was the over-centralisation of power in the Byzantine Empire, with the result that when the Emperor was out of action, there were few men with both the authority and the competence to wield power effectively. Such was the situation at the decisive Battle of the Yarmouk, in what is now northern Jordan, when the Emperor Heraclius was ill and unable to take the field, resulting in a decisive victory for the Arabs.

Islam spread in the territories conquered by the Arabs for similar reasons to the spread of Christianity in Europe: local rulers ingratiating themselves with their overlord (the Arab Caliph in this case), the prestige of being part of the official religion, the apparent evidence that God must favour the Muslims because he enabled them to win battles, and lower taxation for Muslims.

It's much harder to understand why the Byzantine Empire lasted as long as it did. Also, why did the Arabs not conquer most of the West? The post-Roman kingdoms in the West seem to have been more organised and effective than historians gave them credit for until recently.

See e.g. John Julius Norwich's history of Byzantium (three volumes but extremely - even addictively - readable). Also 'The Formation of Christendom' by Judith Herrin, the standard modern work on the interplay of Church and State in the Byzantine Empire; she shows that the church wasn't always a negative influence, as Edward Gibbon supposed. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:In addition to Fred's information above, Islam burst out of Arabia at a time when both the Byzantines and the Persians were completely exhausted from fighting each other interminably. There is also talk of a plague epidemic that wasted the so-called civilised powers but had little effect in the sparcely populated Arabian desert. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:52, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Humor in the Bible

2009-02-10T16:50:49Z

Brossa:

* "The door turns on its hinges, and the lazy man on his bed" (Proverbs 26:14). <ref>[http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/15_10/biblehumor Jewish Humor... In the Bible?]</ref>

* Humor brings God closer to humankind. For instance, God seems more understandable and less aloof when he is sarcastic. We mortals note that even omniscience and omnipotence do not prevent one from being hurt by straying children. Humorous stories and exaggerations make the moral lessons of the Hebrew Bible more memorable ... <ref>[http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/economic/friedman/bibhumor.htm Humor in the Hebrew Bible] - Hershey H. Friedman, Ph.D.</ref>

*"It is better to be living in an angle of the house-top, than with a bitter-tongued woman in a wide house." (Proverbs 25:24)

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Bible]]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-02-09T16:40:08Z

Brossa: /* Humor */

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-02-09T16:02:02Z

Brossa: /* Humor */

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-02-09T14:40:39Z

Brossa: /* Humor */

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-02-08T14:37:00Z

Brossa: no humor before Christianity?

Talk:Virginity pledge

2009-02-02T07:16:49Z

Brossa:

==December 2008 Study counters statements given==
According to a December, 2008 study conducted by the American Association of Pediatrics and Harvard University and published in the journal ''Pediatrics'' the statements given by the Heritage foundation are not statistically accurate. The study showed that 5 years after taking the pledge

*82% Denied taking the pledge
*Pledgers and non-pledgers did not differ in rates of premarital sex, STDs, or oral/anal intercourse rates
*Total partners over the previous year was only 0.1 fewer for pledgers, but over the course of a life time, pledgers and non-pledgers had the same rates of sexual partners

More over, the study showed that pledgers had significantly riskier sex in that birth control rates were much lower than non-pledgers

Sources: http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20081229/virginity-pledge-doesnt-stop-teen-sex
Rosenbaum, J. Pediatrics, January 2009; vol 123: e110-e120.

I wait for approbation prior to adding this to the actual article. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:50, 29 December 2008 (EST)

:That was not a new study; it simply relooked at the data that already existed and started with a population of only all virgins instead of the total pool of teenagers. It was set up to reach its conclusions. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)

The WebMD article states

<blockquote>
In this study, researchers compared the sexual behavior of 289 teenagers who reported taking a virginity pledge in a 1996 national survey to 645 non-pledgers who were matched on more than 100 factors, such as religious beliefs and attitudes toward sex and birth control.
</blockquote>

It does not state that they were all virgins. The researchers used the same data as heritage foundation and older studies, but applied different statistical methods to reveal other trends. This is at least worth mentioning. We cannot claim to be balanced and trustworthy if we do not show all information related to the subject and allow the user to determine his opinion, to do otherwise is intellectually dishonest. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 13:46, 30 December 2008 (EST)

:Andras is correct. The goal was to answer the question "If you are inclined towards abstinence, does taking a virginity pledge help achieve that purpose?". The point of this analysis, then was study was to do a true "apples to apples" study by starting with a subset of kids inclined towards abstinence to begin with (instead of including those who were sexually active for example). By tracking the outcome over a five-year period, the analysis was able to conclude (from this population, anyway), that taking a virginity pledge was not effective in preventing or significantly postponing sexual activity. The other key finding is that the pledge-breakers were less likely to use birth control or take precautions against STDs. That made perfect sense, because they were more likely to be raised in homes and environments where that information was not made available to them.

:I know this is not the type of finding that CP wants to talk about, but it's still the truth and has to be acknowledged as such. If it can happen to Sarah Palin's daughter, it can happen to any child of conservative parents. However, that doesn't mean people should give up trying to encourage abstinence - the value of acknowledging these findings is that we now have a challenge ''to find more effective approaches'' than relying on virginity pledges, that's all. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:02, 30 December 2008 (EST)

DinsdaleP has once again found a more eloquent and effective way of communicating what I was trying to say. Thank you Dinsdale! Perhaps my wording was a bit off and too generalizing. I think with a few edits to the wording to stress a)the purpose of the study b)the population used c)the impact of the study that this will be a useful contribution to the CP infostock. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:13, 30 December 2008 (EST)

:The difficulty is that the original study was for those who pledged to wait until marriage -- regardless of past choices. They are then compared to those who actually had not had sexual relations. The comparison is apples and oranges. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:41, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Can you please define "original study" (meaning the heritage study or...?) as well as what is being compared in your mind. As DinsdaleP states, the study addressed the effectiveness of virginity pledges in a population that was inclined towards abstinence. One can decide individually if a high failure rate of virginity pledges in an already abstinence-prone population would suggest a high failure rate for all populations. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 15:19, 30 December 2008 (EST)

:The study used by the authors who arrived at different conclusions broke out people into two different groups. Those who wished to make a pledge to refrain from sexual intercourse until marriage and those who did not. Of course using that criteria there was a strong difference between the groups. The recent retabulation only took those who didn't make the pledge and had never been sexually active -- a variable not contained for those who chose to make the pledge. They never consider that students may have taken the pledge that had a past history of sexual activity. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:56, 30 December 2008 (EST)

The new study's entire population consists of teenagers who describe themselves as leaning towards abstinence, regardless of prior sexual activity. It then split that abstinence leaning population into those who took a pledge and those who did not. Between those groups there it was shown that the virginity pledgers not only did not have lower rates of sexual intercourse 5 years later, but that they engaged in riskier sex. Thus the study shows that within the population of teens who already favor an abstinence stance, virginity pledges do not lower reversion to sexual behavior. Again I state that one can imagine how effective virginity pledges would be in a population that does not explicitly define itself as leaning towards abstinence. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 16:43, 30 December 2008 (EST)

:The group for those who had not taken the pledge was specifically those who had not had intercourse. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/28/AR2008122801588.html] I should point out that Virginity pledges generally make no similar designation. Teens are encouraged to make the pledge even if they are 'born-again' virgins. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:09, 30 December 2008 (EST)

::Out of a larger sample of 7th through 12th graders who were surveyed in 1995, 1996, and 2001, 3440 students were identified who: 1) As of the 1995 survey, were virgins and had not taken a virginity pledge. 2) Were over 15. 3) Had participated in all 3 surveys.
::''From that group of 3440,'' 289 were identified who took a virginity pledge between 1995 and 1996. ''From the remaining 3151'', 645 students were selected who ''most closely'' matched the 289 (by 128 criteria!) ''at the time of the first survey, not the second.'' The assumption is that whatever differences appeared between the two groups at the second and third surveys are related to the virginity pledge and/or whatever made those children take that pledge (a AOSE course, a church group, peer pressure, etc.).
::Both the pledge and nonpledge group had specifically not had intercourse as of the ''first'' survey. Pledgers did not have to be virgins at the time of the ''second'' survey in order to be included in the 'pledge' group - that group may (or may not) have included 'born-again' virgins. The study found that the behavior of the pledgers did not differ from that of the closely matched nonpledgers except insofar as the pledgers were less likely to use methods of pregnancy and STD prevention.
::It should also be noted that the pledgers and matched nonpledgers, combined, were more sexually conservative than the remaining 2506 students in the subsample - but this is to be expected. The mass-media reports of this study have unsurprisingly underemphasized that the study was comparing sexually conservative pledgers with sexually conservative non-pledgers, not with ''all'' nonpledgers.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:11, 30 December 2008 (EST)
:::Where are you getting your information that the virginity pledge adherents had not had previous sexual intercourse. I haven't explicity seen this. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:25, 31 December 2008 (EST)
::::The virginity pledge adherents had not had previous sexual intercourse at the time of a survey (1995) that took place approximately a year before the survey in which they reported taking a pledge (1996). Whether they were still virgins at the time of the 1996 study is not addressed. I get my information from the '''Pediatrics''' article. In the 'Methods' section under the 'Data' subsection it states:
::::::"Data are a subsample of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), a nationally representative sample of grade 7 to 12 students inverviewed in 3 waves (in 1995 [wave 1], 1996 [wave 2], and 2001 [wave 3]), as described elsewhere. The subsample comprises respondents who had not at wave 1 taken a virginity pledge or been sexually active, were >15 years of age, and participated in all three waves (n = 3440)."
::::Then, in the 'Variables' subsection,
:::::: "Virginity-pledge status is the wave 2 answer to 'Have you ever signed a pledge to abstain from sex until marriage?'"
::::289 pledgers were identified by their positive response to this wave 2 question.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:10, 31 December 2008 (EST)

The claim that 10% of virginity pledgers admit to lying about being virgins is not supported by the cited reference and has been removed. Rosenbaum's earlier study showed that among all students who initially reported having sexual experience, 10% subsequently reported no sexual experience on later surveys. Recently born-again students and recent virginity pledgers retracted previous claims of sexual experience at higher rates than the general student population: up to 28%. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 02:16, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Virginity pledge

2009-02-02T07:08:55Z

Brossa:

A virginity pledge is a commitment, usually made in a group, to practice [[abstinence]] until [[marriage]]. These pledges are usually symbolized by purity rings, or covenant cards.<ref>http://www.waitt.org/</ref>

According to the Heritage Foundation, teens who make virginity pledges enjoy the following life outcomes <ref>http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/cda04-07.cfm</ref>:

*Are less likely to experience teen pregnancy;
*Are less likely to be sexually active while in high school and as young adults;
*Are less likely to give birth as teens or young adults;
*Are less likely to give birth out of wedlock;
*Are less likely to engage in risky unprotected sex; and
*Will have fewer sexual partners.

In contrast, a study by Janet Elise Rosenbaum PhD, published in the January 2009 edition of the journal ''Pediatrics''<ref>Rosenbaum, Janet '''Patient Teenagers? A Comparison of the Sexual Behavior of Virginity Pledgers and Matched Nonpledgers''', ''Pediatrics'' 2009, vol 123, issue 1, e110-e120</ref>,addressed the sexual behavior of socially/religiously conservative students who signed a virginity pledge compared to the sexual behavior of socially/religiously conservative students who did not sign a pledge. This study found that pledgers and nonpledgers were not different in likelihood of premarital sex (53% vs 57%), age at first sex (21.2 vs 20.7), number of lifetime sexual partners (3.2 vs 3.5), and number of sexual encounters in the previous year (22.8 vs. 23.6). Overall there were no differences between the two groups in 12 of 14 measured sexual behaviors, 3 of 3 STD rates, and 4 of 4 marriage outcomes. The study did not address overall pregnancy rates, teen pregnancy rates, or birth rates. Rosenbaum found that pledgers did differ from socially similar nonpledgers in the following ways:

*Unmarried pledgers were less likely to report using birth control and condoms over the last year;
*Unmarried pledgers were less likely to report using birth control at last intercourse;
*Pledgers reported 1.09 last-year sexual partners, compared to 1.2 last-year partners for nonpledgers; and
*1.04% of pledgers reported having been paid for sex, compared to 3.34% of non-pledgers.

==references==
<references/>

[[Category:Abstinence Campaigns]]

Talk:Gardasil

2009-01-13T17:00:29Z

Brossa: /* Abstinence and HPV */

[[/draft]]

Favorite soundbite from televised debates 2/4-2/5: "This is about corporate welfare for Merck and making guinea pigs of Texas school girls."

The proposed HPV vaccine mandate uses 11-year-old school girls as guinea pigs for Merck. “HPV” really means “Help Pay for Vioxx,” since Merck is seeking state laws to give it billions of dollars in new revenue. Drug-industry analyst Steve Brozak of W.B.B. Securities projected sales of this vaccine to be billions if states require it. “I could not think of a bigger boost” to Merck, he said.

But this vaccine is a loser. Michigan recently rejected Merck’s attempt for a state mandate there. Indiana rebuffed Merck’s attempt there. Maryland refused to mandate this vaccine. The Texas legislature opposes imposing this vaccine by mandate. Only after Merck hired Texas Governor Rick Perry’s former chief-of-staff, and funded the “Women in Government” group to advance Merck’s agenda, did the Texas Governor bypass the legislature in a move of dubious legality. Follow the money.

This new vaccine hs not been shown to prevent a single case of cancer. Merck, in its own package insert, does not claim that this vaccine lasts more than a few years. The average age of cervical cancer is 48. There is no evidence giving this vaccine to an 11-year-old will protect against a condition 37 years later. Not even Merck makes that claim.

Merck wants the states to require purchase of its vaccine, and kids can feel free to have sex. Only in the fine print do we learn that no long term benefits or risks of this vaccine have even been tested. Merck did not even test if this vaccine causes cancer.

Don’t be fooled by this drug company chicanery. Follow the money and see that this vaccine is great for Merck and bad for the rest of us. It costs $360 for the shots alone, and up to $1000 when administrative fees and follow-up office visits are included, particularly when there is an adverse reaction.

This controversial vaccine was approved only about eight months ago, based on testing of perhaps only a few hundred young girls. Do not make guinea pigs out of all our children. Parents who want to give this to their children can already do so. This vaccine does not prevent any diseases contagious at school and should not be used as a condition of entering school. It should not be forced on our children.

:Well, honestly. The vaccine only serves to protect. A good Christian girl will stick to her morals and won't go out having sex because of this vaccine, and a girl who had already planned on having sex would benefit from this, because it protects them. Do you feel inclined to step on a rusty nail after you get a tetanis booster? --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 18:38, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::please see the discussion in ASchafly's thread between him and me. I have in good faith attempted to contribute valuable, moral information here, but he is questioning my credentials in bad faith. I hope he reads up a little and stops the attacks. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:20, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

: Palmd0001, your recent edit was unsupported and false. See [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/01/16/DI2007011600929.html here].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:23, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::My edits are, of course, completely supported, not false, cited, and written by an expert (me) which is more than I can say for much else here after my little discussion with you [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Question][[http://www.example.com link title]] Any fair and balanced observer will see that you have no interest in the truth. I had really hoped otherwise.
Your potential friend, Peter [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:30, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::Dave, thank you for the NEJM citation. It will probably not last.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:46, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No problem. I am anticipating the inevitable edit followed by "The New England Journal of Medicine is not a valid source" statement.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 21:23, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Condom effectiveness==

: Have kept condom statement and also cited conflicting report.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:39, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::The way it's currently written is nonsensical, as in the NEJM study condoms clearly reduced HPV transmission. Unfortunately the conflicting report you cited isn't a link so I can't compare the 2 sources.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:42, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Murray, Google search the whole cite. The first link you see should be the report.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:44, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Austin, just how much of your "conflicting" report did you read. A lot of the report talks about the effectiveness of condoms. Also, the NEJM report came out two years ''after'' your cited report. So any discussion about testing methodology is moot since it couldn't apply to the NEJM report.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:43, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: From my link "All published epidemiologic studies of HPV have methodologic limitations that make the effect of condoms in the prevention of HPV infection unknown. While a few studies on genital HPV and condom use showed a protective effect, most studies on genital HPV infection and condom use did not show a protective effect." Surely you can't be arguing that one article in a academic journal is a better citation than a report to Congress.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Austin, also from your link:

::"As described above, available clinical and epidemiologic data indicate that genital HPV infection is transmitted by contact with infected skin or mucosa. Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of HPV (125;126). Studies of HPV infection in men demonstrate that most HPV infections (both HPV DNA and HPV-associated lesions) are located on parts of the p*nis that would be covered by a
condom (48;54-57;63;127-129).

::Published studies that have assessed the effectiveness of male condoms to prevent HPV infection or any STD other than HIV are limited by multiple methodologic issues (117;118). In general, these limitations are likely to underestimate condom effectiveness (130-132)."

::Again, Austin, the biggest problem is that the NEJM report is from 2006 and the report to Congress is from 2004. How can you use it to discredit a newer study using improved methodology?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:06, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

The effectiveness of condoms, in general, is a controversial issue. Does anyone know the standards of this project for treating controversial matters?

Pending a clear statement otherwise from management, I would say we ought to describe each side in the controversy '''accurately'''. We should not, for example, claim an advocate is on one side when it's on the other. We should not 'torture the meaning' of a source to make it support one side, either.

All agree? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:58, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought the way I had it before was pretty clear. It stated evidence for condoms, which is VAST, and also pointed out that they are SECOND most effective. THIS IS NOT AN AREA OF SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY. Adding a moralistic statement about them in the PROPER place is fine, but really, this was quite clear as of yesterday. If anyone else wants to present an expert with credentials that equal or surpass mine on the subject, please do.[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 12:05, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:It was entirely clear as of yesterday. I don't know that there are 2 sides to this. Bottom line is that condoms have been shown to reduce transmission, and the current version of the article is flatly false. Nobody is saying that condom use will ''prevent'' transmission altogether, becauce the NEJM study makes clear that isn't the case. But to describe them as "ineffectual" makes no sense.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:*Among 27 estimates from 20 studies, there was no consistent evidence that condom use reduces the risk of becoming HPV DNA-positive. [http://www.stdjournal.com/pt/re/std/abstract.00007435-200211000-00018.htm;jsessionid=GJLPFHnbKqghK8hXPwCFmJ7ZVMTZWj4dJq12GHNfFyz21yvM62jF!721371455!-949856145!8091!-1]

:I'm just a layman but it took me only one google hit to find this link to the Journal of the American Sexually Transmitted Disease Association. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:54, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Ed, I respect your skills and intelligence, but google is not an appropriate search engine for medical studies. You should try PubMed. Also, your combination of evidence is, in essence, a meta-analysis, which cannot be done as simply as you have. The general consensus in the medical literature is that condoms significanlty reduce the risk of all STDs, including HPV (the the NEJM article), but of course, abstinence, meaning NO CONTACT AT ALL, is most effective. I wont revert, but you should reconsider your back-of-the-envelope meta-analysis. Also, the cited meta analysis is old (2002), and the type of study in NEJM was designed to be more accurate. [[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 14:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm well aware that the general view is "that condoms significantly reduce the risk". But that is not the question our young Christian friend has brought up. Moreover, there's a huge public battle about strategies to reduce the incidence of VD and unwanted pregnancy. The claim that "condoms are the best way" is related to questions about their effectiveness. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:21, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Ed, all my edits here and in STDs clearly stated that abstinence is the best and only certain method. Condoms are a very effective second best, and Ive always clearly stated that. In the world of medical literature, 5 years old is OLD for a study, and meta-analyses are considered the second weakest form of study. [[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 14:26, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ed, no one here claimed they are the best way. The cite said that condoms are the SECOND best way to avoid HPV. The first, obviously, being abstinence. I can't believe that this is a controversial statement. It's common sense.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:27, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::As PalMD said, that article is 5 years old. There's plenty of evidence from the last 2 years. Try some of these: [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T80-4HMV7J6-2&_user=4429&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000059602&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4429&md5=24c5f1dc80356bed16618f8390c08c01 - 1] [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16223580&dopt=Citation - 2][http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JID/journal/issues/v194n8/36645/36645.html - 3] [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:28, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't want to debate the issue. I want to work with you to find a way to '''present''' the issue in the article.

Austin has brought up the effectiveness issue. If some medical authority calls the [[male condom]] "second-best", you can come up with a citation for that and place it in the article. Just don't do it in an argumentative way. Try this:

*Abstinence is the most effective way to prevent its transmission. (Blank) recommends use of the [[male condom]], calling it "second best".

Oh, but this entails the argument that "some people won't be abstinent, so we better tell everyone to use condoms". Maybe that's why Schlafly reverted before.

We can't sweep the "best strategy" issue under the rug, and it involves more than just "what recent studies" say. There are moral aspects, too. And also the way you phrase something has an effect on behavior (see [[Pygmalion effect]]). Telling people '''if you are going to have extramarital sex, do (blank)''' is tantamount to egging them on to do it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, Ok, first, we do have the reference that Dave put in. It is simply MEDICAL FACT. It is not currently in dispute in the medical world. As to the moral implications, I would hope that those reading this would have a good moral foundation. If they are planning on remaining abstinent, wonderful. If not, they should know what to do next, or they will spread disease. This is not a pygmalion thing...it is public health. I thought that the way I originally presented it was fairly good. Check it out. If we are to add a section on morals, I think it takes away from the encyclopedic/factual nature of the article. A link to an article about morals should be sufficient.[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 14:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, you're losing me: what is a medical fact?
::#That the most effective method of VD prevention is abstinence?
::#That the "second-best" method is condom use?
::#That UNAIDS is right when the advocate several methods '''other than abstinence''' as "effective"?
::#That PR campaigns which tell people, "if you can't be abstinent before marriage or faithful within marriage, try (blank)" are effective in preventing VD?
::It's a complex problem. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Ed, "if you are going to have extramarital sex, do (blank) is tantamount to egging them on to do it." is not a good assumption. I myself was given a talk by my high school teacher that mentioned that if we do have sex we should use protection but made question whether we were really ready for the consequences of illness and unplanned pregnancy at our age. [[User:Midnus|Midnus]]

==Abstinence==
There is a problem, at the least, with the phrasing regarding abstinence. People abstaining from sex do not have sexual partners. This should be fixed or removed. [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 14:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Before making major revisions..==
Consider discussing here...even if you are the boss.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 16:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Or,on the other hand, make unilateral controversial changes. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 16:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==The HPV vaccine does not protect against other sexually transmitted diseases (e.g., chlamydia, herpes, hepatitis, trichomoniasis, gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV, AIDS, etc.)==

This seems like a slightly bizarre comment. Yes, I suppose it is accurate as far as it goes, but what's the point? Why stop there? Why not also add that it does not protect against the common cold, pneumonia, leukaemia, ingrowing toenails and being run over by a bus? It's a vaccine against HPV, not all STDs. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 17:14, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Because that doesn't assist the ideological bent of said statement.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:33, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

The reason is that they do not want to think that it is a vaccine that prevents all STDs and should use whatever protection they choose to use. It's saying that it does not guarantee "safe sex." [[User:Midnus|Midnus]]

== Article Title ==

This article should be moved to "Gardasil," since most of it refers specifically to that vaccine. Gardasil and HPV Vaccine might be synonymous now, but they won't be when/if Cervarix is approved.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 17:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Reverted Liberal Bias ==

Liberal bias and some uncritical repetitions of vaccine manufacturer claims were reverted. Abstinence protects against this disease at no cost, and there is no reason to believe the self-interested claims by the manufacturer about safety and efficacy of the vaccine, particularly when researchers themselves have expressed criticisms of attempts to make it mandatory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:19, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:Is it reasonable to expect that all teenagers will abstain from sex until marriage? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:22, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore, the researchers criticized making it mandatory, they didn't criticize any of the other claims. At minimum, those claims should be acknowledged. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 01:25, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:The claims about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine aren't being made exclusively by the manufacturer. They're being made by the CDC, New England Journal of Medicine, and the Journal of the American Medical Association. These are peer-reviewed publications, and can't just be hand-waved away as "liberal bias." It seems to me, Andy, that anything you disagree with automatically becomes liberal bias. There is only one link to information directly from the manufacturer in the article, and that is to point to the manufacturer's packaging insert. It is not used to back up any of the claims about efficacy or safety. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 01:54, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::If we are going to change ''In June 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first HPV vaccine based on observance of elevated [[antibody]] levels in a double blind clinical trial involving over 20,000 subjects.'' <ref>CDC - Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) [http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5602a1.htm]</ref> to ''In June 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first HPV vaccine based on observance of elevated [[antibody]] levels in a few thousand patients who had received the vaccine (including perhaps only a few hundred or less young girls).'', then we need a reference for the latter. I don't yet have any opinion one way or another on which statement is more accurate, I just want to be able to read the sources.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:56, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

The term "sexually active" is [[liberal]] bias. Sexual activity within marriage is at ZERO risk of contracting disease; sexual activity outside of marriage is at high risk. {zero risk by virtue of simply being married? um....... no. it severly lowers the risk, however simply getting married does not magically erase any chance of spreading anything to your wife or husband} - [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:53, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

:This is true ONLY if both partners are and have always been monogamous to that partner ONLY. What are the chances? Considering a 50% divorce rate in this country (with much remarriage), and the amount of cheating that goes on within marriage (even among "Christians"), it would be foolish for a woman to NOT get the vaccine. Even if she were pure as the driven snow, she has to hope that her partner was and always will be as well.

Also, the 20,000 figure is meaningless because the monitoring was so brief.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:50, 4 January 2008 (EST)

SSchultz, you're pushing your limits here. You deleted important info (like the lack of epidemological studies and lack of protection against other STDs) and inserted numbers that lack any significance due to the brief monitoring. Go to Wikipedia with the liberal bias, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:59, 4 January 2008 (EST)

I explicitly stated that the monitoring period wasn't long enough to detect cervical cancer, but what about the fact that the vaccine prevented precancerous lesions? That is important information. I'll leave out the 20,000 number, though. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:04, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Andy, I kept everything in that you asked, and merely added information about the prevention of precancerous lesions. What's the story here? It's as if you want this article to claim that the vaccine is ineffective. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:13, 5 January 2008 (EST)

: We can pick this up more tomorrow. The entry should remain factual without misleading claims. The vaccine's effect may be short-lived, for example, as monitoring seems to have been intentionally brief. Also, it appeared to me that you kept deleting the reference to a lack of epidemiological studies. See you tomorrow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:22, 5 January 2008 (EST)

::Schultz, I love ya but you have to remember that CP is not Wikipedia. We don't tolerate suppression of information merely on the grounds that it "advances a POV". Please work with us - not against us - to present both sides of the [[HPV vaccine controversy]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:07, 5 January 2008 (EST)

==Article quality==

This article is so bad that I'm wondering whether to delete it.

Or maybe we could tuck it away somewhere and work on it for a week until it's ready. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:20, 5 January 2008 (EST)

The MSNBC source contradicts the line that says the pain causes fainting, MSNBC says "it’s not clear whether the pain of the cervical cancer vaccine was the reason for the reaction [fainting]." [[User:Midnus|Midnus]]

==Dubious claims from liberal newsmagazine==

''Time'' says one thing, but they are liberal and they often mix news and editorials together. We need an article on the most prevalent [[venereal diseases]]: broken down perhaps by America vs. rest of the world. I had also heard that [[chlamydia]] was the most common. Who says it's [[HPV]]? Time, or Atlanta CDC? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:11, 5 January 2008 (EST)
:Speaking of that, there is an article [http://www.ama.com.au/web.nsf/doc/WEEN-5NG4JQ here] that notes that "eighty per cent of the 466,000 cases diagnosed globally each year occur in developing countries where it is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women." So HPV is ''much'' less prevalent in the U.S. and [[First World]] countries than the [[liberal hysteria]] of the media would have us believe. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 12:18, 5 January 2008 (EST)
::But is is still very common relative to other cancers. The reason that the rate of cervical cancer is so much lower in western countries is that there is wide-spread screening and treatment of precancerous lesions. Most cancers are caught BEFORE they become invasive and lethal. But some still get missed or are more virulent, and many women don't get screened because they can't afford it. PAP smears and colposcopy and LEEP procedures are not cheap. I've had to take of twenty and thirty year old patients dying from cervical cancer. It's horrible. And to think that their deaths could have been prevented by a vaccine.......[[User:ukie|ukie]] 12 October 2008

:: Thanks for another excellent observation, ThomasB. By the way, often vaccine manufacturers get big tax write-offs by dumping their stale or defective vaccine products on the Third World. Recently the vaccine caused a tragic epidemic of polio in one African country.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 5 January 2008 (EST)

::: Careful what you write, please, Aschafly. The vaccine that caused the (small, local) epidemic of polio was a polio vaccine one which contained a rare mutation in the attenuated polio virus<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7037462.stm</ref>. Nothing at all to do with HPV or with "dumping" "defective" vaccines. Loose talk about vaccines can cost lives by creating ill-founded hysteria. [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 18:22, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: Your comment confirms rather than rebuts what I said. By the way, all the "hysteria" seems to be in favor of duping people into taking shoddy products.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== "Soreness" Admission ==

The statement by the CDC that the injection commonly causes soreness at the injection site is meaningless, and almost comical. Unless there is a good reason for including such an obviously meaningless statement, let's remove it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:38, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
: I felt that the CDC statement validated and quantified the anecdotal evidence from the news story - it showed that it was not just a few silly high school girls saying "ooohhhh, that hurt!" to a newspaper reporter, but rather that it was a widespread and well-documented reaction to the vaccine. I'm not sure I understand your objection? At first I thought you thought the whole paragraph was not worthy of inclusion (which I could see both sides of), but since you've just removed the CDC part, I realize I don't understand your objection. How is it meaningless? Please understand - I'm not criticizing your opinion - just trying to understand it. I can be a bit ditsy at times - blonde, actually! - so sometimes I don't get the obvious unless it's spelled out to me. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:19, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Most injections cause soreness at the injection site, so the CDC statement obscures the dangers of this particular vaccine by making an obvious and meaningless statement. It would be as though an entry on a breed of dangerous pitbulls admitted only the obvious truth that "the most common encounter with this breed of pitbull is a harmless one!"--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:23, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Good analogy. I'll remove the rest of the paragraph. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:03, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: Your reasoning does not follow at all. A news story explaining that the Gardasil vaccine hurts more than others is obviously still relevant. In the pitbull example, would you delete a statement explaining how a bite by a pitbull is typically more painful than a bite by other dogs? I hope not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:08, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

==Name change==
Seeing as people are more likely to search "Gardasil", could the article name be changed to that? [[User:JY23|JY23]] 21:47, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

: Think so?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:10, 10 January 2009 (EST)

==Abstinence and HPV==

How does abstinence provide '''100% protection''' against HPV? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 22:25, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: "TheGuy", I'll humbly try to answer your question. HPV is transmitted virtually only by sex. Abstinence is the absence of sex.

: Let's try this logically. A is caused only by B. "NOT B" cannot cause A.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:10, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::Let's try a bit more logic...

::Wife abstains from sex until marriage, according to the article there is no possible way she can contract HPV.

::Husband has sexual encounters in early adulthood in which he contracts HPV. He dates wife for a number of years but does not have sex with her, nor does he tell her about his previous encounters.

::Is the wife's abstinence providing her with 100% protection? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 23:37, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::: The wife in your rare, obscure hypothetical did not remain abstinent. Abstinence does provide 100% protection against HPV, exactly as the entry states.

::: Nice try in obscuring the advantage of abstinence, but it fails. Try logic next time. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:45, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::How did the wife not remain abstinent? Are you meaning to say that in this case abstinence means to never have sexual relations? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 23:47, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: "TheGuy", find a dictionary, and use it. Look up the word [[abstinence]]. But most importantly, when you are proven wrong, be honest enough to admit it, so you can then grow. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:09, 11 January 2009 (EST)

::::: TheGuy, your metaphor does not make sense. 'He dates wife for a number of years'. So is she actually his wife? Have they been married and entered into a sexual relationship? Your example is so confused nothing can be made of it. Abstinence means to refrain from having sex. Therefore, there is so chance of contracting an STD. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 11:56, 11 January 2009 (EST)

If I may point out, HPV can be transmitted during child birth from mother to child.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:54, 13 January 2009 (EST)

: Then vaccinate every child ''in utero''??? Your statement lacks a relevant point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:10, 13 January 2009 (EST)

:: I assume that the point is that abstinence won't save the child from contracting HPV. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 10:27, 13 January 2009 (EST)

::: The liberal comments just get wackier and wackier. Guys, welcome logic and truth. For own sake, if you don't care about its beneficial effect on those around you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:37, 13 January 2009 (EST)

::: Andy, that hardly addresses the point raised. The claim is that abstinence is 100% effective against HPV. If a mother can pass it onto her child then lifelong abstinence failed to protect that child from HPV. Hence the claim cannot be true. See [[counterexample]] for an explanation of the logic here. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 10:43, 13 January 2009 (EST)

:::: No, AndyJM, you're wrong. A lack of abstinence caused that infection also. The entry is correct, and you're on a fool's errand in trying to deny it. Would you deny that 2+2=4 also, if liberals told you to?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:01, 13 January 2009 (EST)

::::::Um, if the parents had been abstinate, how would they have had the kid in the first place? [[User:ChrisR|ChrisR]] 11:58, 13 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Would I deny that 2+2=4 if liberals told me to? I'm flabbergasted by that response to be honest. I have no idea how to respond to or desire to reply to that sort of rhetoric. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 11:08, 13 January 2009 (EST)
::::::Why question the analogy rather than consider the point it is intended to make? Abstinence is still the answer to preventing infection: for the child to be safe, the parents need to be abstinent. Abstinence is a trans-generational safeguard, and ''all'' need to play their part. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 11:25, 13 January 2009 (EST)

::::::: MikeSalter, when you explain it like that it all becomes clear. I will concede that I was completely wrong. Andy and MikeSalter, well played sirs. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 11:30, 13 January 2009 (EST)

::::::::The key insight that you were missing was that in order to be sure of never contracting HPV, it is insufficient to personally refrain from sex over your entire lifetime. To be completely safe, you must also ensure that none of your ancestors have ever had sex either.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 12:00, 13 January 2009 (EST)
== References ==

<references/>

Virginity pledge

2008-12-31T15:39:02Z

Brossa:

Talk:Virginity pledge

2008-12-31T14:10:31Z

Brossa: