Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:2012 Summer Olympics

2012-08-09T21:40:19Z

FrederickT3: /* Women's Soccer */

== "1 Nations That Impose Same-sex marriage/ 2 Nations that are increasingly atheistic/ 3 Sports that have been ravaged by feminist Title IX in the U.S." ==

Nice. Great way to cover all your bases. When the US does well, you can crow about the same-sex marriage and the atheism. When the US doesn't do well, you can pile on Title IX and the feminists. Win-Win. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 10:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:Also, it's curious that you are focused on reasons for failure, not reasons for success. Why not divide up the matrix by, say, "Countries with a record of supporting young athletes"/"Countries with a strong cultural tradition of teamwork" or "Countries with a strong tradition of individual accomplishment"/"Countries where fitness is held as an important value"? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 11:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

::Category 3 is sports-specific in the [[U.S.]], so there is no contradiction with categories 1 and 2, which are nation-specific.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:54, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::Which is exactly why your matrix allows you to frame both US victories and US defeats in terms of your political agenda. It's an awesome rhetorical move. But I'm still curious as to why you are more focused on reasons for failure than on reasons for success. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:15, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

::::There is nothing "rhetorical" about this. Ideologies obviously have consequences, and this is a prediction of those consequences beforehand, with an evaluation as the results occur. Surely we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, and every ideology is a winner too? (Except, of course, [[Christianity]], which [[liberals]] never want to credit).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:22, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::Of course it's a rhetorical move--you are narrowing your analysis to focus on the political points that you are most interested in. Of course we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, so why not focus on reasons why people win, as opposed to why they lose--and surely Christianity is not the only reason, otherwise Jews, Muslims, atheists, Shintoists, Mormons, Moonies, Buddhists etc would never win any medals. It would be worthwhile to account for non-divine, or at least non-Christian reasons for success. Your focus on failure is really disheartening. Do you enjoy pointing out other's shortcomings, or are you projecting? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:29, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:::::::I'm fine with focusing on the winners - a entire entry called [[Greatest Conesrvative Sports Stars]] has been doing that for months. If you'd like to add a section to [[Olympics 2012]] that focuses on winners, that would be welcome. In fact, I'll start it for you now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:46, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::::Again, a great rhetorical move on your part--what about the non-conservative winners? If they're not conservative, they can't be winners. If they're winners, they must be conservative. If Tim Thomas doesn't lead the Boston Bruins to another Stanley Cup, hockey falls off the front page of the website; if the Miami Heat win, it's because they were somehow "taught a lesson" by a team they went on to beat soundly. Well played, sir. Well played. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::::Your objection reminds me of the editor who thought it significant that [[Tim Tebow]], after winning a spectacular upset in the first game of last year's [[NFL]] playoffs, then lost in the second round to a much stronger team. My response then is similar to now: people usually don't look for a miracle to occur ever single time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

== Euro 2012 ==
Slightly off-topic, I admit, but I was wondering, whether Andy had any comments on the final of the European Cup final (soccer) that takes place tonight between Spain and Italy? Maybe even a prediction who might win? If you haven't followed the tournament so far, atheistic England went out in the quarter finals, while the liberal Netherlands didn't make it past the first round (same as catholic, pro-life Poland, incidentally). --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 13:31, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Netherlands]] is a big [[same-sex marriage]] country, so no surprise there. Both [[Spain]] and [[Italy]] are very [[liberal]], so that's a tough choice. Poland was under communist martial law until about 20-25 years ago, so I don't think it's far to expect it to do as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
::So gay marriage, political culture, and form of government matter more that the relative skill of the players, their histories in recent match-ups, their style of play, the depth of their squads, coaching, or any other soccer-related questions? So when you sit down to watch a given sports contest, you analyze the game through the lens of politics and religion, and not through the lenses of ability, strategy, or any other sports-related concept. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:::Deny it all you like, but ideologies do have consequences. Show me a sports team of atheists and I'll show you a team that's not going to win the championship.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:20, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::So all of those Soviet medal wins in the Olympics, or in international hockey, all of the medal wins by Chinese teams--they were all believers of one sort or another? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:26, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
Also, if Spain and Italy are both "very liberal", that means a liberal team is guaranteed to win the championship. Guess it pays to be "very liberal!" [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:30, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
::::: Meh.... In the first Euro championship (1960), the USSR, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia finished 1-2-3 respectively. All were communist. At least two communist nations made the semifinals for each of the next 3 Euros. In 1980, the Czechoslovakians finished third. In 1984, no Communist nations finished in the Top 4, but that was the only time that happened. The Soviets came in second in 1988, and then the communists fell. Since then (6 Euros), the Czechs have two Top 4 apppearances, the Russians have one, and other communist nations or their successor states have none. Of course, this is misleading because a combined Yugoslavia team consisting of the Serbian, Montenegrin, Croatian, etc. teams might have done well, and of those nations, only Croatia qualified and they did fairly well considering they were in a group with Italy and Spain. Most of the Yugoslavian players were Serbian, and most of the Soviet players were Russian. So it appears Serbia and Russia suffered. But Croatia and Montenegro have done well since independence (and a unified Serbia and Montenegro team qualified for the World Cup in 2006, but was placed in the group of death and eliminated in the first round. It also didn't help that the World Cup was held after the two nations separated). Also, Bosnia and Herzigovina has improved, coming within a playoff against Portugal of qualifying for both the World Cup and Euro, but they lost both.
Additionally, Ukraine has improved significantly since the USSR breakup. Although they only qualified this year because they were hosts, they qualified for the World Cup in 2006 and almost again in 2010. Latvia qualified for Euro 2004, even though there were pretty much no Latvian Soviet soccer players. Estonia also came within a playoff of qualifying for Euro this year, a marked improvement over their Soviet days, but lost. Same with Bosnia-Herzigovinia and Montenegro. Additionally, either Slovakia or the Czech Republic has qualified almost always for the World Cup and Euro, and a combined team would likely have done better. In team sports, it is hard to compare stats from before and after, because while the USSR may have done better than any of the new nations, we don't know how the new nations would do if they competed together as they did when they were the USSR. Andre Szevchenko is one of the best players in Europe for Ukraine, but he doesn't have much support. If he had the support of Russian players, Estonian players, and Latvian players on his team, then that team would probably have done better. The same could be said of a combined team for Czech Republic and Slovakia.
As an example of the opposite, the new German team has done far better than the old East German team, including some players from Berlin who would have competed for East Gemrany 25 years ago. Their performance is slightly better than the West German performance, although this is probably just because they have more people now, since they were both capitalist.
Also, Germany is the only country in the Netherlands' group that does not have same-sex marriage (Portugal and Denmark also do). At least one of them by rule HAD to advance (Portugal did), but it was the Germans who won the group with a perfect record. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 05:20, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

== Evidence that Christianity increases a countries Olympic medals while atheism and liberalism reduce gold medals won ==

Andy, although it is true that Communist/authoritarian countries have gone out of their way in the past to pour money in the Olympic gold winning efforts (Soviet Union)[http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=econ_honproj&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dgdp%2520population%2520freedom%2520and%2520olympic%2520medals%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CEoQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.iwu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1004%2526context%253Decon_honproj%26ei%3DbsLwT5fpO-Hq0gHpidj6Ag%26usg%3DAFQjCNGA2tePIDTqdOmM8p42uwGhpzkVhA#search=%22gdp%20population%20freedom%20olympic%20medals%22], it is also true that a higher population size and a higher GDP positively affect the number of gold medals that a country wins.[http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/andrew.bernard/olymp60restat_finaljournalversion.pdf]

Atheism reduces a countries population size while religiosity increases a countries birth rate: http://conservapedia.com/Decline_of_atheism#Decline_of_atheism_in_terms_of_global_adherents_is_expected_to_accelerate See also: [[Decline of atheism]]

In the journal article ''Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications'' psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on self-control/self-regulation.[http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/Relig_self_control_bulletin.pdf][http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19210054] Athletes with more self-control have more mental toughness.[http://www.nmnathletics.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=8800&ATCLID=926652] Athletes with more mental toughness tend to perform at higher levels.[http://vimeo.com/23328555] See also: [[Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism]]

Also, all other things remaining equal, religion in the Western world tends to promote more self-discipline and healthier behaviors when it comes to mental and physical health: See: [[Atheism and health]] and [[Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism]] and [[Atheism and obesity]]

Also, while it is true that a country that is doing well can have "fat and sassy" atheists as a result. On the other hand, if there is religious freedom in a country a country can have high levels of religiosity even with high incomes such as the United States. See effects of prosperity on rates of atheism: http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative/atheism-research#Effect_of_prosperity_on_rate_of_atheism

I am sure you can find data to support that capitalism causes a country to have higher incomes than socialism/liberalism over the long term.

Next, liberalism promotes abortion and small family sizes where conservative religion does not.

Summary: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPLEAWsX0qk Jesus is the winnamon and Christians are on the winning side!] Christians are winners and atheists tend to lose again!

Go for the gold America! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! (where atheists are the least trusted group of individuals. See: [[Views on atheists]]) :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:07, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
=== No doubt Bible believers achieve more gold medals than atheists all other things being equal ===

In a study listed in Who's Who in Who's Who, it took 5,000 Presbyterian ministers to produce one child listed in Who's Who. Among lawyers the ratio was 5,000 to 1; dentists 2,500 to 1. But for every seven Christian missionary families from the United States, one of their children would be listed in Who's Who.[http://www.wentworthbaptist.ca/old/sermontexts/Leaving%20the%20past%20behind_Phil%203.1-14_071230.htm] See also: [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and health]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:33, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
::Do you have a link to that actual study? One in seven seems high. How big is this "Who's Who" list and how many missionary families are there in the USA?
::::Come on, everybody knows the formula to winning the gold. Preparation and conceive, believe and achieve! :) Doubters have a harder time believing than believers! Atheists are pessimists and have higher rates of depression. See: [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]. Bible believers who are realists and optimists are more upbeat and win more gold medals. Plus, conservative Bible believing Protestants with the Protestant work ethic, are more able to outwork atheists and achieve more gold medals. Secular Europe is filled lazy doubters who love socialism. Lazy people are less likely to win gold medals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:08, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::yeah, that's good, really I just want to see how the study explains it
::::::::We know that per capita GDP increases Olympic medals. Therefore, when the shortsighted measures holding together the [http://www.care2.com/causes/euro-zone-crisis-banks-lower-rates-but-confidence-stays-low.html troubled Eurozone economy] stop working, they will win less gold medals than countries which were more prudent. The lazy secular Europeans should have listened to the Bible about hard work and not getting heavy into debt. The gold medal counts of secular Europe are going to be lower than they needed to be in 2016. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:24, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/10394-public-debt-by-country.html#axzz1zqxAoMmm
:::::::::I think it is self explanatory that those who have faith will have the discipline and the belief to achieve something extraordinary--[[User:OconnorM|OconnorM]] 12:46, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I do know that post 1950 the USA became more secular and United States became less financially prudent. Socialism and communism do not have great track records over the long term and atheists have tended to like these systems more. Countries which adopted a Protestant work ethic have benefited and even those with a legacy of a Protestant work ethic culture have benefited.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/oct/31/economics-religion-research] The Bible also mentions sharpening the axe (Ecclesiastes 10:10), good stewardship of resources and orderliness. [http://www.openbible.info/topics/orderliness] No doubt the legacy of Protestantism in the country of Germany (birth place of Protestantism), helped to create the efficiency and orderliness that their society is known for. Athletes who train more efficiently using the best methods and get better nutrition, gain more medals. See also: [[Christianity and science]]. Christianity has one of the highest rates of creationism in the world and despite Darwinist persecution of creationists and intelligent design proponents (see: [[Expelled]]) manages to be leader in technological innovation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:48, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

== One fair way to analyze ==

In order to give a fair analysis, information needs to be compiled before the Games for the countries/sports listed for both pre/post same-sex marriage/girls playing sports and then add this year's results. As far as I can see, that would be the only way to objectively assess any trend regarding medals/performance. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:14, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:It would still make no case for any causal relationship between same-sex marriage, atheism etc. and performance at the Olympics. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 19:54, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== Baseball not an Olympic sport in 2012 ==

Baseball is removed from the list, because both baseball and softball have been dropped for the program for the 2012 Olympics. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/08/sports/08iht-oly.html?_r=1 [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

== Baseball being removed from list ==

Maybe baseball (and softball) have been removed because they are not included in the 2012 Olympics. [http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/8504326/] "They'rrre out! Olympics drop baseball, softball: Sports eliminated for 2012 Games, but could win way back in 2016" AP, nbcsports.com, July 9, 2005, retrieved July 2, 2012. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

:[[Baseball]] was dropped from the 2012 Olympics??? That's a disappointment! Is the sport considered too [[conservative]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::If it is, why did [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_at_the_Summer_Olympics#Medal_table Cuba win most of the gold medals?] (And the most medals overall?) [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

== Same sex marriage and underachievement. ==

While a rationale is given for the relationship between atheism and underperformance, none is given for the relationship between same sex marriage and underperformance. Can somebody who understands the relationship please provide a rationale in the relevant section? Thanks. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:25, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::A factor in winning gold medals is the population size of a country. How does same sex marriage help increase the population size of a country? The Russians seem to think that it doesn't. Also, Olympic athletes have to be in top physical condition. See: [[Homosexuality and health]]. In addition, mental toughness is important in sports and "Nancy boys" lack this characteristic! Also, there is the issue of [[Homosexuality and obesity]]. If you could show us that the town of Ereses on the Greek Island of [[Lesbos]] has produced an inordinate amount of Olympic women gymnasts instead of higher incidence of obese lesbians, it would be greatly appreciated (See: [[Lesbianism and obesity]]).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:16, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I think the town is called Eresos (Greek: Ερεσός), no? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:21, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::Thanks! Corrected. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:26, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

:::This isn't a good argument against same-sex marriage, you know. It's just not logical. If a marriage is for population growth, then why are marriages that can't/won't produce children permitted? My dad's on his second marriage since my mother passed away - no half-siblings yet. You need to think through your arguments. If these non-productive marriages ''are'' permitted, under what reason? Companionship? That can be applied to same-sex couples as well. Tax benefits? Ditto. The argument doesn't stand up very well.
:::Oh, and there you go - you just can't get away from negatively portraying fat people. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:24, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::Why an ancient Greek myth should be applicable to today is something only you would know.
::::As for homosexuals at the Olympics - and "nancy boys" is a very derogatory term, much like using the n-word. One would think a site like this would be above that sort of thing, but obviously not - how about Mark Spitz (7 gold) and Greg Louganis (4 gold), who was also the the most outstanding amateur athlete in the United States in 1984.
::::Once again, your tired old arguments don't hold any water - obese people - gay or straight are hardly likely to be participating at the games, so trying to make a correlation between a country's political decisions and the performance of individual athletes is - quite frankly - stupid. But I have a feeling that you still can't grasp the idea. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:26, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::There's a legal precedent - "He Who Asserts Must Prove"... so, let's see your proof that a government passing same-sex marriage laws affects individual sportsmens' performance. Hint: the drivel you wrote above is not proof. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:34, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::Homosexuality related tourism occurs in this town today. Second, re: lower amount of mental toughness issue: [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]] Third, the birth rate of heterosexual marriages will always exceed homosexual "marriages" [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:37, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::Your first point - totally not relevant. What the hell does tourism have to do with athletes at the Olympic Games? Second people - people who are not mentally tough - gay or straight wouldn't last at any level of competitive sport and thus wouldn't appear at the Games, so your point is invalid. Third point is equally invalid - birth rates have nothing to do with how individuals perform at the Games. Care to try again? [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:40, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
It is relevant: Homosexuality related tourism occurs in the Greek town today. In 1976, Gwen J. Proude and Sarah J. Green published a study in the journal Ethnology which showed a positive correlation between cultures which accepted or ignored homosexuality in their cultures and cultures which were more likely to have homosexuality be more common. (see: [[Homosexuality]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::Birth rates, already covered above: "A factor in winning gold medals is the population size of a country. How does same sex marriage help increase the population size of a country? The Russians seem to think that it doesn't." [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:::Nope. Still has absolutely no relevance to the performance of individual athletes at the Games. In fact, on rereading your reasons, you seem to be stuck on the thought that countries that allow same-sex marriage would only send gay athletes to the Games. That is bizarre.
:::Just how many people of the same gender do you think are going to be married? To say it'll affect a country's population growth is double bizarre. Japan's population growth is going backwards and they don't have same-sex marriage. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:49, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
Your [[last wordism]] isn't impressing anyone - especially since you conveniently ignored the [[Homosexuality and health]] issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:08, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
[[File:Chuck norris.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|It is no coincidence that the fit and healthy Bible believing martial artist [[Chuck Norris]] lives in the state of [[Texas]] and not the city of San Francisco! Chuck Norris is no "Nancy boy" and he is the embodiment of mental toughness. ]]
{{clear}}
:::: Wouldn't there be just as many homosexuals whether same-sex marriage is legal or not? Legalizing same-sex marriage wouldn't turn the existing athletes into homosexuals. So we're barking up the wrong tree here. Even if there were a correlation between homosexuality and athletic performance, it would have nothing to do with the legal status of same-sex marriage. Tim Tebow will be playing his home games in New York next year (ok, fine, New Jersey, but I'm a Jets fan and I consider them to be from New York). Same-sex marriage is legal in New York. It was not legal in Colorado or Florida. It is ridiculous to suggest that this would somehow hurt Tebow's performance. He will be just as faithful, Christian, and heterosexual as he ever was. Even if the NFL adds a franchise in atheistic London (as they are foolishly considering) and Tebow winds up there, nothing will change. Even if the Bills move to Toronto and Tebow plays for them, nothing will change. So supposing there is a correlation, we're looking for it in the wrong place, in my opinion. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 07:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::To be fair, legalization of homosexual relationships may be a proxy for a jurisdiction's attitudes for homosexuality. I don't think it's a very good proxy; it would probably be a better idea to examine sexual orientations of athletes themselves rather than attitudes about homosexuality held by residents the places they represent. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::: But it's not the ''attitudes'' of the athletes that [[User:Conservative]] says are relevant. It's the actual ''orientation'' of the athletes. He posted a number of references to homosexuality and health problems. Without commenting one way or the other on their merits, they only apply if the athlete himself is a homosexual. So I'm inclined to agree with GregG here. Perhaps Conservative's theory is right, but if it is, he's going about proving it the wrong way. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:08, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

=== Evidence pointing to same sex marriage acceptance negatively affecting Olympic medal counts ===

We know that bigger populations tend to gain more Olympic medals.[http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/andrew.bernard/olymp60restat_finaljournalversion.pdf] Show me that societies which accept homosexuality tend to have higher birth rates.

We know that atheists are more accepting of homosexuality and also more liberal (see: [[Atheism and morality]]). We know that liberals are more accepting of homosexuality. See: [[Views on Homosexuality]]. We also know atheists tend to have lower birth rates. See: [[Decline of atheism]]. My educated guess is that liberal countries have lower birth rates (abortion, birth control, etc.). [http://erlc.com/article/death-of-liberalism/] There is also evidence pointing to societies which accept homosexuality having more of it. In 1976, Gwen J. Proude and Sarah J. Green published a study in the journal Ethnology which showed a positive correlation between cultures which accepted or ignored homosexuality in their cultures and cultures which were more likely to have homosexuality be more common. (see: [[Homosexuality]]). My educated guess therefore is that societies accepting of same sex marriage have lower birth rates and achieve less medals as a result. I do understand that societies which have more material wealth can grow morally lax and thus more accepting of homosexuality and those societies tend to be more prone to falling (Roman Empire for example). Therefore, we should not confuse higher GDP per capita and achieving more medals and a societies acceptance of homosexuality.

Athletes with higher degrees of mental toughness achieve more. I would think that societies with higher degrees of mental toughness would have lower suicide rates. We know that atheists tend to be more accepting of homosexuality (plus more liberal) and they have higher suicide rates than the general population. See: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]. Also, compare the suicide rates of countries and their acceptance of homosexuality as a possible benchmark for the mental toughness of the societies. Of course, you would have to do statistical analysis to examine the relationship between societies accepting homosexuality and their suicide rates so you do not count other factors which cause suicides.

Alternatively, show me societies accepting of homosexuality tend to score high on mental toughness tests such as Peter Cough's test. Also, [http://psychology.about.com/library/quiz/bl_eq_quiz.htm Emotional intelligence (EQ) test] score and a person's [http://www.winstonbrill.com/bril001/html/article_index/articles/501-550/article517_body.html "Adversity quotient"] test score would be possible benchmarks as far as measuring mental toughness, but obviously the latter would be better. EQ is popular in management circles and perhaps different societies have been measured in terms of their EQ test scores. My guess is that perhaps EQ is only somewhat popular in the USA and Spain perhaps.[http://danielgoleman.info/2008/can-there-be-an-emotionally-intelligent-society/] With that being said, I think there is far more detailed information on suicide rates of countries and that is probably a better benchmark of mental toughness. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:13, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:Canada's medal haul went UP by 50% after they allowed same-sex marriage. (12 in 2004, 18 in 2008) [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 08:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
::Anecdotal and too tied to them hosting the Olympics and starting a drive to win more gold. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:58, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::They didn't host the Olympics in 2008, and anyways, the medal drive was focused on the winter games, not the summer games. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 09:03, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
It takes time to develop winning programs and I am guessing they knew in advance they were going to host the Olympics. 09:13, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:Caribbeans have low suicide rates.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate] They must be pretty mentally tough and not worry. :) Mental toughness increases performance. Hey mon, don't worry, be happy! Hey mon, I think I am going to kick back on a Caribbean beach and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTW0ifgY9zc&playnext=1&list=PLAA6853EB17004E8E listen to Caribbean music] while conservative, Bible believing families (which don't approve of homosexuality) keep winning more gold medals per family because they have more kids and have more mental toughness! :) And remember, conservative Bible believers with the Protestant work ethic, work harder to win gold medals than lazy, liberal, obese homosexuals with knee problems on welfare! See: [[Homosexuality and obesity]] and [[Lesbianism and obesity]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::HAHAHA they do talk funny
:::: That may be so, [[User:Conservative]], but you are still miscorrelating. A conservative Canadian family wouldn't be made liberal by the legalization of same-sex marriage. If anything, the decline in medals should come ''before'' the legalization of same sex-marriage, since liberalization would come ''before'' the legalization of same-sex marriage. So, perhaps a better study would be looking at a country's attitudes towards homosexuality over time (both before and after legalization of same-sex marriage) and try to correlate that. But I honestly doubt the actual act of legalizing same-sex marriage has a magic wand effect. Which is why the evidence shows you are wrong even though your logic may be perfectly correct. It's only your conclusion that's flawed. Liberalization and shift in views on homosexuality take time to occur. They don't happen overnight upon legalization of same-sex marriage. There would only be evidence of what you're saying if it was a magical overnight shift. And it's not. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:16, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

=== More evidence that homosexuality leads to lower medal counts and Bible believing enables more medals to be won ===

Homosexuals have higher suicide rates than the general population (see: [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]]). Historically, Christians have faced a lot of persecution, but they don't commit suicide. They know that God wants Christians to be strong and not commit suicide and the Bible has many verses about being courageous plus the Bible is against suicide. Bible believers are more mentally tough than homosexuals. Mental toughness increases athletic performance. Therefore, Bible believers, all other things remaining equal, are able to win more Olympic medals than homosexuals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:52, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

=== Math'd -- Gay marriage ===

A subject about quantifying something?? I accept your challenge.

For the following, I am trying to determine the effect of pro-gay legislation on Olympic Medals. Since different countries have hugely different factors, I thought we could use the states of the USA to observe any effects (being labs of democracy, and all). What I did was find a list of all 2008 Olympic Medalists. Then, I got rid of any groups, leaving only individual medalists. Then, I mapped these medalists to their home state. Then, I figured out, based on population, how many medals each state should win out of the total USA medals. Then, I matched states with their same-sex marriage legislation (I assumed if same-sex couples could marry or engage in civil unions, this was a "Pro-Gay" state. No marriage or civil unions, an "Anti-Gay" state.) Then I summed up expected and actuals by these two categories. Here's what I got....

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! State Type
! Expected Medals
! Actual Medals
! Over/Under
|-
| Pro-Gay
| 29.8
| 45
| 15.2
|-
| Anti-Gay
| 42.2
| 27
| -15.2
|-
| Total
| 72.0
| 72
| 0
|}

If we look just at Gold Medals...

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! State Type
! Expected Golds
! Actual Golds
! Over/Under
|-
| Pro-Gay
| 8.3
| 14
| 5.7
|-
| Anti-Gay
| 11.7
| 6
| -5.7
|-
| Total
| 20.0
| 20
| 0
|}
(Please note that if a medalist is from another country, they were excluded. Same with two obscure athletes I couldn't find information on)

As you can see, "Pro-Gay" states outperform their expected total medal results by over 50%. Conversely, "Anti-Gay" states underperform by 36%.

The picture is more extreme only looking at Gold medals - "Pro-Gay" outperformes %69%, while "Anti-Gay' under perform by almost half.

In conclusion, do I think "imposing" gay marriage has anything to do with Olympic results? Probably not, since states, along any group of people in the Olympics, have a huge number of factors affecting their outcomes. But, to say that gay marriage destroys Olypmic results...well, that just goes against the data.
[[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 15:49, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I think you are going to have to do regression analysis to isolate the homosexuality issue. It seems as if the wealth and population size are important variables to winning medals as noted above. Cultures which have significant wealth often get morally complacent history shows. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:00, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

1) This is a regression based on population size. But I don't think a regression could be done on wealth, since it's hard to track the socio-economic movements of dozens of medalists, many of whom are relatively unknown. Also, if you want me to regress based on a group of large, poor states that allow gay marriage...my sample size isn't going to be even close to credible. I agree though, it would be very interesting.

2) You didn't provide isolation of the homosexuality issue in your hypothesis, so that's what I based my refutation on.. You said countries with gay marriage would underperform. Not that a country with gay marriage would underperform an identical country without gay marriage.

3) Most importantly, why should ''I'' isolate the homosexuality issue? ''You'' should be the one supporting your premise, or at least refuting my data. I spent the time showing why your idea was wrong, now it's your turn to either show where I am wrong, or adjust or reject your hypothesis.
[[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 16:13, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::The liberals are not being realistic and fighting an uphill battle here. You are never going to have people associate homosexuality with athleticism/health. This is a Pickett's charge to say the least - especially at Conservapedia (see: [[Homosexuality and health]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:36, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::So...nothing about the Olympics then? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 16:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::You still haven't shown me that the homosexual population can clear Olympic hurdles as well as the heterosexual population. See: [[Homosexuality and obesity]] and [[Lesbianism and obesity]]. Are you saying that overweight people are better hurdlers? If so, I have a hard time believing this. Also, nations with bigger populations earn more medals. How does homosexuality promote procreation? After all, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:37, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::And kudos to you, User:Conservative. You once again can't resist bringing up us evil fat people as your argument. And lo and behold, it's even completely off-topic to the above comments. Color me surprised... '''''NOT!''''' [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 13:38, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::: [[User:Conservative]], you make valid points, but you are confusing two statistical populations. There is the homosexual population, and if your statistics are correct, they should perform worse. Let's assume that you're right for the purpose of this discussion. However, that would only effect athletes who are homosexual themselves, not entire countries. Legalizing same-sex marriage won't magically make the entire population into homosexuals. So you should be looking at the sexual orientation of the athletes themselves if you want to prove your point. Whether the country/state legalizes same-sex marriage is irrelevant to your point, one way or the other. I'd be interested in seeing your new study which focuses on the athletes themselves and not on the whole country. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

Conservative, you said that legalizing gay marriage leads to a country under-performing in the Olympics. I showed that the evidence does not support that, at least in America. I didn't say fat gays make good hurdlers. But, the Olympics usually doesn't draw athletes from the 'out-of-shape' population... [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 22:45, 8 July 2012 (EDT)

== Expected Medals ==

Hello all,
I think it would be fun to track "expected vs actuals" with regards to medals. I was thinking of adding a table giving each partipating country an expected value. However, I'm having trouble deciding it it would be better to do it on a "per capita" basis, or a "per GDP" basis. Any thoughts? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 17:09, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

:I think ranking on a "per GDP" basis would be fairer. Competitive sports is an activity of affluent nations. Any thoughts on this by others?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:14, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

::I added a table, proportioning medals by nominal GDP. I notice that I'm predicting 200 medals for America, which seems high. I wonder why that could be? My thought is that there are a ton of countries with less than 1 medal expected, but a lot of them will probably get one. I'll leave the table, but please let me know if you have any thoughts on modifications. It's a least something to get us thinking! [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 13:43, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

== Added info re same-sex marriage ==

I added more info on same-sex marriage being allowed in certain political subdivisions of a country. I clarified that there are two US States that have legalized same sex marriage but there is a citizen's referendum about it, but that one of them (Washington) already had civil unions. I also noted that in Mexico, same-sex marriage is legal in Mexico City, a Federal District similar to Washington, DC. Also, I noted that several overseas territories of the Netherlands will compete separately and also have different laws regarding same-sex marriage. Aruba does not perform them, but per the Kingdom's requirements must recognize those performed elsewhere. Same with Curacao and Sint Maarten, who will compete as "Independent Olympic Participants" under the Olympic flag after the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles and the loss of recognition for their Olympic committee. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 19:29, 3 July 2012 (EDT)

== Joke sports ==

I'm going to remove beach volleyball from the list, as it's a very physically demanding sport. Also, while I agree that synchronised swimming is a bit of a joke, I disagree with the description that these are "sports that allow underachieving nations to pad their medal totals". The USA has won (usually multiple) medals in beach volleyball every year it has been included in the Olympics, synchronised swimming medals ''most'' times and half of all the BMX medals ever awarded! In fact, the only weak nation that has ever won a medal in any of these events (ever) was a Latvian who won the first BMX gold. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:00, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

:I realize that the U.S. wins many of these "joke" medals. I was being objective and fair to other nations in criticizing these medals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

::Ok fair enough. So what are your thoughts on beach volleyball? What makes it joke...ish? [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:19, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

:::I think it's mainly because it's a relatively recent creation, arrived at by taking an existing sport and just playing it on a beach. (I know that teams are smaller and the rules are a bit different etc, but that's basically it.) Why not have beach tennis, beach archery, beach baseball and beach cricket as well??? That and the requirements by the sport's governing body specifying the skimpiness of female competitors' attire.
:::This isn't to say that it's not demanding to play at the top level, but do the Olympics really need to have two different kinds of volleyball? Regular volleyball is hardly a blue riband event as it is!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:33, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::: Beach volleyball and regular volleyball have different rules. The idea is the same, but the rules are pretty different. A similar situation would be rugby. Starting in 2016 rugby sevens will be in the Olympics. If they also added rugby league (which is fairly similar to rugby sevens, but has a lot of differences too) as well, then that would be too similar. But it just makes them redundant, it doesn't make one of them a "joke". [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:04, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

== Are the nations of Japan increasingly atheistic or increasingly theistic and/or christian? ==

Are the nations of Japan increasingly atheistic or increasingly theistic and/or christian?

Gallup poll: Christianity growing in Japan: http://www.breakingchristiannews.com/articles/display_art.html?ID=2278

Pastor Lee in Korea, 2007 - BBC: ""Our church is still growing, so sooner or later Christianity will be the major religion in Korea. All Christians are praying for that right now."[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8322072.stm]

== Move page ==

Can we move this page to [[2012 Olympics]]? That's a more natural title. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 07:16, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:How bout a redirect?[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 11:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

::The redirect works. It's a close call which title is better, but to me starting an entry with a number seems less efficient in conveying meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:24, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::You have to have something indicating summer. I retitled the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:04, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
::::I agree. Even though Summer and Winter Olympics never occur in the same year anymore, they historically were both held in the same year. Having this naming convention will ensure consistency with other Olympics articles we may create. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:11, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
::::: I agree. 2012 Olympics may not be ambiguous but [[1984 Olympics]] would be. (Los Angeles Summer Games or Sarajevo Winter Games). Also, with regards to Andy's concern, virtually all press releases refer to these as the 2012 (Summer) Olympics, and/or use the official name "Games of the XXX Olympiad". (XXX is Roman Numeral 30, not a placeholder) However, since the official Olympiad name is never used except in official releases, and it is commonly referred to as 2012 Summer Olympics everywhere else, I say keep it this way. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:01, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

Agree with Greg. Thirtieth Olympiad is too obscure for a generation that regards 3 month old music as outdated. Better call it the 2012 Olympics. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:26, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== Tables for medals ==

I'm going to add tables showing medals won, and indicate in the table when same-sex marriage was recognized, for each country listed. This will make it easier to identify trends from before and after legalization. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:54, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== This page is preposterous ==

I can't believe that nearly everything you have to say about this year's Olympic games revolves around your overweening obsession with homosexuality and atheism. Even conservatives--well, normal conservatives--would want more substantive information. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 19:51, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:That's not enough to qualify as trying to improve this page. Are you saying there's no correlation, or are you indirectly registering an objection to this project's campaign against homosexuality and atheism? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:25, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
::In my opinion, the way to improve this page would be to delete all the content and start over. I understand that the project is against homosexuality and atheism. But that doesn't mean those things have to be the main focus of ''every'' article. And yes, I ''am'' saying that there is no known correlation between same-sex marriage, homosexuality or atheism and Olympics success, and even if one were demonstrated, it would not establish causality, which is clearly what you are after. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 21:20, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:::Ideas do have consequences on productivity, achievement, happiness, etc. A high percentage of successful [[NFL]] quarterbacks are devout [[Christians]]. Why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:17, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

::::Is that so? What is the percentage? --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 23:57, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== Where is the UK... ==

...in the expected medals section? --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 21:02, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:Whoops, I had it listed as Great Britain. Which I should have known better than to do - I lived in London for a couple years, and got yelled at every time I got the terms wrong... [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 23:18, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

::Aaargh! I checked UK and Britain but neglected to check Great Britain. Silly me. --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 23:23, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== GDP ==

If GDP "may be a fair proxy" in relation to how many medals a country will win then why is the main part of the article all about how atheism and gay marriage are going to have such an influence over the results? --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 21:04, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:I wanted to have a start point for comparisons and trend-spotting. It is my hypothesis that homosexuality and atheism have nothing to do with a country's athletic performance, and the table is my first step in testing. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 23:21, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

::I am inclined to agree with you. Unfortunately it makes the article a little schizophrenic (if I may use that term in such an inaccurate manner). The top of the article asserts that homosexuality and atheism are solid indicators of Olympic performance for reasons, whereas your section is intended to show otherwise. An internal tension, if you will.
::I get the feeling from the ''Nations that are increasingly atheistic'' section that there is supposed to be some reason that atheists are incapable of acting as members of a team (the reason is not explained). Beyond that, the article is not only utterly unsupported by any study or even by any observations made by eminent persons in the appropriate field, it doesn't even contain a hypothesis as to the means by which the asserted connections operate. I would suggest deleting and starting again but I have read Ed Poor's comments above and I assume any such similar request from myself would be resisted. --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 23:36, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
::: We have explained those connections elsewhere, including on this talk page. Perhaps make separate articles and link to them? If we put all the explanations in this article, I think it would get a bit too busy. Also, we'd have to copy them for every future Olympics, which seems like a waste if we can just link to them. What does everyone else think? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 12:04, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

== Rowing -> soccer ==

I see Andy that you have reverted my edit which asserted that rowing was the sport requiring the most teamwork. Apparently soccer is the sport that requires most teamwork (for reasons that are mysterious to me).

Why is that Andy? Why not (field) hockey, for example? Or American football? I would still assert that rowing is far and away the paramount team sport. Your edit comment that it is "emulating a machine" really does nothing to detract from that assertion. So what? If that means that each crew member must move their body in perfect time with each other then my point is all the stronger isn't it?

Obviously if this is a conservative insight then clearly I must be wrong, but if there is an actual reason that soccer is the ultimate team sport over rowing then I would be interested to hear it. --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 23:52, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:There is no dynamic teamwork of any consequence in rowing - no passing a ball from one player to another, no reactions to defenders, and no mental strategy. Rowing is great exercise for those who have access to expensive equipment and placid lakes, but it's not dynamic teamwork as soccer is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

::Ok, so it's "dynamic teamwork" that atheists can't perform? They are capable of acting in perfect harmony with each other in a rowing shell but cannot pass a ball to each other or perform mental strategy? Interesting. Is there any evidence to support any of this? If so, why is it that atheists are incapable of such activities?

::P.S. I performed a couple of Google searches on which (rowing or soccer) is more commonly referred to as "the ultimate team sport": [https://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22rowing+the+ultimate+team+sport%22&oq=%22rowing+the+ultimate+team+sport%22&gs_l=serp.3..0i30.71845.74333.0.74873.2.2.0.0.0.0.220.429.2-2.2.0...0.0...1c.IPtkh8308qI&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=862d766996523d9f&biw=1201&bih=678 rowing] or [https://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&pq=soccer%20the%20ultimate%20team%20sport&cp=32&gs_id=e&xhr=t&q=%22soccer+the+ultimate+team+sport%22&pf=p&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&oq=%22soccer+the+ultimate+team+sport%22&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=862d766996523d9f&biw=1201&bih=678 soccer]. I think that the hit numbers speak for themselves. --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 00:57, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

:::Rowing is obviously a rich-man's sport, which gives an unfair advantage to a few nations like the [[U.K.]] While physically challenging, rowing is the only sport where the contestant should think as little as possible and simply act like a robot.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:12, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
:::: In rowing, don't you have a coxswain telling you when to row? It requires everyone rowing together, yes, but as long as they all act like robots (as Andy put it) and row when the coxswain says row, that's the only teamwork required. I won't deny it's a difficult sport, but it doesn't require much teamwork when there's a coxswain. The reason it's the ultimate team sport is that, more so than in any other sport, the chain is only as strong as the weakest link. If you put me on a soccer field with the 10 best players in the world (assuming they're of different positions), we could win, even though I'm a terrible soccer player. If you put me in a four-man boat with the three best rowers in the world, we would do terrible, because I'm a terrible rower. That's the difference between rowing and other team sports. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 05:35, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

::::::I row 3 times a week and I am a coxswain. It is certainly not a "robot" sport, and it requires intense concentration from the rowers to make sure that the crew is in time, running on perfect technique and drawing through together. A physically stronger crew will often lose to a weaker but more technical crew. The reason that our crews look like robots are because they are concentrating as hard as they can to keep everything technical, and to work against what the body is intuitively telling you to make every single inch of pressure on the water count.
::::::
::::::As for being a rich man's sport, I can sympathise. Those boats are bloody expensive, and are often donated through philanthropy. However many of us, myself included, come from very underprivileged backgrounds and are fortunate enough to row in university teams. But getting to Olympic level requires training from a young age, which usually means being brought up at a very expensive private school that has rowing equipment. So I agree to an extent there, but one must not forget the huge benefits that philanthropy gives to broadening the pool of rowers, which is a conservative virtue as far as this website is concerned. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 11:16, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

:::: (edit conflict) Doesn't the above data prove my point? The wealthiest nations in the world have won nearly all of the rowing medals.

:::: Rowing is a grueling sport - I rowed for a bit myself. But it is a rich man's sport, and it is the only sport that does not use the brain.

:::: In reply to Greg's insight comments, I doubt a soccer team with 25% terrible players could win either, if the coaching by the opposing side is good.

:::: In reply to HumanGeographer's good comments, I agree that concentration is required and that the sport is terrific exercise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
::::: Andy, soccer teams have 11 players (including goalie). So it would be 9% poor players. And considering that teams have won 10-on-11 after an early red card, it's not inconceivable. But in rowing, it would be impossible. That's where the "team sport" mantra comes from. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 15:05, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

Greg, you have missed Andy's point. If you are one out of the four rowers you now have 25% of a team being terrible, whereas in soccer, as you have put it, missing one player means only 9% of the team is terrible. What Andy is suggesting is that the better comparison would be if a soccer team had 3 of their players essentially non-effective, and his point in that regard is well-taken. A soccer team playing 8 against 11 would not fare well either.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 15:23, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

== The Olympics and Economics 2012 ==

[[Goldman Sachs]] has some thoughts on the matters discussed above: [http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/topics/global-economic-outlook/olympics-and-economics-.pdf pdf]
{{cquote|Britain has quite high per capita spending on elite sports for a western democracy. Sailing is a perfect example— boats are very costly. For equestrianism, you need a horse. For rowing, you need a boathouse, boats and oars. For track cycling, you don’t really have a chance without a wind tunnel, a velodrome. It’s different with running, where you just need a pair of shoes. There is a dramatic difference between sports that only a tiny group of countries can afford to invest in and the others.|||Matthew Syed, British journalist}}
They have a forecast for Gold and Total medals, too.
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 05:50, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

== During the Modern Olympic Games, the pagan origins of the Olympics have been replaced by faith-based achievement by the participating athletes ==

This seems to be wishful thinking: the Olympics were for quite a time dominated by nations which didn't allow their athletes the comforts of faith. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 05:59, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

== Group of Left ==

For those who don't get the "Group of Left" reference, it's a play on the phrase "Group of Death", which refers to an unusually strong group. I doubt Tunisia will finish in the top two and go to the medal round, but anything other than last place would be overperforming for them. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 18:21, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

== Women's Soccer ==

Why would the US women's soccer team be expected to underachieve? They're not one of the atheist nations, same-sex marriage is only legal in six states, and if Title IX effected them in any way, it would have helped them (albeit at the expense of men's sports). We should either explain it or remove it. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 18:35, 22 July 2012 (EDT)
:As I understand it, women's soccer is very strong in the US. Still, the nature of Soccer means that results are more unpredictable than other sports. Very often the best team is not able to win. Its a funny sport in that respect. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 18:44, 22 July 2012 (EDT)
:: I know that. But that still doesn't answer the question. We could say the same about any of the favorites. There's no reason given to expect the US team specifically to underperform. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 08:49, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
:::It seems as though "underperformance" and "failing to live up to expectations" are a preferred theme of the website's management. Maybe it's just a case of projection. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 09:22, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
:::: Possibly. If that's all it is, we should remove it. But I'm going to wait and see if anyone has a better explanation before I do so. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 18:07, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

:::::[[Politically correct]] teams often underachieve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:03, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::: Very well. I removed the part about the coach being a foreigner, since surprisingly it isn't an unusual practice to do something like that. About half the women's soccer coaches this year are from another country (i.e. not the one they coach). And Jurgen Kingsman of Germany coaches the men's US national team, although it's unlikely he'd have coached at the Olympics even if they did qualify, since men's soccer at the Olympics is primarily Under-23 teams. However, I kept the rest of the footnote. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 21:10, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

::::::: I don't think it's that common for a prominent sport like soccer. Germany, of course, has a very strong soccer program. But a coach from Sweden for the women's team???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::::: Ahhh.... Good point. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 21:50, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
The coach in question was the coach when the US won gold in 2008. She took the job in 2007. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 00:14, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::::: Early goal for France in Game 1 for the USA. 1-0. Plenty of time for us to come back. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 12:13, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::::: 2-0 France, less than 20 minutes in. A loss wouldn't eliminate the US, but a big loss would make it hard to go through in a tough group. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 12:15, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::::: 2-1. US goal came on a corner kick, which requires a lot of teamwork, against, atheist France. Still not even a quarter of the way through. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 12:20, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
So let me get this straight: If France loses, it's because of atheism. If the US loses, it's because their coach is a foreign-born lesbian, even though she led the team to gold in 2008. Is that correct? [[User:RayM|RayM]] 12:29, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::: It's only one game. And one of them had to win (or it could be a tie, I suppose). Let's see how the tournament progresses. It looks like they'll both go to the quarterfinals, but with 8 of the 12 teams advancing, that's not unexpected. Let's see how they do there. Then we can discuss this. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:51, 29 July 2012 (EDT)
:The US girls have won the gold medal! [http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2012/08/09/us-beats-japan-for-third-straight-olympic-gold-in-women-soccer/] --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 17:40, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

=="No Religion" in census response==
There are three possible explanations for a citizen refusing to state a religious preference on a government census form: no self-identification with one of the listed denominations, fear of government recording of religious preferences, or protest against government intrusion into a citizen's private spiritual life. Do we know which is the case in Australia? I know that if the government were to knock on my door, I would be in the third group. We don't know if Australia is in a religious decline based on census data, when there are better measures, including church service attendance and audience ratings for religious radio and TV broadcasts. Are there better data sources for this article? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:08, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

Over 11% of Australians refused to answer the religion question on their census forms. These people could have a faith. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 08:22, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

== Beckham and the Olympic torch ==

I suggest not adding whether Beckham lights the Olympic cauldron until after it airs on NBC, even though we should know around 7:30 PM ET whether he has or not. Some people might not know and might want to not know until NBC shows it on tape delay. It's only a few hours, and since most of our users are American and won't have seen the cauldron lighting yet, I think it's a reasonable courtesy. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 06:41, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Black Power salute controversy ==

I don't see a connection between the Black Power salute controversy, which was an act of political defiance on the medal stand that hardly anyone remembers (and which the Olympic committee forgave participants for) and [[Tebowing]]. Also, why would the comment be in the "TBD" column anyway?
:I think that athletes may (understandably) refrain from engaging in overt religious activity due to the precedent set by Smith and Carlos. The Olympics are a major event, and being banned from them (even wrongly) can seriously affect athletes, especially those competing in sports whose major competition is the Olympics. That's why I think that athletes will at least think twice before engaging in such behavior.
:The column where I added my explanation is headed "Answer," and my explanation is certainly an answer. Of course, it's just my insight, and maybe it will be proven wrong. But even if no one does end up doing Tebowing, we can rest assured that Christian athletes have Jesus' words in mind:
{{cquote|And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.|||Matthew 6:5-8|NIV}}
:[[User:GregG|GregG]] 14:42, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

::The "answer" is presumably provided by the results, as for the other issues, all of which is "TBA". [[Tebowing]] is not something that would likely be done during the medal ceremony, not even by Tebow himself. It's done before or after the athletic event, as in the American marathon medalist in 2004 who did the Sign of the Cross right after crossing the finish line.

::As to the quote from the [[Bible]], the context for that quote is clear: people should not pray in a hypocritical manner like the liberal Pharisees. There is nothing hypocritical about [[Tebowing]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:08, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I think the precedent still applies, or at least it has an ''in terrorem'' effect, to all such displays, regardless of whether they are during a medals ceremony or before or after an event. I know that this is my opinion, but Tebowing seems to me to be nothing more than a gimmick, a practice designed to whack people over the head with the "HEY, IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW, I'M CHRISTIAN!" hammer. Such efforts, no matter how sincere they are, are misguided, and Jesus tells us that this sort of public display is not at all required by Christians, just as Jesus goes on to criticize people who make a public display out the pious practice of fasting. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 15:41, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Reformat ==

Can someone with better formatting skills than me please make the table into a better, cleaner format? It's very hard to read right now. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 15:42, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

== Public Schools ==

Is the public schools example really that good? There are certain private schools in America that are infamous for training its students like athletes rather than students. More so in basketball and (American) football than other Olympic sports, though. Public schools don't do that. Nor should schools do that, it's called "school", not "training". I should point out that certain colleges are legendary for that too, including my own school, which is a public college under the State of Connecticut. But don't think that's why we're banned from the tournament next year - we're actually banned for not doing enough to game the system. And half the women's basketball Olympic team went to UConn. We actually care about academics for our women's basketball team, and do very well academically. But don't get me started on that, because it's irrelevant.
Anyway, assuming you mean public high schools (or below), I think it doesn't present a very conservative argument. Private primary schools should not exist for the purpose of training athletes. The fact that some do indicates something is wrong with the system, not that the system is good. Not saying that's enough to make the whole system bad - the vast majority of private schools are very good academically. But these aren't the ones that produce the superstar athletes, for the most part. Also, other than basketball, it wouldn't apply to any of the Olympic sports, since football isn't in the Olympics. And there are only 12 American men's basketball players. I don't know how many of them went to the sham private schools whose main purpose is athletics, but I know LeBron is one of them. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 15:49, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

== The Swiss tweet in question. ==

[http://www.totalprosports.com/2012/07/30/swiss-soccer-player-michel-morganella-sent-home-olympics-racist-tweet/ Here is a link to an image of the tweet]. As you can easily read for yourself, it's directed at "les coréens," et non pas contre "l'équipe coréen" ou quelque chose de même. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 18:33, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

: "South Korean" is not a race, and there is no evidence that the tweet was racist as the [[liberals]] claim. Rather, this incident shows how much liberals oppose [[free speech]], and will NOT defend the rights of others to speak their minds.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:40, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
::So, just for the record, you do defend the right of a person to call an entire nation of people "mentally handicapped retards" and think that he should face no consequences for doing so while representing his own country at an international event? [[User:RayM|RayM]] 18:48, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

:::For the record, I do support [[free speech]], even for statements with which I disagree. The tweet was not racist and athletes should be able to vent on twitter, just as they do vocally during games. Fans do also, by the way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:13, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

::::Do you believe a private, non-profit organization such as the Swiss and/or Greek Olympic committees has the right to demand and/or expect behavior from its members that reflects well on the organization, and that organization should be allowed to sanction a participant when behavior does not meet those expectations? If you do, where do you think the line is drawn? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:27, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

:::::No, I don't think the organizations you mention should be expelling athletes based on what they say on Twitter (and I question whether the organizations are truly private, rather than publicly funded).

:::::There was no evidence that the tweets embarrassed the nations in any way. Rather, this is [[liberal censorship]] run amok. Thirty years ago, liberals and the ACLU would have sided with the athletes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:39, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::: The only NOC that is 100% privately funded is the American one, although the vast majority of them are funded privately in part. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:01, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

== Atheistic Brits ==

I wonder...what percentage of the underachieving, God-hating British Olympians are actually Atheists? [[user:Willingham77|Willingham77]] 17:03, 31 July 2012

:The better question is what percentage of the Brits are subjected to an increasingly atheistic media and culture? Unfortunately, nearly 100%.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:11, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

::The better better question is why does an "atheistic" country have an established religion (COE)? Should all of us God-fearing Americans want the same for Christianity?[[User:Emmerich|Emmerich]] 23:23, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

:::[[Great Britain]] has an established '''''church'''''. That is something the [[Founders]] opposed - a state supported '''''church'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:42, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

::::Wow Andy, you should use that statement as an example in a Conservapedia article entitled "Non sequitur". [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 15:43, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
==Proposed table entry==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Sport
!Political issue
!Answer
|-
|Netball
|Will Netball be played at the 2012 and 2016 Summer Olympics? Wikipedia claims that Netball is an "Olympic sport"<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Olympic_sports|title=Category:Olympic sports|accessdate=Aug. 3, 2012}}</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics/Archive_12#Category:Olympic_sports</ref> played "at the Olympics".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_at_the_Olympics&action=history</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics/Archive_12#Olympic_recognised_sports</ref>
|Feminists have been demanding equality in Olympic participation. As a result, women have been playing the same game as men -- five-players-on-each-side basketball in the Olympics since 1976, rather than a watered-down version designed for Victorian women called Netball.
|}
If there are no objections, I will move this to the table in the article. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 11:19, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
: That's not really a question about the Olympics, more a commentary on Wikipedia. Stick it in [[Bias in Wikipedia]], not here. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 17:11, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
: Also, Wikipedia no longer claims Netball is an Olympic sport, only an "Olympic recognized sport", which is correct. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 17:17, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
::With all due respect to my friend Gregkochuconn, I just looked at the Wikipedia netball article and it is still in category "Olympic sports." I admit that the Wikipedia article "Netball and the Olympic Movement" is in category "Olympic recognised sports" but the radical feminists have insisted that Netball stay in the former category. Please see for yourself. The table entry was an assertion: We say netball will not be played in 2012 and 2016, Wikipedia says it is already an Olympic sport and keeps deleting statements that it could not possibly be added to the Olympic Programme before 2024.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&diff=502656544&oldid=502573324] [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:00, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
:::Its a bit hard to see exactly what the issue is. It is not hard to see that this issue is one for the Wikipedia page and not for the Olympics 2012 page. Whether or not it is deservedly and "Olympic Sport" or an "Olympic Recognised Sport" (these terms are not synonymous) is an issue for a general Olympics page, and whether Wikipedia is somehow censoring conservative thought is an issue for the Wikipedia page. Frankly I doubt very many of you even know what netball is. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:52, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
:::: That edit seems to be adding the 2024 information, not deleting it. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:24, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::Promptly reverted.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&diff=next&oldid=502668446] [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 03:52, 5 August 2012 (EDT)
::::: Probably because it was in the article about the sport at the Olympics, and didn't belong in the main article. The main article doesn't make any claim one way or the other. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 17:54, 5 August 2012 (EDT)
:::: Also, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netball_at_the_Olympics current version of the page] includes that information. So what you are saying is wrong. In any case, this is not the place for it, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the 2012 Olympics. Wikipedia makes no claim that it will be contested at the 2012 Olympics, even if it is an "Olympic sport", seeing as that category includes present Olympic sports, past Olympic sports, and Olympic recognized sports. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:27, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
::::::: Note that the article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squash_(sport) squash], which has a far more significant chance of being added to the Olympic program than squash, also does not mention that it could be added no sooner than 2024. As I said above, the article on Netball and the Olympic Movement does mention that it can't be added until 2024. The fact doesn't belong in the main article for the sport, by WP standards, and other articles on Olympic-recognized sports don't mention it either. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 15:17, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
<references/>

== Oh no, the tennis! ==

Look what's happening! One of the greatest conservative sports stars just lost the bronze medal match to an Argentinian who no doubt supports gay marriage, and an overrated Brit is smashing one of the all-time greats in the gold! What is going on?? Not only that, but we all just watched home-schooled gymnast Makayla Maroney underperform, right onto her bum! This page may need a re-write ... [[User:AlanA|AlanA]] 10:43, 5 August 2012 (EDT)

:While expressing doubt about your guess as to the Argentinian star's political views, I welcome further review of the predictions in the entry as more results pour in ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:45, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
:: The predictions represent things that are "likely" to happen, not things that are guaranteed to happen. Murray also had the advantage of the home fans, and Federer was tired from his marathon match with Del Potro. Of course, Del Potro should have been tired too.

== Will countries that have implemented same-sex marriage underperform? ==

Will someone please explain where the expected total medals figures in this section come from? Thanks. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 15:41, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
: The table lower down in the article. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:59, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
::Oh, you mean the one based on GDP, which "cannot be used as a fair proxy". In other words, they're meaningless. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 22:15, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
::: Find a better proxy and we can use that. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:17, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
::: I have changed the proxy to medals won at the last (Summer) Olympics prior to implementing same-sex marriage. The expected total is virtually unchanged. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:28, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
:::: Better, but expected numbers should be corrected for any significant differences in total number of medals available and in a country's number of athletes competing between the base estimate year and 2012. Also, since it's conceded that it's too early to tell how these countries will ultimately perform, the +/- figures are premature. With about 59% of events concluded, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, South Africa and Sweden are on track to meet or exceed their medal count for the base year. The Netherlands and Norway could easily do so as well by the games' end. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 10:53, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
::::: Hence "too early to tell". It's unlikely (though not impossible) for the Netherlands and Spain to overperform, while Denmark and Sweden have overperformed already. The rest are too early to tell. That being said, I will remove the +/- totals until the Games are over - they are misleading at this point. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 11:00, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
::::: Also, there are only a few more medal events (out of over 300) being contested in 2012 than in previous years, so that shouldn't matter. I think there were 301 in 2008 and 2004 and 302 this year. Insigificant. Since the theory centers around how many exceptional athletes these countries produce, adjusting for the number of athletes is incorrect. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 11:02, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
::::::What is "the theory"? [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 09:37, 8 August 2012 (EDT)
::::::: See [[User:Conservative]]'s rant somewhere above on this page. It's confusing, and I don't feel like repeating all of it, especially since I don't think it's accurate (though as an empiricist, I'm willing to put it to the test). [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:23, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

== Medal weighting ==

It's been pointed out at [[talk:Main Page]] that some sports, notably swimming, are vastly over-rewarded in terms of the number of medals available. We would get a better representation of which nations were actually the best, sporting-wise, if we took this into account in our medals tables. One simple way would be to discount multiple medals won by the same individual, or perhaps to cap the number of medals counted in the same sport at, say, five. What do people think?

(Sadly the nation most affected by this would currently be that titan of the swimming pool, the USA.)--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:37, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
: That would be hard to do, though. And nearly impossible to keep updating during the Games. I propose keep the current system for now, and discuss further when the Games are over. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 10:53, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

Saxony-Anhalt

2012-07-15T18:46:05Z

FrederickT3:

'''Saxony-Anhalt''' (German: ''Sachsen-Anhalt'') is a ''Land'' (State) of the [[Federal Republic of Germany]], situated in the middle of the country. Its capital is [[Magdeburg]]. The state was created in the course of the reunification of Germany in 1990 from two districts of the former [[German Democratic Republic]].

[[Category:European History]]
[[Category:Germany]]

Sachsen-Anhalt

2012-07-15T18:44:29Z

FrederickT3: redirect

#REDIRECT[[Saxony-Anhalt]]

Saxony-Anhalt

2012-07-15T18:43:20Z

FrederickT3: Create stub

'''Saxony-Anhalt''' (German: ''Sachsen-Anhalt'') is a ''Land'' (State) of the [[Federal Republic of Germany]], situated in the middle of the country. Its capital is [[Magdeburg]]. The state was created in the course of the reunification of Germany in 1990 from three districts of the former [[German Democratic Republic]].

[[Category:European History]]
[[Category:Germany]]

Wittenberg

2012-07-15T18:37:10Z

FrederickT3: typo, style

'''Wittenberg''' is a town in the German state of [[Saxony-Anhalt]].

About 45,000 people live in the officially named ''Lutherstadt Wittenberg'': [[Martin Luther]] taught [[theology]] at the town's university since 1508. He is said to have nailed his 95 theses against the selling of indulgences at the door of the All Saints' church - the ''Schlosskirche'' (castle church) - marking the beginning of the Protestant Reformation on October 31, 1517.
[[Category:German Cities and Towns]]

Hatch Act

2012-07-15T18:32:02Z

FrederickT3: /* See also */ no references in article

The '''Hatch Act''' is a 1939 federal law that strictly limits the political activity of federal employees. It was designed to prevent the [[WPA]] from becomeing a national political machine, and remains the law. [[Civil Service reform]] had a long history; the Pendleton Act (1883), supplemented by executive orders of Presidents [[Grover Cleveland]] and [[Theodore Roosevelt]], limited the political activities of classified employees. The Hatch Act (1939) extended limitations to unclassified employees (that is, political appointees) as well.

Gall (1995) chronicles the Hatch Act from its passing in 1939, through its amendment in 1940, and to its further amendment in 1993. New Mexico Senator Carl A. Hatch drafted "clean up government" legislation that included a provision prohibiting federal employees from taking an active part in partisan political activity. The United Federal Workers of America (UFWA), an affiliate of the [[Congress of Industrial Organizations]] (CIO) challenged the law's constitutionality, but the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in United Public Workers v. Mitchell (1947) that government's need for "orderly management of administration" was greater than the appellant's freedom of expression. Organized labor won the long struggle, when in 1993 Congress passed a new amendment removing the restrictions.

==Bibliography==
* Eccles, James R. ''The Hatch Act and the American Bureaucracy.'' (1981). 318 pp.
* Fowler, Dorothy Ganfield. "Precursors of the Hatch Act," ''Mississippi Valley Historical Review'' 1960 47(2): 247-262. ISSN: 0161-391X
* Gall, Gilbert. "The CIO & the Hatch Act: the Roosevelt Court and the Divided New Deal Legacy of the 1940s." ''Labor's Heritage 1995'' 7(1): 4-21. Issn: 1041-5904
* Jones, Charles O. "Reevaluating the Hatch Act: a Report on the Commission on Political Activity of Government Personnel." ''Public Administration Review'' 1969 29(3): 249-254. Issn: 0033-3352 Fulltext: in Jstor and Ebsco
* Masters, Marick F. and Leonard Bierman. "The Hatch Act and the Political Activities of Federal Employee Unions: A Need for Policy Reform," ''Public Administration Review,'' Vol. 45, No. 4 (Jul. - Aug., 1985), pp. 518-526 [http://www.jstor.org/pss/3110037 in JSTOR]
* Porter, David. "Senator Carl Hatch and the Hatch Act of 1939." ''New Mexico Historical Review'' 1973 48(2): 151-164. Issn: 0028-6206
==See also==
* [[WPA]]
* [[Civil Service reform]]

[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:Bureaucracy]]

Icons of Evolution

2012-07-15T18:31:05Z

FrederickT3: single quotes enclose double quotes

{{merge|Jonathan Wells}}
'''''Icons of Evolution''''' is a book by [[Jonathan Wells]] which argues that 'the best-known “evidences” for Darwin’s theory have been exaggerated, distorted or even faked.'<ref>[[Jonathan Wells]], [http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=bvfHD7zgzLoC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=icons+of+evolution&ots=B_V4AmLvnc&sig=-KgTBNwbAiu8nsFI87DaoDIJdj4 Several Online Chapters of Icons of Evolution]</ref><ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1180</ref><ref>http://www.iconsofevolution.com/</ref><ref>http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf</ref>

Wells explains his title in the book's introduction:
{{QuoteBox|These examples are so frequently used as evidence for Darwin's theory that most of them have been called "icons" of evolution. Yet all of them, in one way or another, misrepresent the truth. (p. 7)}}

== External links ==
* [http://www.iconsofevolution.com Icons of Evolution] – Official website

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Books]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]

Monty Python and the Holy Grail

2012-07-15T18:27:11Z

FrederickT3: /* Spamalot */

[[Image:Monty_python_and_the_holy_grail.jpg|thumb|right|Monty Python and the Holy Grail Poster]]

'''"Monty Python and the Holy Grail"''' is a [[film]] written, produced, directed and performed by the [[Monty Python]] comedy team.

After their success on [[television]] the Pythons wanted to move into film. A compilation film of sketches for their series [[Monty Python's Flying Circus]] called "And Now for Something Completely Different" had been a great success. However the BBC were unwilling to fund the Python movie and most of the funds for Holy Grail were provided by members of the rock groups [[Led Zeppelin]] and [[Pink Floyd]]. Most of the budget was spent on a large wooden rabbit in a scene which drew heavily on Greek history and the [[Trojan Horse]].

This movie has acquired a cult following for its offbeat, refreshing humor.
==Plot synopsis==

The plot centers on the quest for the [[Holy Grail]] appointed to [[King Arthur]] Pendragon by [[God]].

==Characters==

Classic Python characters introduced to fans by Holy Grail include The Black Knight, The Knights who say "Ni", Tim the Enchanter, The Insulting Frenchman and The Lord of Swamp Castle.

==Quotes==

*The Black Knight - When Challenging King Arthur, "None Shall Pass"
*King Arthur - After severing the limbs of the Black Knight (who still will not surrender), "All right then, we'll call it a draw."
*The Insulting Frenchman - "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries."
*Peasant - On accusing a woman of witchcraft "She turned me into a newt, .......... I got better."

Like most Python films, it can be partly considered a [[musical]], with several [[set piece]]s built around songs written by [[Neil Innes]] and sometimes [[Eric Idle]].

==Spamalot==
Original Python [[Eric Idle]] has adapted the film to a multiple [[Tony Award]] winning [[musical]] called Spamalot. The show opened on [[Broadway]] in 2005.

[[Category:Comedy]]

Talk:'s-Hertogenbosch

2012-07-11T20:35:52Z

FrederickT3: /* "leading grammatical bit ('s-) can be distracting to the reader..." */

Should be merged into some other article, such as [[The Netherlands]]. Appears to have been created only because of it's odd spelling: it begins with a punctuation mark. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:37, 9 May 2012 (EDT)

:''kind of weird to start an article with a punctuation mark'' well, it's a quirk of the Dutch language: look at [[The Hague]] a.k.a. '' 's Gravenshage'', or the '' 't Hooft operator'' in theoretical physics. But while ''Den Haag'' is the official name of '' 's Gravenshage'', with ''Den Bosch'' and '' 's Hertogenbosch'' it is the other way around.

:So the move is akin to redirecting ''New York'' to ''The Big Apple.

:And ''Den Bosch'' just means ''The Forest'', not ''The Duke's Forest'' - ''Hertog'' / ''Herzog'' is duke. The '' 's'' is the relict of the article indicating the genitive: ''Des Hertogens Bosch''

:On the web-site of 's Hertogenbosch, you won't find the informal name ''Den Bosch'' prominently on display: http://www.s-hertogenbosch.nl/

:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:58, 9 May 2012 (EDT)

::You want to take charge of our Dutch geography articles? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:21, 9 May 2012 (EDT)

:::That's too big a task (and too desolate a field, I'm afraid). I'm just correcting errors where I find them. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:25, 9 May 2012 (EDT)

:*the capital of the province of Noord-Brabant is usually called "Den Bosch," but the full, official name is " 's-Hertogenbosch " (The Duke's Forest.) [http://www.heardutchhere.net/NLPresent.html]
:So if you want to mention the official name, go ahead. (Also, it's more like calling the army's main training college "[[West Point]]", when it has a longer and more official name that is hardly ever used. It's not like calling New York the Big Apple. I live in New York and hardly ever hear that. Why would you say such and odd and untrue thing? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:30, 9 May 2012 (EDT)

:*The city's official name is a contraction of the Dutch des Hertogen bosch—"the Duke's forest" (Wikipedia) {{unsigned|Ed Poor}}
::Indeed, 's-Hertogenbosch is a contraction of ''des Hertogen bosch''. I mentioned that above. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:53, 9 May 2012 (EDT)

::When someone talks about the ''Big Apple'', everyone knows that ''New York'' is meant. That's neither ''odd'' nor ''untrue''. But this moniker is not the official name of the city, or a generally accepted abbreviation.
::Take a look at the official home-page of 's Hertogenbosch: you won't find ''Den Bosch'' mentioned. Take a look at the Dutch wikipage of [http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27s-Hertogenbosch 's Hertogenbosch]: the first section is about the name...
:::''De naam Den Haag is officieel toegestaan. Men ziet die naam op wegwijzers en bij de spoorwegen. Voor Den Bosch ligt dat anders: de enige officiële naam is 's-Hertogenbosch. Ook in andere talen wordt 's-Hertogenbosch met de lange naam aangeduid: Bois-le-Duc in het Frans, Boscoducale in het Italiaans, Bolduque in het Spaans en Herzogenbusch in het Duits. De Latijnse naam is Silva Ducis of Buscum Ducis.''
::That means something like
:::''The name ''Den Haag'' is officially accepted. You find this name on road signs and at railways. This is different for ''Den Bosch'': the only official name is 's-Hertogenbosch. In other languages the long name is also used: Bois-le-Duc in French, Boscoducale in Italian, Bolduque in Spanish en Herzogenbusch in German. The Latin name is Silva Ducis or Buscum Ducis.''
::BTW, the existence of so many translations of the name are an indicator of the historical importance of the city.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:51, 9 May 2012 (EDT)

:::Supporting AugustO. 's Hertogenbosch is used almost everywhere the official is required, e.g. railway timetables and road signs. But Den Bosch is usually used in informal conversation. [[User:PenelopeP|PenelopeP]] 17:29, 9 May 2012 (EDT)

::::[[St Petersburg]] might be a good parallel. The Russians who live there generally just refer to it as "Peter", or sometimes "Petersburg". But the official name is Saint Petersburg and indeed the Conservapedia article is under that name. It would be confusing to list the article under "Peter"!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 05:22, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::On the other hand, maybe it's more like [[Hull]]. In full, the town is Kingston upon Hull, but that is rarely used and even [http://www.hullcc.gov.uk the local council's website] just uses Hull. The Conservapedia page is actually entitled [[Kingston upon Hull]], but I think there would be a ''reasonably'' strong case for just using Hull, especially if Den Bosch is kept here.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 05:28, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

==Conversation in Edit Comments==
''error? what error? This is like moving ''The United States'' to ''United States''''

Moving '' 's Hertogenbosch'' to ''Hertogenbosch'' is akin to moving ''The United States of America'' to ''The United States America'' - you are losing the genitive. Moving '' 's Hertogenbosch'' to ''Den Bosch'' is like moving ''''The United States of America'' to ''States''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:57, 9 May 2012 (EDT)

:LOL, touché. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:38, 9 May 2012 (EDT)

::Did you mean this: [[touché]]? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:24, 16 June 2012 (EDT)

== Article move ==

... could you move this article back to [['s-Hertogenbosch]]? I would have asked you at [[User talk:Ed Poor]], but unfortunately, that page is protected.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:26, 10 May 2012 (EDT)

:Didn't you read my objections above? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:23, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::I read your objections. Frankly, I took your last comment (''touché'') as a concession to my objections. Nevertheless, I left the decision to move the article to you, but you really should to it: it's the right thing.

I actually currently live in `s-Hertogenbosch. Both names are commonly used (in writing the Den Bosch variant is more often used because it's just easier to type), but the official name is `s-Hertogenbosch. A lot of people don't care that much either way, but some take it very seriously indeed. There's a whole committee to promote the proper use of the official name. This is why you won't find the informal name listed on any official sources. --[[User:GTac|GTac]] 11:15, 14 June 2012 (EDT)
:Graag bedankt! What are the odds... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:18, 14 June 2012 (EDT)
::Well, there are more than 140k people living here, so the odds aren't infinitesimal :-). --[[User:GTac|GTac]] 11:37, 14 June 2012 (EDT)

Please write about the campaign to promote the official name. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:48, 14 June 2012 (EDT)
:What do you want to know about them? They're called the ''Genootschap ter bevordering van het gebruik van de naam 's-Hertogenbosch'' (the society for the promotion of the name 's-Hertogenbosch) and their mission is to promote the proper use of the official name for clarity and for historical reasons. They have [https://www.facebook.com/pages/Genootschap-ter-bevordering-van-het-gebruik-van-de-naam-s-Hertogenbosch/159558774142645 a facebook] and [http://www.s-hertogenboschalstublieft.nl/ a website]. They seem to be a bunch of local guys (big surprise), so not sure what you want to know about them. I don't think they're important enough to put in an article, though they're a good indication on how people are very serious about the proper use and spelling of official names.
:So let me know if you have any more questions or need anything else translated here. To be honest I don't really understand what the problem is here in the first case. It's an obvious fact that the official name is 's-Hertogenbosch, so why not change the article's name? --[[User:GTac|GTac]] 13:45, 14 June 2012 (EDT)

::If the society isn't worth writing about, then I don't suppose their cause is worth bothering with; so we should keep using the page title that's easiest for us Americans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:06, 14 June 2012 (EDT)

::: Hahaha, but that doesn't make any sense. You're going to use the wrong, unofficial name because it's not interesting to write an entire article about a society which promotes the official name? So what if that society '''''didn't exist at all''''', would that mean you'd automatically go for the incorrect names for articles? Maybe you should rename [[United_States_of_America|this article]] to just USA, it's a lot easier to type! Also, as it was set up before the name Den Bosch would redirect to the 's-Hertogenbosch page, so that wouldn't really be too hard to use for Americans. Ed Poor, is there some kind of reason you keep fighting to use the incorrect name? AugustO showed you that the official correct naming is 's-Hertogenbosch, I've confirmed it as a local, I've shown you that there are even people working to promote use of the official proper name, yet you refuse to change it for no other apparent reason than seeming pure stubbornness, which I don't really get.. It's not like this is a debatable issue anywhere else. --[[User:GTac|GTac]] 02:13, 15 June 2012 (EDT)
::::As an American (although I've been living in Europe for several years now), I do not find the official name confusing at all. Out of respect (a conservative value) for other people, other cultures and other languages, I also support moving the article back to 's-Hertogenbosch. Having "Den Bosch" redirect to "'s-Hertogenbosch" is fine and surely required, but also sufficient given that it just an inofficial name. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 12:08, 15 June 2012 (EDT)

[[User:Ed Poor]], you have read [[User:GTac]]'s comment - as you object to his use of ''stubbornness'' on his [[User talk:GTac|talk page]]. Why not addressing the substance of his comment - and just move [[Den Bosch]] to [['s-Hertogenbosch]] via redirect? Give your American compatriots some credit (''"we should keep using the page title that's easiest for us Americans"''), some may even enjoy the leading apostrophe! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:52, 16 June 2012 (EDT)
:I didn't call anyone ''stubborn'', I called the behavior of refusing to change the article and refusing to address our arguments without apparent reason to be "seemingly stubborn". Apologies if I had phrased that incorrectly to cause a misunderstanding before. But like AugustO said, let's try and focus on the substance of this issue here and take some action. All this talk is getting rather one-sided. --[[User:GTac|GTac]] 02:49, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

== West Point==
Ed Poor, above you wrote:
:''So if you want to mention the official name, go ahead. (Also, it's more like calling the army's main training college "[[West Point]]", when it has a longer and more official name that is hardly ever used.''
But here at Conservapedia [[West Point]] redirects to [[United States Military Academy]]. And though their web-site uses the name ''West Point'', the web-site's address is ''www.usma.edu'' (and not www.wp.edu).

The same should happen with Den Bosch/'s-Hertogenbosch: the unofficial name (Den Bosch) should redirect to the official name ('s-Hertogenbosch). And it's easy to find out the official name: the city has the web-site ''www.s-hertogenbosch.nl'', while ''www.denbosch.nl'' doesn't exist. It's the other way round with [[The Hague]]: www.denhaag.nl exists, while www.s-gravenhage.nl doesn't.

And please keep in mind that - other than for [[The Hague]] there is no traditional English transliteration which would be quite acceptable as an article's title.

Ed Poor, you stated on your talk page: ''But I also believe in correcting my mistakes. '' Please correct this mistake of yours and move this article to [['s-Gravenshage]]. You are now informed about the arguments and it shouldn't be necessary to involve other editors with the right to move pages.

BTW: calling your position mistaken is just a factual assessment of the whole situation, not an attack on your person.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 05:43, 17 June 2012 (EDT)
:Sooo, since there apparently are no more objections, shall we just move this? --[[User:GTac|GTac]] 02:12, 21 June 2012 (EDT)

::I'm for moving, but it should be done the right way: using the command <code>move via redirect</code> which only sysops have. That way, the edit history of the article is preserved - which get muddled if we just copy the article from one place to the other.
::I thought to wait that [[User:Ed Poor]] (who is a sysop) sees that his position is untenable and moves the article.
::If this doesn't happen, I'm all for asking another sysop to review the case - perhaps one week after [[User:Ed Poor]]'s last edit on this subject...
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:23, 21 June 2012 (EDT)

== Request for move ==

The article should be moved to [['s-Hertogenbosch]]. The reason for this move are stated above, and no valid counterargument has been made. Indeed, [[User:Ed Poor]], the only advocate for keeping the article at [[Den Bosch]] seemed to have conceded (''touché'') - until he didn't.

For me the whole thing has becoming at litmus-test for Conservapedia: I was ''put on probation'' over this non-issue, at least on other editor was blocked indefinitely. And this over a point which isn't debatable, '' 's-Hertogenbosch'' is the official name of the city, ''Den Bosch'' isn't. There is no conservative or liberal interpretation of this point (as it is the other way round for [[The Hague]]). Is [[User:Ed Poor]] not able to correct his mistake - or at least allow his mistake to be corrected? It's a week since his last edit to this talk-page, so I now ask other sysops to move the article.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:54, 22 June 2012 (EDT)
:It's been moved by Aschafly. Thanks Aschafly! -[[User:GTac|GTac]] 10:18, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::It's now "Hertogenbosch" which seems to be wrong as well. If someone could move it back that would be good.[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 05:17, 11 July 2012 (EDT)

== merge ==
A merge seems to be unusual and impractical:
*Conservapedia has many articles on cities, towns and even villages in various countries. Are they all to be merged?
*Ending up with a list of merged towns and some stand-alones ([[Amsterdam]], etc.) looks untidy
*Who decides when an article on a town gets important enough to be recreated? To merge some of the towns into the article of the country is a step which has to be undone later again when the sections grow.
*Editing the article on your home-town is often a starting-point for contributing to an online encyclopedia.
I don't see any compelling official reason for a merge. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:31, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
:It just seems like a reaction to that whole name discussion debacle, really. -[[User:GTac|GTac]] 01:48, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
::The proposal to merge this article (and [[Arnhem]], [[Delft]], [[South Holland]] and [[North Brabant]]) with [[Netherlands]] was made on Jun 26, 2012. I'll wait until Jul 3, 2012: a week should be ample time to state a reason for such a merge. If no reason is given, I'll delete the merge-templates on Jul 3, 2012. —[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:17, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

== "leading grammatical bit ('s-) can be distracting to the reader..." ==

I'm a reader, I don't find it distracting at all. It's how the name of the town is spelled, right? Why spell it incorrectly for the benefit of people who can't focus enough to read? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 20:58, 10 July 2012 (EDT)

I have a "''Webster's Geographical Dictionary''" that belonged to my parents. It is American (as one would assume from the name) published by "G. & C. Merriam Co., Publishers, Springfield, Mass. U.S.A." in 1955. I looked up "''Hertogenbosch''". It said "''See 's Hertogenbosch''." I think that if something as intrinsically American as Webster's uses the "apostrophe s" spelling as the main heading for the city, then that is what CP should follow. Or is it thought that the modern American is more easily "distracted" than those of the 1950s and should be mollycoddled accordingly? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:01, 11 July 2012 (EDT)
:Very interesting to see "'s-Hertogenbosch" being moved to "Hertogenbosch" now. I grant that there are arguments worth considering for moving the article to "Den Bosch" given that that is a popular name given to the city. But Hertogenbosch is just wrong, there is no place that anyone calls "Hertogenbosch". The argument given in the edit summary amounts to not much more than "Americans are stupid" - surely nobody here thinks so? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 16:35, 11 July 2012 (EDT)

Higgs boson

2012-07-10T17:48:21Z

FrederickT3: /* Overview */ protons are fermions

A '''Higgs boson''' is a hypothesized elementary particle whose existence is predicted by the [[Standard Model]] of particle physics. It serves a key role in attempting to explain the origin of mass of other elementary particles of the Standard Model. It has recentely been observed in nature, confirmed to 4 standard deviations by the Large Hadron Collider, and 5 standard deviations (which is equivalent to a certainty of approximately 99.9999667%) by ATLAS - particle accelerators based at [[CERN]] in Switzerland. Physicist Leon Lederman coined the term "God Particle" to describe the Higgs boson.<ref>Lederman L., The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?, New York:Dell, 1993</ref>.

On July 4, 2012, Physicists at [[CERN]] announced the observation of a particle whose properties are consistent with mathematical predictions relating to the Higgs Boson. However, CERN has yet to definitively state that the particle they observed is, in fact, the Higgs.<ref>[http://io9.com/5923494/what-todays-higgs-boson-discovery-really-means?]</ref> The particle cannot, technically, be confirmed to exist with certainty - and therefore the best that can be said is a new particle has been discovered, the observed properties of the particle are consistent with those predicted of Higgs boson. The process now begins to determine the precise mechanism by which the Higgs boson confers mass, as its existence has been confirmed to the level of accuracy deemed necessary to constitute discovery. That level of accuracy is the "5 sigma test", that says that the probability that the discovery was a statistical fluke is less than one in a million.

== Overview ==
The Higgs Boson is a [[Boson]], whose group includes other fundamental building blocks of the universe, such as photons. The higgs boson, however, is unique in that it allows mass, under the Higgs theory, in the Standard Model. It is believed to be around 126 GeV (Gigaelectronvolt) in mass.<ref>http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Higgs+particle+what+what+does/6881979/story.html</ref>

===2012 CERN discovery===
In July 2012 CERN announced evidence of discovery of a boson with an energy level and other properties consistent with those expected in a Higgs boson. The available data raised a high statistical likelihood that the Higgs boson had been detected. <ref>http://press.web.cern.ch/press/background/B01-Higgs_en.html</ref> This high statistical likelihood is due, in part, to the separate obtaining by two distinct teams of data within the realm of statistical error for the predicted properties of the Higgs.<ref>[http://io9.com/5923494/what-todays-higgs-boson-discovery-really-means?]</ref>

==Reaction in the popular press and blogosphere==
Perhaps spurred by the seeming religious significance of the phrase, some bloggers and authors have apparently gone out of their way to disparage the discovery.
*[http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/07/06/creation/higgs-boson-so-what/], written by a Conservapedia author.
*"It will certainly be amusing if it turns out that the scientific media is reading the tea leaves wrong and CERN is summoning famous particle physicists to Switzerland in order to announce the failure of the Standard Model. But that won't be half so hilarious as if their announcement of the proof of Higgs boson is eventually followed by a reluctant admission that it doesn't actually exist in spite of all their sigmas." written by Thomas Beale, a blogger for [[Vox Day]].<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/07/mailvox-by-george-theyve-got-it.html Mailvox: By George, they've got it]</ref>

Other bloggers quickly responded to the latter, with statistical evidence.
*"Ignorance is Blitz" from science writer Phil Plait.

Some people may believe that this particle proves or disproves the existence of God. That's rubbish, of course. No scientific discovery proves or disproves the existence of God, other than evolution. An extensive discussion of this may be found [http://www.amazon.co.uk/On-Origin-Species-Selection-Editions/dp/0486450066/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1341888142&sr=8-3] here.

Scientists at ATLAS have confirmed that there is a 99.99996% likelihood that the July 2012 particle observed is indeed the Higgs boson. Whether it '''is''' the Higgs boson is largely a matter of semantics, and will have to wait until its properties are elucidated more.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://press.web.cern.ch/press/background/B01-Higgs_en.html] A short, if jargon filled overview on the Higgs Boson.
*[http://www.carlgallups.com/godparticle.html "God particle"] by [[PPsimmons]]
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20041118.shtml ''BBC Radio 4: In Our Time " Higgs Boson - the search for the God particle"'']

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Quantum Mechanics]]

Talk:2012 Summer Olympics

2012-07-01T17:31:01Z

FrederickT3: Euro 2012

Talk:Theory of relativity

2012-06-27T02:47:49Z

FrederickT3: /* Bending of light in Newtonian gravity */

{| 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]]
|}


== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

Peyton Manning

2012-06-24T23:25:44Z

FrederickT3: charity

'''Peyton Manning''' (b. March 24, 1976) is an [[American Football]] player, playing the position of [[quarterback]]. Regarded as one of the best quarterbacks, he set a record 50 touchdown passes in a single season and once guided his [[Indianapolis Colts]] to a [[Super Bowl]] victory over the [[Chicago Bears]]. He was won the [[Most Valuable Player]] award four times.

Peyton comes from a well-known football family - his father Archie Manning played for the Saints, Oilers, and Vikings, while his brother [[Eli Manning]] has led the [[New York Giants]] to two Super Bowl victories as its quarterback.

Peyton was released by the Indianapolis Colts in March 2012 after missing all of the 2011 season due to a serious injury.

In 1999, Manning founded the PeyBack Foundation, which aims at "providing leadership and growth opportunities for children at risk".<ref>http://www.peytonmanning.com/</ref>. St. Vincent Children's Hospital in Indianapolis was renamed "Peyton Manning's Children's Hospital at St. Vincent" in 2007 to honor his long-term support.<ref> http://www.theindychannel.com/health/14051932/detail.html</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Manning, Peyton}}

[[Category:NFL Players]]

Overrated Sports Stars

2012-06-24T23:08:51Z

FrederickT3: remove unnecessary personal insult.

The [[lamestream media]] like to promote athletes based not on skill, but for other reasons. Here's a growing list of the most overrated sports stars (notice how none are on the list of [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]]):

#[[Tiger Woods]] — hasn't won a major golf tournament in four years, and yet he's still the only one liberals want to talk about while reporting on tournaments.<ref>Years ago Woods, amid media hoopla, won the PGA Player of the Year a record ten times; Byron Nelson Award for lowest adjusted scoring average a record eight times; holds the record for leading the money list in nine different seasons; won 14 professional major golf championships, the second highest of any player, and 73 PGA Tour events, tied for 2nd all time; has more career major wins and career PGA Tour wins than any other active golfer; is the youngest player to achieve the career Grand Slam, and the youngest and fastest to win 50 tournaments; is only the second golfer to have achieved a career Grand Slam three times.</ref>
#[[Andre Agassi]] — [[Pete Sampras]] was far better, but Sampras is [[conservative]]. Agassi is a big donor to [[Democrat]] politicians.
#[[Magic Johnson]] — lucky enough to play on [[Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]]'s Lakers to win some titles, but was crushed by [[Michael Jordan]] and the Bulls; no problem, Magic was a critic of President [[George H.W. Bush]], which thrilled liberals.
#[[David Beckham]] — far from the best, but promoted like he's [[Pele]]. Is Beckham socially [[liberal]] like others on this list?
#[[LeBron James]] — 2012's NBA Finals MVP is far from the best player in the [[NBA]], he is way overrated by the liberal ESPN compared to Christian Kevin Durant
#[[Kobe Bryant]] — hasn't won a title without super-coaching by Phil Jackson, who observes that Kobe is not on the high level of [[Michael Jordan]]<ref>http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2011-03-14/phil-jackson-says-kobe-bryant-not-in-michael-jordans-company</ref>
#[[Mark Sanchez]] — the [[New York Jets]] [[quarterback]] is being touted as the team's best QB over [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]] despite falling apart at the end of the 2011-2012 season. Now that Tebow's on-board, [[liberals]] are championing the former [[USC]] star as the superior player despite his recently poor play.
#[[Peyton Manning]] — a [[quarterback]] who won only one [[NFL]] championship, despite being voted by the media and others to be NFL MVP 4 times, AFC Player of the Year 6 times, and Pro Bowler 11 times. The [[liberal media]] treated him like the Second Coming of [[Christ]] in order to oust [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]] from his leadership position in the [[swing state]] of [[Colorado]] prior to the [[Presidential Election 2012]].

(please revise or add to list)

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:sports]]

User:Misjohnson

2012-06-24T23:04:42Z

FrederickT3: Blanked the page

User talk:Misjohnson

2012-06-24T23:04:26Z

FrederickT3: Blanked the page

User:JeffreyB

2012-06-24T23:03:55Z

FrederickT3: Blanked the page

User talk:JeffreyB

2012-06-24T23:03:26Z

FrederickT3: Blanked the page

User:MackC4

2012-06-24T23:03:03Z

FrederickT3: Blanked the page

User talk:MackC4

2012-06-24T23:02:38Z

FrederickT3: Blanked the page

Hungary

2012-06-16T21:44:46Z

FrederickT3: /* Principal Government Officials */ new president since 10 May (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/hu.html)

{{Country
|name =''Magyarország''
|map =Hungary rel 94.jpg
|map2 =Location of Hungary.PNG
|flag =Flag of Hungary.png
|arms =Arms of Hungary.png
|capital =Budapest
|capital-raw =
|government =Parliamentary republic
|government-raw =
|language =Magyar
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|governor general=
|governor general-raw=
|president =Pál Schmitt
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Viktor Orbán
|pm-raw =
|chairman =
|general secretary=
|governor =
|governor-raw =
|premier =
|premier-raw =
|area =35,910 sq. mi.
|pop =9,956,108
|pop-basis =2007
|gdp =$163.9 billion
|gdp-year =2008
|gdp-pc =$16,400
|currency =Forint
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Hungary''' (''Magyarország'') is a central [[Europe]]an country bounded by [[Austria]], [[Slovakia]], [[Ukraine]], [[Romania]], [[Serbia]] and [[Croatia]]. The capital city is [[Budapest]]; other major centres include Debrecen, Miskolc, Pécs, Szeged, and Győr.

==Geography==
[[File:Windmill in the Museum of Szentendre Hungary.JPG|thumb|left|Windmill in the Museum of Szentendre.]]
Hungary is landlocked and mainly forms a low-lying plain; it is crossed by the rivers [[Danube]] (''Duna'') and Tisza. The west of the country includes the large [[Lake Balaton]], on the shores of which a number of resort towns are situated.
*Area: 93,030 sq. km. (35,910 sq. mi.); about the size of Indiana.
*Cities: Capital--Budapest (est. pop. 2 million). Other cities--Debrecen (220,000); Miskolc (208,000); Szeged (189,000); Pécs (183,000).
*Terrain: Mostly flat, with low mountains in the north and northeast and north of Lake Balaton.
*Climate: Temperate.
 

==People==
[[File:Ancient Hungarian.jpg|thumb|left|Traditional coppersmith.]]
Ethnic groups in Hungary include Magyar (nearly 90%), Romany, German, Serb, Slovak, and others. The majority of Hungary's people are Roman Catholic; other religions represented are Calvinist, Lutheran, Jewish, Baptist, Adventist, Pentecostal, and Unitarian. Magyar is the predominant language.
*Nationality: Noun and adjective--[[Hungarian]](s).
*Population (July 2007 est.): 9,956,108.
*Ethnic groups: [[Magyar]] 89.9%, Romany 4% (est.), German 2.6%, Serb 2%, Slovak 0.8%, Romanian 0.7%.
*Religions (2001 census): Roman Catholic 51.9%, Calvinist 15.9%, Lutheran 3%, Greek Catholic 2.6%, Jewish 1%, others, including *Baptist Adventist, Pentecostal, Unitarian 3%.
*Languages: Magyar 98.2%, other 1.8%.
*Education: Compulsory to age 16. Attendance--96%. Literacy--99.4%.
*Health (2007 est.): Infant mortality rate--8.21/1,000. Life expectancy--men 68.73 yrs., women 77.38 yrs.
*Work force (2006 est., 4.21 million): Agriculture--5.5%; industry and commerce--33.3%; services--61.2%.

In Hungary, the official [[orthography]] is the [[Hungarian#Orthography|Latin-based Hungarian alphabet]], albeit, the earlier [[Szekely-Hungarian Rovas]] and the [[Carpathian Basin Rovas]] are also used sporadically.

==Government and Political Conditions==
[[File:Budapest Parliament.jpg|thumb|left|270px|Budapest Parliament.]]
The president of the republic, elected by the National Assembly every 5 years, has a largely ceremonial role, but powers also include appointing the prime minister. The prime minister selects cabinet ministers and has the exclusive right to dismiss them. Each cabinet nominee appears before one or more parliamentary committees in consultative open hearings and must be formally approved by the president. The unicameral, 386-member National Assembly is the highest state authority body and initiates and approves legislation sponsored by the prime minister. A party must win at least 5% of the national vote to form a parliamentary faction. National parliamentary elections are held every 4 years (the last in April 2006). A 15-member Constitutional Court has power to challenge legislation on grounds of unconstitutionality.
{{Clear}}
===Principal Government Officials===
*President: János Áder
*Prime Minister: Viktor Orbán
*Minister of Foreign Affairs: János Martonyi
*Ambassador to the United Nations: Gábor Bródi

===Foreign Relations===
[[File:Estonian politician Paet meets with Hungarian colleague.jpg|thumb|240px|left|Péter Balázs, (in that time) Foreign Minister of Hungary and Urmas Paet, Estonian Foreign Minister.]]
Except for the short-lived neutrality declared by Imre Nagy in November 1956, Hungary's foreign policy generally followed the Soviet lead from 1947 to 1989. During the communist period, Hungary maintained treaties of friendship, cooperation, and mutual assistance with the Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Romania, and Bulgaria. It was one of the founding members of the Soviet-led [[Warsaw Pact]] and Comecon, and it was the first central European country to withdraw from those now defunct organizations.

As with any country, Hungarian security attitudes are shaped largely by history and geography. For Hungary, this is a history of more than 400 years of domination by great powers--the Ottomans, the Habsburgs, the Germans during World War II, and the Soviets during the Cold War--and a geography of regional instability and separation from [[Hungarian]] minorities living in neighboring countries. Hungary's foreign policy priorities, largely consistent since 1990, represent a direct response to these factors. Since 1990, Hungary's top foreign policy goal has been achieving integration into Western economic and security organizations. To this end, Hungary joined NATO in 1999 and the European Union in May of 2004. Hungary also has improved its often-chilled neighborly relations by signing basic treaties with Romania, Slovakia, and Ukraine. These renounce all outstanding territorial claims and lay the foundation for constructive relations. However, the issue of ethnic Hungarian minority rights in Slovakia and Romania periodically causes bilateral tensions to flare. Hungary was a signatory to the Helsinki Final Act in 1975, has signed all of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE)/ Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) follow-on documents since 1989, and served as the OSCE's Chairman-in-Office in 1997. Hungary's record of implementing CSCE Helsinki Final Act provisions, including those on reunification of divided families, remains among the best in eastern Europe. Hungary has been a member of the United Nations since December 1955.

==Defense==
[[File:Hungary_cross.gif|left]]
Hungary's key national security focus since joining NATO in 1999 has been contributing to the stability of the region while integrating its armed forces into NATO's force structure. Hungary takes a keen interest in NATO expansion and in the transatlantic link. It shares a more acute sense of the threat than many other European countries and is watching events in the Balkans, Ukraine, and Russia with great interest. Hungarians believe that Hungary's own security and that of its ethnic minorities in neighboring countries will be best served by a peaceful, unified region, which will be achieved when EU and NATO membership is extended to the entire region.

Hungary has been slowly modernizing and downsizing its armed forces since it left the Warsaw Pact in 1990. Transitioning from a heavy, slow-moving Warsaw Pact force to a lighter, versatile NATO force, the Hungarian military has gone from 130,000 in 1989 to approximately 24,000 combat and combat support forces in 2008. Implementing a new training, logistics, and leadership system and a new Joint Forces Command structure, the Hungarian military has gained considerable practical experience working with NATO and other forces serving in international military missions (about 1,000 at any given time). Hungary was especially helpful during the implementation of the Dayton Peace Accords in the Balkans from 1995-2004, when its airbase at Taszar was used by coalition forces transiting the region. Hungary currently leads a Provisional Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Afghanistan, and has an Operational Mentoring and Liaison Team (OMLT), as well as Special Forces personnel, without caveat, in Afghanistan in 2009. A second OMLT is scheduled to deploy in 2010. The Hungarian military took over command of a joint battalion in the Balkans in 2008. Hungary’s Papa Airbase will be the home base of the Strategic Airlift Consortium’s C-17 operations, expanding its contribution to NATO and other European partners. Hungary’s military still faces numerous challenges to its modernization program, as reflected in the 2008 Hungarian defense budget, set at 1.17% of GDP, well below the NATO target of two percent.

==Economy==
Prior to World War II, the Hungarian economy was primarily oriented toward agriculture and small-scale manufacturing. Hungary's strategic position in Europe and its relative lack of natural resources dictated a traditional reliance on foreign trade. In the early 1950s, the communist government forced rapid industrialization following the standard Stalinist pattern in an effort to encourage a more self-sufficient economy. Most economic activity was conducted by state farms and state-owned enterprises or cooperatives. In 1968, Stalinist self-sufficiency was replaced by the "New Economic Mechanism," which gave limited freedom to the workings of the market, reopened Hungary to foreign trade, and allowed a limited number of small businesses to operate in the services sector.
[[File:Floodgate in Bekes Hungary.jpg|thumb|330px|Floodgate in Békés.]]
Although Hungary enjoyed one of the most liberal and economically advanced economies of the former Eastern Bloc, both agriculture and industry began to suffer from a lack of investment in the 1970s. Belated reaction to the economic crisis of the early 1970s and deteriorating terms of trade resulted in increasing indebtedness. In response, the Hungarian Government launched a restrictive economic policy in the late 1970s and early 1980s, followed by the “Dynamization Program of 1985,” which increased consumer subsidies and investments--mainly in unprofitable state enterprises--eventually leading to a doubling of foreign debt levels. By 1993, Hungary's net foreign debt rose significantly--from $1 billion in 1973 to $15 billion. Liberalization of the economy continued, however, and in 1988-89 Hungary passed a joint venture law, adopted tax legislation, and joined the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. By 1988, Hungary developed a two-tier banking system and enacted significant corporate legislation which paved the way for the ambitious market-oriented reforms of the post-communist years.
*GDP: HUF 27,220 billion (approx. $163.9 billion) ($1=HUF 172 - average exchange rate Jan.-Dec. 2008).
*Annual growth rate (2008 est.): 1.8%.
*Per capita GDP (2008 est.): $16,400.
*Natural resources: bauxite, coal, natural gas, fertile soils, arable land.
*Agriculture/forestry (2008 est., 3.4% of GDP): Products--meat, corn, wheat, sunflower seeds, potatoes, sugar beets, dairy products.
*Industry and construction (2008 est., 45.4% of GDP): Types--machinery, vehicles, chemicals, precision and measuring equipment, computer products, medical instruments, pharmaceuticals, textiles.
*Trade (2008): Exports ($95.0 billion)--machinery, vehicles, food, beverages, tobacco, crude materials, manufactured goods, fuels and electric energy. Imports ($94.9 billion)--machinery, vehicles, manufactured goods, fuels and electric energy, food, beverages, and tobacco. Major markets--EU (Germany, Austria, Italy, France, U.K., Romania, Poland). Major suppliers--EU (Germany, Austria, Italy, France, Netherlands, Poland), Russia, China.
[[File:Church of St. Anne in Budapest WC PD.jpg|thumb|left|240px|Church of St. Anne in Budapest.]]
The Antall government of 1990-94 began market reforms with price and trade liberation measures, a revamped tax system, and a nascent market-based banking system. As a result of the collapse of Eastern markets and the inability of state-owned companies to compete with foreign competitors, industrial production fell by 50% between 1989 and 1994, and the country faced high unemployment and inflation rates, as well as a deteriorating trade balance. By 1994, the costs of government overspending and hesitant privatization had become clearly visible. In 1996, austerity measures referred to as the “Bokros package” (for then-Finance Minister Lajos Bokros) improved both the fiscal and external balance situation, and increased investor confidence. Simplified and accelerated privatization led to significant inflow of foreign capital in industry, energy, and telecommunications sectors, and a number of greenfield investments were launched. Hungary's early openness to foreign direct investment (FDI) led to a sustained period of high growth and made Hungary a magnet for FDI in the late 1990s and early parts of this century.

In 1995, Hungary's currency--the forint (HUF)--became convertible for all current account transactions, and subsequent to Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) membership in 1996, for almost all capital account transactions as well. In 2001, the Orban government lifted remaining currency controls and broadened the band around the exchange rate, allowing the forint to appreciate by more than 12% in a year. Trade with European Union (EU) and OECD countries now comprises over 75% and 85% of Hungary's total trade, respectively. Germany is Hungary's most important trading partner, followed by Italy and France. The United States has become Hungary's sixth-largest export market, while Hungary is ranked as the 72nd-largest export market for the United States. Bilateral trade between the two countries has increased to more than $1 billion per year.

With more than $60 billion in FDI since 1989, Hungary has been a leading destination for FDI in central and eastern Europe, although this level is beginning to decline. The largest U.S. investors include GE, Alcoa, General Motors, Coca-Cola, Ford, IBM, and PepsiCo. As a result of extensive and continuing liberalization, the private sector produces about 80% of Hungary’s output.

Close relationship with the economies of the EU helped pave the way for Hungary's EU accession in 2004. As part of its EU membership agreement, Hungary agreed to meet the economic criteria necessary to adopt the euro. In 2005 and 2006, however, it became clear that not only was a high budget deficit hurting the economy (nearly surpassing 10% of GDP in 2006), but that Hungary was moving away from meeting euro entry requirements, and would be subject to EU excessive deficit procedures. Against this backdrop, in fall 2006, Prime Minister Gyurcsany launched a program of fiscal consolidation by raising taxes, decreasing subsidies, and streamlining the public sector. Businesses have complained, however, that increased taxes, particularly on labor, have decreased Hungary's economic competitiveness compared to other countries in the region. Greater fiscal discipline allowed the government to reduce its deficit to 3.4% of GDP by 2008, but decreasing government spending during this period also reduced domestic consumption and contributed to a decrease in Hungary's GDP growth.

In October 2008, the effects of the global financial crisis spilled over into Hungary. Despite its success in reducing its fiscal deficit, years of high budget deficits and Hungary’s high external debt levels fueled investor risk aversion, and negatively affected the foreign exchange, government securities, and equity markets in Hungary. The country was hit hard by global de-leveraging, and weak demand for government bonds. A sharp decline in the share of non-resident investors in the government securities market raised concerns that Hungary would be unable to meet its external financing requirements. In order to increase investor confidence and ensure liquidity in domestic financial markets, Hungary concluded a $25 billion financial stabilization package with the IMF, EU, and World Bank in November 2008.
[[File:Cupola of the St. Stephen s Basilica in Budapest Hungary.jpg|thumb|Cupola of the St. Stephen's Basilica in Budapest.]]
Under the agreement, Hungary committed to further fiscal consolidation, financial sector reforms, and enacting banking sector support measures. Terms also include periodic assessment of macroeconomic and fiscal targets. The second review under the agreement took place in May 2009. Taking into consideration the worsening global economic and financial crisis, the IMF and the EU revised their projections of Hungary’s GDP decline in 2009 to minus 6.7%, and agreed to increasing the 2.9% deficit target to 3.9% for 2009. Public debt is expected to increase to 83% of GDP in 2009 before fiscal tightening returns it to more sustainable levels. The government bond market has yet to fully recover, although the Hungarian Debt Management Agency (AKK) successfully re-launched regular bond auctions in spring 2009.

To respond to the crisis, the Bajnai government has enacted a series of economic reforms and spending cuts intended to reduce the tax burden on labor, encourage employment, improve Hungary's economic competitiveness, and offset lost government revenue due to the deeper-than-expected recession. These measures include reforms to the pension and entitlement systems, as well as tax changes to shift the tax burden from labor to wealth and consumption. In addition to cuts in taxes for businesses and employees, tax changes include raising the value added tax (VAT), and a proposal for the introduction of a property tax.

==History==
See [[History of Hungary]]

[[File:Von.jpg|thumb|[[John von Neumann]]]]
Hungary has long been an integral part of Europe. It converted to Western Christianity before AD 1000. Although Hungary was a monarchy for nearly 1,000 years, its constitutional system preceded by several centuries the establishment of Western-style governments in other European countries.

Following the defeat of the Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy (1867-1918) at the end of [[World War I]], Hungary lost two-thirds of its territory and nearly as much of its population. It experienced a brief but bloody communist dictatorship under [[Bela Kuhn]] in 1919, followed by a 25-year regency under Adm. Miklos Horthy. Although Hungary fought in most of World War II as a German ally, it fell under German military occupation following an unsuccessful attempt to switch sides on October 15, 1944. Under occupation, the Hungarian Government deported or executed and seized the property of hundreds of thousands of its minority citizens, mostly members of the Jewish community. On January 20, 1945, a provisional government concluded an armistice with the Soviet Union and established the Allied Control Commission, under which Soviet, American, and British representatives held complete sovereignty over the country. The Commission's chairman was a member of Stalin's inner circle and exercised absolute control.

====Communist Takeover====
[[File:Statue of Ságvári Endre Hungary.JPG|thumb|left|Statue in Makó of Endre Ságvári (b. 1913, in Budapest; died there July 27, 1944.), Hungarian communist activist.]]
The provisional government, dominated by the Hungarian communist party (MKP), was replaced in November 1945 after elections which gave majority control of a coalition government to the Independent Smallholders' Party. The government instituted a radical land reform and gradually nationalized mines, electric plants, heavy industries, and some large banks. The communists ultimately undermined the coalition regime by discrediting leaders of rival parties and through terror, blackmail, and framed trials. In elections tainted by fraud in 1947, the leftist bloc gained control of the government.

By February 1949, all opposition parties had been forced to merge with the MKP to form the Hungarian Workers' Party. In 1949, the communists held a single-list election and adopted a Soviet-style constitution, which created the Hungarian People's Republic. Between 1948 and 1953, the Hungarian economy was reorganized according to the Soviet model. In 1949 and the country joined the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA, or Comecon.) All private industrial firms with more than 10 employees were nationalized. Freedom of the press, religion, and assembly were strictly curtailed. The head of the Roman Catholic Church, Cardinal Jozsef Mindszenty, was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Forced industrialization and land collectivization soon led to serious economic difficulties, which reached crisis proportions by mid-1953. Imre Nagy replaced Rakosi as prime minister in 1953 and repudiated much of Rakosi's economic program of forced collectivization and heavy industry. He also ended political purges and freed thousands of political prisoners. However, the economic situation continued to deteriorate, and Rakosi succeeded in disrupting the reforms and in forcing Nagy from power in 1955 for "right-wing revisionism." Hungary joined the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact Treaty Organization the same year.
{{Clear}}

====1956 Revolution====
[[File:Budapest Hungarian revolution 1956 memorial.jpg|thumb|280px|Budapest, Hungarian revolution 1956 memorial, nearby Parliament building.]]
Pressure for change reached a climax on October 23, 1956, when security forces fired on Budapest students marching in support of Poland's confrontation with the Soviet Union. The ensuing battle quickly grew into a massive popular uprising. Fighting did not abate until the Central Committee named Imre Nagy as prime minister on October 25. Nagy dissolved the state security police, abolished the one-party system, promised free elections, and negotiated with the U.S.S.R. to withdraw its troops.

Faced with reports of new Soviet troops pouring into Hungary, despite Soviet Ambassador Andropov's assurances to the contrary, on November 1 Nagy announced Hungary's neutrality and withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact. In response, the Soviet Union launched a massive military attack on Hungary on November 3. Some 200,000 Hungarians fled to the West. Nagy and his colleagues took refuge in the Yugoslav Embassy. Party First Secretary Janos Kadar, defected from the Nagy cabinet, fleeing to the Soviet Union. On November 4 he announced the formation of a new government. He returned to Budapest and, with Soviet support, carried out severe reprisals; thousands of people were executed or imprisoned. Despite a guarantee of safe conduct, Nagy was arrested and deported to Romania. In June 1958, following a closed trial, the government announced that Nagy and other former officials had been executed.

====Reform Under Kadar====
In the early 1960s, Kadar announced a new policy under the motto of "He who is not against us is with us," and introduced a relatively liberal cultural and economic course aimed at overcoming the post-1956 hostility toward him and his regime. In 1966, the Central Committee approved the "New Economic Mechanism," through which it sought to overcome the inefficiencies of central planning, increase productivity, make Hungary more competitive in world markets, and create prosperity to ensure political stability. By the early 1980s, it had achieved some lasting economic reforms and limited political liberalization and pursued a foreign policy which encouraged more trade with the West. Nevertheless, the New Economic Mechanism led to mounting foreign debt incurred to shore up unprofitable industries.

====Transition to Democracy====
Hungary's transition to a Western-style parliamentary democracy was the first and the smoothest among the former Soviet bloc. By 1987, activists within the party and bureaucracy and Budapest-based intellectuals were increasing pressure for change. Young liberals formed the Federation of Young Democrats (Fidesz); a core from the so-called Democratic Opposition formed the Association of Free Democrats (SZDSZ), and the neo-populist national opposition established the Hungarian Democratic Forum (MDF). Civic activism intensified to a level not seen since the 1956 revolution.

In 1988, Kadar was replaced as General Secretary of the MKP, and that same year, the Parliament adopted a "democracy package," which included trade union pluralism; freedom of association, assembly, and the press; a new electoral law; and a radical revision of the constitution, among others. The Soviet Union reduced its involvement by signing an agreement in April 1989 to withdraw Soviet forces by June 1991.

National unity culminated in June 1989 as the country reburied Imre Nagy, his associates, and, symbolically, all other victims of the 1956 revolution. A national roundtable, comprising representatives of the new parties and some recreated old parties--such as the Smallholders and Social Democrats--the communist party, and different social groups, met in the late summer of 1989 to discuss major changes to the Hungarian constitution in preparation for free elections and the transition to a fully free and democratic political system.

====Free Elections and a Democratic Hungary====
The first free parliamentary election, held in May 1990, was a plebiscite of sorts on the communist past with the Democratic Forum (MDF) winning 43% of the vote and the Free Democrats (SZDSZ) capturing 24%. Under Prime Minister Jozsef Antall, the MDF formed a center-right coalition government with the Independent Smallholders' Party (FKGP) and the Christian Democratic People's Party (KDNP) to command a 60% majority in the Parliament. Parliamentary opposition parties included SZDSZ, the Socialists (MSZP), and the Alliance of Young Democrats (Fidesz). Peter Boross succeeded as Prime Minister after Antall died and the Antall/Boross coalition governments achieved a reasonably well-functioning parliamentary democracy and laid the foundation for a free market economy.
[[File:Tibor Rubin The U.S. Army - Medal of Honor Hungarian.jpg|thumb|left|320px|The U.S. Army - Medal of Honor: Cpl. Tibor Rubin.]]
In May 1994, the Socialists came back to win a plurality of votes and 54% of the seats after an election campaign focused largely on economic issues and the substantial decline in living standards since 1990. A heavy turnout of voters swept away the right-of-center coalition but soundly rejected extremists on both right and left. The MSZP continued economic reforms and privatization, adopting a painful but necessary policy of fiscal austerity (the "Bokros plan") in 1995. However, dissatisfaction with the pace of economic recovery, rising crime, and cases of government corruption convinced voters to propel center-right parties into power following national elections in May 1998. The Federation of Young Democrats (renamed Fidesz-Hungarian Civic Party (MPP) in 1995) captured a plurality of parliamentary seats and forged a coalition with the Smallholders and the Democratic Forum. The new government, headed by 35-year-old Prime Minister Viktor Orban, promised to stimulate faster growth, curb inflation, and lower taxes. Although the Orban administration also pledged continuity in foreign policy, and continued to pursue Euro-Atlantic integration as its first priority, it was a more vocal advocate of minority rights for ethnic Hungarians abroad than the previous government.

In April 2002, the country voted to return the MSZP-Free Democrat coalition to power. The Medgyessy government placed special emphasis on solidifying Hungary's Euro-Atlantic course, which culminated in Hungary’s accession to the European Union on May 1, 2004. Prime Minister Medgyessy resigned in August 2004 after losing coalition support following an attempted cabinet reshuffle. Ferenc Gyurcsany succeeded Medgyessy as Prime Minister in September 29, 2004.

In the April 2006 election, Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany and his Socialist-liberal coalition were re-elected, the first time since communism that a sitting government renewed its mandate. Currently, the MSZP is ruling as a minority government, as the SZDSZ pulled out of the coalition in April 2008. Prime Minister Gyurcsany resigned in March 2009, succeeded by Gordon Bajnai, former Minister of Economy and National Development. The present configuration of Parliament includes MSZP with 189 seats, SZDSZ with 19 seats, Fidesz with 139 seats, KDNP with 23 seats, and 15 independent Members of Parliament. One seat is currently vacant, awaiting a by-election in June 2009. Following the dissolution of the coalition with SZDSZ, Prime Minister Gyurcsany reduced the number of ministries in the cabinet from 17 to 13.

==See also==
*[[Magyar]]
*[[History of Hungary]]
*[[Szekely-Hungarian Rovas]]
*[[Carpathian Basin Rovas]]

{| style="width: 100%; background:transparent; border: 2px solid #000099;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"
!colspan=2 style="width: 100%; text-align: center; background-color: #000088; color: white; "|'''Copyright Details'''
|-
!style="background-color: #000088; color:white;"|License:
|style=" background-color: none;"| This work is in the [[Public Domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code
|-
!style=" background-color: #000088; color:white;"|Source:
|style="background-color: none;border-top: 2px solid black"| File available from the {{{1|[[United States Federal Government]] [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/26566.htm]}}}.
|}

{{European Union}}

[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:Central Europe]]
[[Category:Landlocked Countries]]

Alternative Rock

2012-06-15T16:19:01Z

FrederickT3:

'''Alternative Rock''' is a musical genre that emerged from the underground culture in the [[1980s|80's]] and became popular in the [[1990s|90's]].
While it is usually considered as a sub-style of [[rock]], the style finds some influences from [[folk music|folkloric music]], [[reggae]], [[electro]], [[jazz]] and many other styles.

[[Category:Rock Music]]

Talk:'s-Hertogenbosch

2012-06-15T16:08:44Z

FrederickT3: /* Article move */

Gelderland

2012-06-14T20:56:32Z

FrederickT3: capitalize

'''Gelderland''' is a province of the east-central [[Netherlands]]. It borders [[Germany]] to the east, and extends north to the [[Ijsselmeer]]. Gelderland includes the major cities of [[Nijmegen]] and [[Arnhem]], as well as the extensive heathland known as the Veluwe, now a [[national park]].

[[Category:Netherlands]]
{{Template:Provinces of the Netherlands}}

Liberal

2012-06-14T20:54:19Z

FrederickT3: Undo revision 986312 by Damncommies (talk)

[[File:President Barack Obama.jpg|thumbnail|right|180px|President [[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]] despite the fact that John Maynard Keynes was incompetent and a fraud.<ref>
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
*[http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/01/keyness-jew-boy-quickie/220620/ Keynes's "Jew Boy" Quickie, The Atlantic]
</ref> ]]
[[File:Johnwaynegacyrosalynncarter.jpg|right|300px|thumbnail|[[Serial killer]] [[John Wayne Gacy]] was a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with First Lady [[Rosalynn Carter]] in 1978. In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, John Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref>]]

A '''liberal''' is someone who favors [[censorship]] of [[Christianity]] plus increased government spending and power, as in [[ObamaCare]]. Increasingly liberals side with the [[homosexual agenda]], including [[same-sex marriage]]. Many liberals favor a [[welfare state]] where people receive endless entitlements without working. Liberals are often anti-Christian, or otherwise disagree with moral or social principles held by many American [[Christian|Christians]]. The liberal ideology has worsened over the years and degenerated into economically delusional views and intolerant ideology. Some liberals simply support, in knee-jerk fashion, the opposite of [[conservative]] principles without having any meaningful values of their own.

Polling data has consistently shown that an increasingly percentage of Americans identify as conservative than as liberal, currently by a ratio of 2:1.<ref>http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1042/winds-of-political-change-havent--shifted-publics-ideology-balance</ref>

The decline in liberal principles can be illustrated by how [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred from the private to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties. Yet today, decades later, [[Democrats]] and liberals are in lock-step with public sector unions, as they "donate" money to the reelection campaign in exchange for more taxpayer money in their wallets and fluffed up pensions.

A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices:

* Spending money on government programs (the significant economic problems in the [[Eurozone]] due to government debt will no doubt increasingly discredit this aspect of liberal ideology and make things more difficult for advocates of liberal economic ideologies)
* Government solving economic problems<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* The belief that terrorism is not a huge threat, and that the only reason Muslim extremists hate us is because of bad foreign policy <ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized [[abortion]]
* Censorship of teacher-led [[prayer]] in classrooms and school/state-sponsored religious events
* Support for [[gun control]]
* Affirmative action<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Support of obscenity, pornography and violence in video games as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* Government-funded medical care, such as [[Obamacare]]
* Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled [[public education]]
* The denial of traditional [[gender roles]]
* Insisting that men and women be placed in the same jobs in the [[military]]
* Legalized [[same-sex marriage]] and homosexual adoption
* [[Tax and spend]]
* Support for economic sector regulations<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Support and spreading of [[political correctness]]
* Support of non-syndicalist [[labor union|labor unions]]
* Encouraging promiscuity through sexual education (the teaching of safe sex) rather than teaching [[abstinence]] from premarital sex<ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* A "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended
* Government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* Abolition of the death penalty
* [[Environmentalism]]<ref> and environmental organizations, for example [[Greenpeace]]</ref>
* [[Globalism]]
* Opposition to the integration of church and state.
* Opposition to full private property rights.<ref> For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref>
* Reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution]].
* Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the [[Patriot Act]]
* Opposition of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]], a major part of the [[War on Terrorism]]
* Withholds support to the [[War on Terrorism]] and the [[War in Iraq]]
* Tolerance of different ideas and lifestyles
* Supports financially irresponsible policies
* Following policies which are proven to be incorrect
* Do not support a laissez-faire capitalist economy and support regulation of business
* Encouragement of [[Global Warming|global warming alarmism]]

Liberals currently use two clauses to try and expand their power: the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause. The general welfare clause mentions "promoting the general welfare". This to a liberal means taxing the rich out of existence and redistributing that money. The commerce clause on the other hand is in the constitution and says that Congress has the power to regulate trade with foreign nations, between the states and with the indian tribes. Since the days of FDR this clause has been interpreted very loosely and has resulted in the federal government vastly expanding its power. The latest example is [[Obamacare]]. In Obamacare, the liberals justify the individual mandate by saying it regulates commerce between the states. This is clearly a stretched interpretation of the clause as there is a difference between regulating commerce and forcing citizens to participate in commerce that Congress can regulate.

Current dictionaries sugarcoat the liberal ideology by pretending that a liberal is "a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties" or "a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets,"<ref>http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=liberal&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=00</ref> or "open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc." or "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties."<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref> In practical usage, the term "liberal" is more closely synonymous with "immoral," "anti-freedom," or "bad."

==Liberals and Uncharitableness==
[[Image:228130875 35181424e3.jpg|thumb|right|175px|[[United States|American]] liberals give less to charity than American conservatives.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> In addition, [[per capita]] [[atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] in the United States [[Atheism and charity|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2] ]]
''For more information please see'': [[Liberals and uncharitableness]] and [[Atheism and charity]]

In March of 2008, [[George Will]] wrote at [[RealClearPolitics]] concerning the [[United States]]:
{{cquote|Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at [[Syracuse University]], published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than [[conservative]]s....

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref>}}
[[Atheism|Atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] often reject [[Bible|Biblical]] [[morality]] (and therefore [[conservative Christianity]] ) and hold to [[moral relativism]].<ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152</ref> Therefore, it is not surprising that [[per capita]] atheists and agnostics in [[United States|America]] [[Atheism and charity|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2]

=== Liberal politicians and uncharitableness ===
The political magazine the [[American Spectator]] featured an article which focused on [[liberal politicians and uncharitableness]] exposing the hypocrisy of the liberal politicians it featured.<ref>http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c5_1238044128&c=1</ref>

In addition, [[Barack Obama]] has been criticized concerning [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|his lack of charitable giving]].

== Liberalism and bestiality ==

See also: [[Liberalism and bestiality]]

[[File:Peter-Singer.jpg|right|thumbnail|260px|The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of [[bestiality]] (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]]). Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> See: [[Atheism and bestiality]] ]]
[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of bestiality (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]])<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref>. Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]] (Princeton University is a very liberal school - see: [[Liberalism and bestiality]]).<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> Peter Singer was installed as the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University in 1999 and in 2006 it was reported that he still worked part-time in that capacity. <ref>[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview]</ref> In 2006, it was also reported that Singer worked part-time as Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne in the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics since 2005.<ref>[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview]</ref>

Joe Carter's ''[[First Things]]'' article entitled ''The Dangerous Mind'' declares concerning Peter Singer declared:
{{cquote|Singer has spent a lifetime justifying the unjustifiable. He is the founding father of the [[Animal rights|animal liberation movement]] and advocates ending “the present speciesist bias against taking seriously the interests of nonhuman animals.” He is also a defender of killing the aged (if they have dementia), newborns (for almost any reason until they are two years old), necrophilia (assuming it’s consensual), and bestiality (also assuming it’s consensual).<ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref>}}

On October 5, 2011, the British newspaper The Telegraph wrote an article which discussed how homosexuality "rights" have emboldened individuals to ask for so called bestiality "rights" (see: [[Homosexuality and bestiality]]).<ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100108943/the-gay-rights-movement-has-emboldened-americas-bestiality-advocates/ The dark side of sexual freedom: American 'zoophiles' take on the language of equality - October 5, 2011 - The Telegraph]</ref>

In 2010, the liberal state of [[Washington]] has the highest number of reported cases of bestiality in the United States even though it was merely the 13th most populous state according to the 2010 United States census. (for more information please see: [[Washington state and bestiality]]).<ref>[http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/cruelty_database/statistics/state_ranking.php?year=2010&search=go Pet Abuse -2010]</ref><ref>[http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-pop-text.php 2010 United States Census data]</ref><ref>[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/25/new-poll-identifies-most-liberal-and-conservative-states/ 2011 Political map - CNN]</ref>

In 2005, four legislators in the liberal state of [[Massachusetts]] tried to soften it bestiality laws.<ref>[Massachusetts bill to repeal fornication, adultery, and blasphemy, and to soften bestiality laws]</ref>
[[File:NBC Tower.jpg|thumbnail|200px|[[LifeSiteNews]] reported:"In 46 hours of programming, [[NBC]] contained only one reference to marital sex, but 11 references to non-marital sex and one reference to [[adultery]] were made. References to incest, pedophilia, partner swapping, prostitution, threesomes, transsexuals/transvestites, [[bestiality]], and necrophilia combined outnumbered references to sex in marriage on NBC by a ratio of 27 to 1.<ref>[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/aug/08080602 Study Finds TV Treats Marital Sex as Burdensome, Adultery as Positive]</ref> See also: [[Liberalism and bestiality]] ]]
The Bible says that bestiality is a perversion and, under the [[Old Testament]] [[Pentateuch|Jewish Law]], punishable by death (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]]). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]]).

A study found that "Psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55%) of bestiality than the control groups (10% and 15% respectively)."<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1778686 A prevalence study of bestiality (zoophilia) in psychiatric in-patients, medical in-patients, and psychiatric staff - Int J Psychosom. 1991;38(1-4):45-7.]</ref> The atheist population [[Atheism and suicide|has a higher suicide rate]] and [[Atheism and marriageability|lower marriage rates]] than the general population (see: [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and marriageability]] and [[Atheism and health]]). In addition, ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men.<ref>http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/08/socially-autistic-atheist.html</ref>

For more information please see:

*[[Atheism and bestiality]]

*[[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

*[[Liberalism and bestiality]]

*[[Homosexuality and bestiality]]

*[[Liberal American entertainment industry and bestiality]]

*[[Wikipedia on bestiality]]

*[[Bestiality and Sweden|Liberal Sweden and bestiality]]

*[[Bestiality and Britain|Godless Britain and bestiality]]

*[[Denmark, Sweden, evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

*[[Netherlands and bestiality|The liberal Netherlands and bestiality]]

*[[Skeptic Skatje Myers' comments on bestiality]]

*[[Joseph Stalin's ape-men experiments]]
=== Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant ===

''See also:'' [[Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant]]

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. A crowd at Occupy Wall Street was led to repeat various chants which included a chant involving bestiality and the incident was videotaped.<ref>[http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-10-greatest-moments-from-the-occupy-wall-street-protests-so-far/ The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far]</ref>

Below is an excerpt of the chant:
{{cquote|Everything seems to be possible. [Crowd Parrot Chant] You can travel to the moon. [CPC] You can become immortal [CPC] by biogenetics. You can have sex with animals, or whatever. [CPC].<ref>[http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-10-greatest-moments-from-the-occupy-wall-street-protests-so-far/ The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far]</ref>}}

==Liberals and Superstition==
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|right|150px]]

The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html]</ref>

Also, in September of 2008, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:
{{cquote|The reality is that the [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] campaign, by discouraging [[religion]], won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith — it's what the empirical data tell us.

"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians....

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in [[pseudoscience]], cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>}}

== Liberalism in the United States Today ==
[[File:Smear merchants.jpg|right|200px]]
[[Democrats]] and most media outlets in the [[U.S.]] are blatantly liberal.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp|title=Media Bias basics|publisher=Media Research Center}}</ref> Liberalism in North America today practices three primary tactics to attack the Republican Party, and sometimes to attack American values in general. These three liberal tactics can be pronounced using the following [[acronym]]: SIN. Liberals (1) '''s'''hift the subject, they (2) '''i'''gnore the facts, and they (3) '''n'''ame call.<ref>Scott Baker. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-herman-cain-give-the-dont-miss-speech-at-cpac/ Did Herman Cain Give the ‘Don’t Miss’ Speech at CPAC?], ''[[The Blaze]], February 12, 2011.</ref><ref>[[YouTube]]. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N3-j3HM7-A& Herman Cain: "Stupid People Are Ruining America"], February 11, 2011.</ref>

* Liberals typically support a "mixed" economy, a policy similar to that of [[fascism]]. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://fora.tv/2008/01/30/Liberal_Traits_of_Fascism|title=Video discussion about how modern liberalism is actually fascist by author Jonah Goldberg.}}</ref>

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on [[compassion]], [[decency]], and [[social justice]] (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of [[civic virtue]] against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_disgrace_of_liberalism.html]
{{cquote|There's another goal, from my point of view, which is to try to lay the groundwork for a radical political force which would conceive of itself as distinctly to the left of moderate, reformist American liberals. And that has two aspects. One is to try to change that liberalism, to transform it by analysis, critique, and activism; the second is to build a radical movement which would be an autonomous force in its own right, which would be distinct from the traditional American liberal consensus. This radical part of the program involves not simply supporting the liberal students against conservative students and conservative professors, but trying to act on them, to push them to the left. It also involves trying to find and support, even trying to help create, networks of radical students in law school and of radical professors around the country — students and teachers who see themselves as wanting to go a lot further than most people want to go. <ref> [http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=liberal+teachers&fr=yfp-t-501&fp_ip=MX&u=duncankennedy.net/documents/Liberal%2520Values%2520in%2520Legal%2520Education.pdf&w=liberal+liberals+teachers+teacher&d=BNZFhPReRjC1&icp=1&.intl=us Liberal Values in Legal Education] Duncan Kennedy (professor at Harvard Law School)</ref>}}

===Liberal Rankings of Congress Members===

The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of the United States [[Congress]] is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.

=== American liberalism, demographics and expected tipping point in the decline of American liberalism ===
''
See also:'' [[American atheism]] and [[Decline of atheism]] and [[Global atheism]]

Due to the explosive growth of [[global Christianity]] in traditional cultures and their influence on Western [[Christianity]] and the higher birth rate of [[Conservative Christianity|conservative Christians]] and religious conservatives, social conservatism is expected to rise.

The Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book ''Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth?'' concerning America:
{{cquote|High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will to tip the balance in the [[Culture War|culture wars]] towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as abortion. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/05/why-are-years-2012-and-2020-key-years.html Why are 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?]</ref>}}

==Liberalism in Europe today==

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is a party of the European Parliament that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world,<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref> such as the Liberal Party of Australia.<ref>[http://www.liberal.org.au/]</ref>

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians for promoting lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them "liberals" or [[neoliberal|neoliberals]]. Thus, just as in the US, "liberal" may occasionally be used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called "liberal" in Europe, it has an entirely different meaning than in the US. In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy|social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>

==Historical Liberalism ==
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref>

==Original meaning: Classical Liberalism==
Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and tradition.

See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].

== Infamous liberals ==

''See also:'' [[Infamous liberals]]

* [[Margaret Sanger]]

*[[John Wayne Gacy]] - In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, [[serial killer]] John Wayne Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref> Gacy was also a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with [[Rosalynn Carter]].<ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/image/45527</ref>

==Liberal Organizations ==
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]]
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[ACORN|ACORN - Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now]]
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.|ANSWER - Act Now to Stop War and End Racism]]
*[[CAIR|CAIR - Council on American-Islamic Relations]]
*[[Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism]]
*[[Democratic National Committee]]
*[[Greenpeace]]
*[[MoveOn.org]]
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]
*[[National Education Association]]
*[[National Organization of Women|NOW - National Organization of Women]]
*[[PETA|PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]]
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]
*[[Progressives for Obama]]
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]
*[[SEIU|SEIU - Service Employees International Union]]
*[[U.S. Peace Council]]
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]

==Quotes on Liberals==
"I never use the words [[Democrats]] and [[Republicans]]. It's [[liberals]] and [[Americans]]." -James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under [[Ronald Reagan]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==See Also==

* [[Conservative resources]]
* [[Conservapedia:Articles about liberals|Articles about liberals]]
* [[Classical liberal]]
* [[Drinking Liberally]]
* [[Godless liberal]]
* [[Last wordism]]
* [[Essay:Liberal celebrity obsession|Liberal celebrity obsession]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia|Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]
* [[Liberal Christianity]]
* [[Liberal Democrats]]
* [[Liberal Elite]]
* [[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|Liberal Falsehoods]]
* [[Liberal Fascism]]
* [[Liberal friendship]]
* [[Liberal Gloss]]
* [[Liberal grading]]
* [[Liberal hypocrisy]]
* [[Essay:Liberal hysteria|Liberal hysteria]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Intellectualism|Liberal Intellectualism]]
* [[Liberal labels]]
* [[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right|Liberal Lies About the American Right]]
* [[Liberal logic]]
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|Liberal Mind]]
* [[Liberal Party]]
* [[Liberal supremacist]]
* [[Massachusetts liberal]]
* [[Progressives]]
* [[Scientific Illiteracy and Liberals]]

==Further Information==
* [[Best_New_Conservative_Words#New_Liberal_Terms|New Liberal Terms]]
* [[Conservative Links]]
* http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Political Ideologies]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category: Liberals]]

Global warming

2012-06-14T20:53:15Z

FrederickT3: Undo revision 986314 by Damncommies (talk)

[[Image:NASA-1024x933.jpg|thumb|right|250px|A composite map of [[Antarctica]] showing areas of greatest warming in red. The Wilkins Ice Shelf lies off the peninsula in the top left corner, and shows extensive warming. Overall, Antarctica shows little warming, and many areas to the East (right) are cooling<ref>Roberts, Greg. "Antarctic Ice is Growing, Not Melting Away." April 18, 2009. http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is-growing-not-melting-away/story-0-1225700043191</ref>.]]
'''Global warming''' is the [[liberal]] hoax<ref>Cringing Over Climategate [http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/01/climategate-scandal-science-obama-opinions-columnists-shikha-dalmia.html Forbes], 12/2/2009</ref><ref>Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate [http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/ Forbes], 11/23/2011</ref> that the world is becoming dangerously warmer due to the human pollution of greenhouse gasses, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Liberals have used this theory of [[Global warming theory|man-made global warming]] to justify demands for a more powerful government and that the government needs to assert more controls over energy production and consumption in order to stop the Earth from warming. Although 2005 and 2010 are the warmest years on record,<ref>[http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2010-warmest-year.html NASA Research Finds 2010 Tied for Warmest Year on Record, Jan. 12 2011, NASA]</ref> historically, natural periods of global warming and global cooling have alternated, and not long ago liberals were demanding more government control to combat an alleged cooling in temperatures, with some scientists warning of a possible ice age.<ref>''Science: Another Ice Age?'' Time magazine, Monday, Jun. 24, 1974</ref> [[Global cooling]], a theory that predates global warming, obviously occurs naturally many times throughout [[Earth|Earth's]] geological history.<ref>"After any given warming phase begins, thousands of years later the cyclical [[Milankovitch]] decrease in the sun's heat kicks in. The warming stops, reverses and an [[ice age]] ensues." [http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn06092007.html Counterpunch], June 2007</ref> The ease of refutation of anthropogenic global cooling claims foretells the eventual fate of the current global warming hysteria.

Many political activists use the term "global warming" to refer to [[anthropogenic global warming theory]] (AGW), which asserts that human activity such as spewing "[[greenhouse gases]]" is causing an increase in temperature and is more significant than natural causes and cycles. The AGW theory is supported by left-leaning political parties, as well as a majority of sovereign states, national agencies, and an intergovernmental panel (see [[IPCC]]). The reality is that there is no immediate global crisis, and even dire warnings by the UN's [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] (IPCC) admit that significant effects will not be manifested for at least 100 years. Predictions made by [[climate model]]s publicized by the IPCC have not come to pass in recent years. Many scientists, such as Hal Lewis, have decried global warming as a conspiracy for the purpose of securing trillions of dollars in grant money.

In November 2009, emails were disclosed that implicated a wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming. Prior to [[ClimateGate]], both the Republican and Democratic party Platforms in 2008 suggested that global warming is happening, that it is caused by human activity, and that it should be counteracted. For example, in 2007, the Republican presidential candidate Senator [[John McCain]] called global warming "an issue we can no longer afford to ignore".<ref>[http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/John_McCain_Environment.htm]</ref> In 2010, an independent analysis cleared the scientists involved of any wrongdoing, but the effects of the scandal still linger.<ref>Hilary Whiteman. [http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/07/07/climategate.email.review/?hpt=Sbin 'Climategate' review clears scientists of dishonesty], ''CNN World'', July 07, 2010.</ref>

The unsuccessful Democratic candidate for President in 2000, [[Al Gore]], won a [[Nobel Prize]] in 2007 for claiming that there is a dangerous man-made global warming that threatens the world. However, it has since been revealed that he convinced many people through inaccurate information in his "documentary," i.e., he only won the Nobel Prize by lying.<ref>Citation needed</ref>

==Science of Global Warming==
===Presence of CO2===

One of the primary concerns of Global Warming research is the increased presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Original claims stated that the increase in carbon dioxide - which is a greenhouse gas - were caused primarily through the burning of [[fossil fuels]], and that such increases were the foremost cause of global temperatures rising. Historically, Global temperature changes precede changes in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.<ref> [http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm]</ref>

The most obvious way that this would occur would be through the evaporation of ocean water. The oceans are the single largest storage unit for carbon dioxide gas on the planet, containing about 93% of the Earth's carbon dioxide. <ref> [http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html] </ref> As temperatures rise, ocean water evaporates, causing the dissolved carbon dioxide gas to enter the atmosphere, and begin trapping radiation from the sun. Scientists now believe that this cycle causes a sort of chain effect, where increased temperature causes more carbon dioxide to enter the atmosphere, which in turn causes more temperature rise.

It is also noteworthy to point out that carbon dioxide, while not as abundant in the atmosphere, has a more significant effect on global warming than water vapor does. Carbon dioxide cannot form clouds, as water vapor does. When water vapor forms clouds, those clouds actually block some of the sun's radiation from reaching the Earth, causing water vapor to both contribute positively and negatively to global temperature rise. Carbon dioxide can only act as a greenhouse gas, causing the above mentioned cyclic effect. The current concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is about 392 ppm, which is the highest it has been in at least 800,000 years.<ref>"Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" [http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/mlo.html NOAA], December 2011</ref>

===The Modern Warm Period===

The Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970.
<ref>Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, "Global warming is now 0.6 °C [1.0 °F] in the past three decades and 0.8 °C [1.4 °F] in the past century." http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/</ref> Studies have ruled out the possibility that errors in the measurements and sampling significantly affect the temperature trends detected over the past century. This accounts for spatial errors in the sampling and thus also incorporates errors associated with the urban-heating effect. According to Karl et al. (1993) ''"Results imply that the errors associated with century-scale trends of temperature are probably an order of magnitude smaller than the observed global warming of nearly 0.5°C per 100 years since the late nineteenth century"'' <ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JCli....7.1144K Karl et al. (1993) 'Global and Hemispheric Temperature Trends: Uncertainties Related to Inadequate Spatial Sampling' in Journal of Climate, 7(7); 1144 - 1168</ref>

According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.

Recent studies of the Milankovitch Cycles, which predict Earth's climate by studying changes in its orbit and axial tilt, suggest that we are currently 18,000 years into a 150,000 year period between ice ages. This would imply that we should expect the temperature to be rising anyway. A 2002 study by Berger and Loutre suggests 50,000 years of warmer weather before Earth begins to cool again, but that model incorroprated anthropogenic forces and concluded:
<blockquote>While combinations of natural forcings produce a gradual warming up to about 1960, none of them leads to a warming over the last 30 years (this period containing three major volcanic eruptions). In contrast, simulations incorporating only anthropogenic forcings reproduce the warming over the last three decades at a rate consistent with that observed, but underestimate the early 20th century warming. As a consequence, only the use of both natural and anthropogenic forcings allows to reproduce much of the observed decadal scale variations of the annual mean hemispheric temperature over the last 150 years.<ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0870.2002.00287.x/full] Climate of the last millennium: a sensitivity study, May 2002</ref></blockquote>

It should be noted, however, that computer simulated climate models are often tweaked so they agree with the historical temperature record. There is no way to completely simulate all of the Earth's climate with a computer program.

===Sun Spots===
Sunspot activity is a factor in climate fluctuations, however, little details were known about how much of an impact these fluctuations had on the Earth's climate. During the deepest solar minimum ever recorded, from 2005 to 2010, NASA measured the Earth's energy balance, i.e. the amount of energy absorbed by the sun subtract the amount of energy lost to radiation into space. They concluded:
<blockquote>If the Sun were the only climate forcing or the dominant climate forcing, then the planet would gain energy during the solar maxima, but lose energy during solar minima. The fact that Earth gained energy at a rate 0.58 W/m2 during a deep prolonged solar minimum reveals that there is a strong positive forcing overwhelming the negative forcing by below-average solar irradiance. That result is not a surprise, given knowledge of other forcings, but it provides unequivocal refutation of assertions that the Sun is the dominant climate forcing. <ref>[http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/ NASA: Earth's Energy Imbalance] nasa.gov, January, 2012</ref></blockquote>
However, just because the sun isn't the dominate force, doesn't mean that it doesn't nonetheless have a significant impact upon the Earth's climate.

==Economics of Global Warming==
===Unnecessary Expansion of Government===
The idea of dangerous anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) is promoted by liberals and socialists seeking greater government control over the production and use of energy, which is a substantial percentage of the economy. In economic terms, they would like to 'internalize' the 'externality,' which is to say that they think that producers of emissions should be directly connected to the consequences of those emissions, leading syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer to warn of an impending ''Environmental Shakedown''.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/11/copenhagen_shakedown.html</ref>

==Public Stances on Global Warming==
===Politicization of the Issue===

Environmentalists and their political allies have presented a one-sided, anti-scientific account of global warming. They have ignored natural warming cycles and suppressed evidence which contradicts their theories. They have viciously attacked the credibility of any scientist daring to contradict them, creating a climate of fear where only a tiny handful of scientists dare speak out.

Bill Gray wrote:
* The contrary views of the many warming skeptics have been largely ignored and their motives denigrated.
* The normal scientific process of objectively studying both sides of the question has not yet occurred.<ref> [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/XchangeGray_FtCollinsFeb08.pdf Area Experts Debate Global Warming]</ref>

Journalists in the West, dominated by liberal viewpoints, have painted a misleading picture of the science. They have publicized liberal slanders against scientists who dare to speak up against the fake "consensus"

Even organizations that are not normally biased towards leftist ideas have publicly supported the global warming theory. The oil company Exxon/Mobil official policy is that CO2 emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems. Exxon/Mobil has also committed to reducing their own CO2 emissions, and invested $600 million in algae based fuels.<ref> [http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx]</ref>

Agencies of the United States Government such as NASA, EPA & NOAA give selected information that strongly supports the global warming theory. At the same time, they reject freedom of information requests to see the raw data. <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58087 Vitter, Inhofe Ask NASA Inspector General to Probe Possible Obstruction of FOIA Requests Seeking Climate Change Records, CNSNews.com, December 04, 2009]</ref> The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for one example, states that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising due to human activity, and that the surface of the Earth has warmed, on average, quickly over the last 50 years, even though North America cooled slightly.<ref> [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q2]</ref> In 2008 The Bush Administration requested $4.1 billion dollars of taxpayer money from Congress to fund NOAA, a 7.7 percent increase from 2008.<ref> [http://www.noaa.gov/budget/] </ref>

The 2008 Democratic National Committee Platform states;<ref>[states;http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html]</ref>

"We must end the tyranny of oil in our time. This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the longer - term threat from climate change"

and

"...climate change is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern - this is a national security crisis."

The 2008 Republican National Committee Platform states; <ref>[http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Environment.htm]</ref>

"The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment."

There have also been some Conservatives, such as John Bliese, Ph.D., who at one point believed that global warming is a critical problem, and that [[Conservatism]] and environmental conservation are fully compatible. Speaking to those who are skeptical of global warming, in the [[Summer]] of 2001, he wrote, "[T]here is nothing conservative about denying scientific evidence."<ref>[http://www.rep.org/news/GEvol5/ge5.1_globalwarming.html]</ref>

On October 10, 2009, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham coauthored (with Democrat Senator John Kerry) an op ed piece in the New York Times which stated "Even climate change skeptics should recognize that reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy efficiency strengthens our national security. Both of us served in the military. We know that sending nearly $800 million a day to sometimes-hostile oil-producing countries threatens our security. In the same way, many scientists warn that failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to global instability and poverty that could put our nation at risk."
<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html?pagewanted=1]</ref>

in 2008 the Center for Naval Analyses empaneled eleven retired generals and admirals to prepare a paper titled "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change". They concluded that Global climate change presents a serious national security threat which could impact Americans at home, impact United States military operations and heighten global tensions.<ref>[http://securityandclimate.cna.org/]</ref>

The Central Intelligence Agency has opened The Center on Climate Change and National Security to study the impact of climate change on US national security.<ref>[https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/center-on-climate-change-and-national-security.html CIA Opens Center on Climate Change and National Security], Central Intelligence Agency, September 25, 2009.</ref>

Conservative activist and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has called for a Conservative Environmentalism to find solutions to global warming by free market mechanisms.<ref>http://newt.org/EditNewt/FeaturedBloggersDB/tabid/193/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3392/Default.aspx</ref>

===Climate Change As A Cult===
The zeal of climate-change advocates and lack of objectivity has led some observers to see it as a core belief in a new eco-theology, using themes of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs. columnist Deon Feder warns, that following other attempts such as Marxism, overpopulation, ''Silent Spring'',
<blockquote>now we have the Church of Global Warming, under the leadership of Pope Albert I and his college of cardinals (the [[Natural Resources Defense Council]], Sierra Club and editorial board of The New York Times).

Its Office for the Propagation of the Faith works overtime, churning out books, movies (from the fictional “The Day After Tomorrow” to the fictional “An Inconvenient Truth”), textbooks, concerts, congressional hearings, media pleading and inquisitions.<ref>Don Feder, ''The Cult of Global Warming'', GrassTopsUSA.com 7/31/2007</ref> </blockquote>

Commenting on the tendency to hastily issue dire warnings of Climate Change, seen in the coming [[Ice Age]] scare of the 70's, Maurizio Morabito asked, “Is the problem with the general public, who cannot talk about climate except in doom-laden terms, and for whom the sky is the last animist god?" <ref>Maurizio Morabito, ''The CIA’s ‘global cooling’ files'', The Spectator December 5 2009</ref>

Mark Steyn writes in Macleans,
<blockquote>
"Forty years ago conventional religious belief was certainly in decline in what we once knew as Christendom, but the hole was not yet ozone-layer sized. Once the sea of faith had receded far from shore, the post-Christian West looked at what remained and found “Gaia.”</blockquote>

And while, "When man was made in the image of God, he was fallen but redeemable", among these devotees of [[Gaia]],
<blockquote>Anti-humanism is everywhere, not least in the barely concealed admiration for China’s (demographically disastrous) “One Child” policy advanced by everyone from the National Post’s Diane Francis to Sir David Attenborough, the world’s leading telly naturalist but also a BBC exec who once long ago commissioned the great series The Ascent of Man. If Sir David’s any guide, the great thing about man’s ascent is it gives him a higher cliff to nosedive off.<ref>Mark Steyn, ''Why climate change is hot hot hot'' Macleans, December 24, 2009</ref></blockquote>

===Politics of Global Warming and Dissent===
{{main|Politics of global warming}}

Christine Stewart- Canadian Environment Ministry, "'''No matter if the science is all phony''', there are collateral environmental benefits . . . Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” <ref>[http://www.aim.org/wls/use-environmentalism-to-change-the-world/ Christine Stewart] Accuracy in Media</ref>

'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ <ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/14167</ref>

The need to fight "global warming" has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. <ref name="cato" />

Clearly, "global warming" is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit.
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. <ref name="cato" />

Mark Steyn writes in "Why climate change is hot hot hot",
<blockquote>
What’s also changed since the seventies is the nature of the UN and the transnational bureaucracies...“Aid” is a discredited word these days and comes with too many strings attached. But eco-credits sluiced through an oil-for-food program on steroids offers splendid new opportunities for bulking up an ambitious dictator’s Swiss bank accounts.<ref>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/24/why-climate-change-is-hot-hot-hot/2/</ref></blockquote>

The IPCC is desperate to claim the 20th century-- the warmest on record. Thus, tying the progress of modern mankind to our supposed planet imbalance problem. Unfortunately for the IPCC, that point is disputed as well. In 2008, it was discovered that tree rings in Finland were more accurate record of the warmest century. The current era was not the warmest period-- it was the period between 931 and 1180. <ref>[http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/archive/2008/6?page=2 The Trees of Finland; Temperature Readings and Historical Reconstruction] Tbirdnow.mee.nu Blog (with links to actual data sources), June 24, 2008</ref>

Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century.

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.

In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. <ref name="cato" />

Richard Lindzen wrote:
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the "right" results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of "global warming" in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). <ref name="cato" />

Christopher Monckton wrote an article titled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered.
:States that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies are flawed. The present analysis suggests the models failure to predict other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of radioactive forcing, no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter and feedback multiplier. In conclusion, that there may be no "Climate Crisis" and for governments to reduce emissions may be pointless or even harmful. <ref>http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm , Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, July 2008</ref> This was published on a forum of the American Physical Society with the following disclaimer "The article has not undergone any scientific peer review" and "the APS disagrees with the articles conclusions" In fact, the APS disagrees with the article without ever reviewing it.

Ryan N. Maue:
:A doctoral student at the Department of Meteorology at Florida State University did a study of global tropical cyclone activity. Its conclusions state that global warming might be greatly overblown. <ref>[http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_617111.html# Global warming? More doubts] Pittsburgh Tribune, March 21, 2009</ref> Mr. Maue found that tropical cyclone activity worldwide "has completely and utterly collapsed" during the past two to three years with energy levels sinking to those of the late 1970s.

Dr. Vincent Gray:
:A member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and the level of gases in the atmosphere,” and "there is no serious threat to the climate" <ref>[http://americanfreedomnow.com/2009/06/04/the-panic-over-global-warming-is-totally-unjustified-says-vice-chair-ipcc/ “THE PANIC OVER GLOBAL WARMING IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED” says Vice Chair, IPCC] Americanfreedomnow.com, June 4th, 2009</ref>

Joe D’Aleo: Climatologist
:The International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project says new data "show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise," and "'''The data suggest cooling''', not warming, in Earth's future." <ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92557 Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening] Worldnetdaily, March 22, 2009</ref>

Dr. John S. Theon:
:Retired senior NASA atmospheric [[scientist]], Dr. John S. Theon, the former boss of global warming alarmist James Hansen of [[NASA]], rebukes him declaring “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results." <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/01/28/former-boss-rebukes-nasa-global-warming-alarmist-hansen-agw-skeptic Former Boss Rebukes NASA Global Warming Alarmist Hansen, Is AGW Skeptic] NewsBusters.org, January 28, 2009 </ref>

Sammy Wilson -Ireland's environment minister
:He argues that global weather patterns are naturally cooling, not warming. He calls television ads that promote global warming as "an insidious propaganda campaign" peddling "patent nonsense." <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43255 Belfast Environment Chief Bans Climate Change Ads] AP, February 09, 2009</ref>

After the broadcast of his movie '[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]', filmmaker Martin Durkin's statements read <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32796 UK Broadcaster Scolded for Film on Global Warming] CNSNEWS July 22, 2008</ref>

*“Everywhere you are told that man-made [[climate change]] is proved beyond doubt,” “But you are being told lies.”
*“This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political [[ideology]] ... it is the story of the distortion of a whole area of [[science]].”
*“as the frenzy over man-made [[global warming]] grows shriller, many senior scientists say the actual scientific basis for the [[theory]] is crumbling.”

In late 2008, the [[AP]] published an article by its Science Writer Seth Borenstein, which is seen by skeptics as another example of one-sided, uncritical reporting on the issue by [[liberal media]]. The report stated that global warming was "a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid", and that "We're out of time", with Al Gore calling the situation "the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately."<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D952LKOO1&show_article=1</ref> In response, Fox News (December 16, 2008) reported that scientists skeptical of anthropogenic global warming criticized the report as "irrational hysteria," "horrifically bad" and "incredibly biased", containing sweeping scientific errors and being a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue. Geology professor [[David Deming]] stated, "If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it", and accused Borenstein of "writing a polemic and reporting it as fact." Deming noted that "the mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980." The AP responded to criticism by stating that, "It’s a news story, based on fact and the clearly expressed views of President-elect Barack Obama and others."<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'] Fox News, December 16, 2008</ref>

Also in the discussion of the biased AP report, Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho stated, "There is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes."

The year 2008 turned out to be the coolest year since 2000, yet the seventh to tenth warmest year on record, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.<ref>http://news.eoportal.org/research/090127_res3.html</ref> According to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record.<ref>[http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.]</ref>

Richard S. Courtney, a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert reviewer and a U.K.-based climate and atmospheric science consultant says "Rubbish! Global warming is not 'accelerating," and "...that anybody who proclaims that 'Global warming is accelerating' is a liar, a fool, or both." <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warming_debunked/2008/12/16/162489.html Global Warming’s Last Gasp] NewsMax, December 17, 2008</ref>

Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, "What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling....? The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!"

===2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change===

[[Bob Barr]] is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming.

According to his website,<ref>[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/BA6709C3-B27D-4EF9-81E6-2BA9D6F8AB20.htm John McCain on Global warming.]</ref> [[Republican]] Presidential candidate [[John McCain]] will take a more "aggressive approach" to global warming which he has declared as "undeniable and urgent." He was supported in this in June 2008 by Republican governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who said McCain was the "real deal on the environment".<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/MNDB11H66C.DTL&type=politics Schwarzenegger backs McCain on climate Change]</ref>.

In his own words, McCain says "the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it ''is'' real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a [[cap and trade]] proposal.... the debate is over."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es] Unless McCain believes that Global Warming is entirely or largely man-made, there would be no sense in supporting a cap and trade solution.

[[Barack Obama]] believes "that global warming is not just the greatest [[environmental]] [[challenge]] facing our planet—it is one of our greatest challenges of any kind." During his first 100 days in office, he would enact a giant and far-reaching [[tax]] "an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions that will reduce U.S. emissions by the amount scientists agree is necessary (80% by 2050). With worldwide cuts in emissions estimated to cost '''$45 Trillion dollars''' overall. <ref>[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4079036.ece World needs $45 trillion energy revolution] Timesonline.uk, June 6, 2008</ref> He comments "Putting a price on carbon is the most important step we can to take to reduce emissions."<ref>[http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1.html League of Conservation Voters] presidentialprofiles2008.org</ref>

===Evangelicals===
In 2008 86 evangelical pastors, including Rev. Dr.[[Rick Warren]] signed a statement titled "Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action", which called on Christians to acknowledge the moral importance of action to counteract man-made climate change. the statement includes specific support for market-based CO2 reductions such as a cap-and-trade program.<ref>[http://christiansandclimate.org/]</ref> In contrast, a group of evangelical scholars, comprised of scientists, economists and theologians, contend that the liberal view of pending catastrophe caused by climate change is misleading and/or exaggerated.<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091204/evangelicals-push-back-against-climate-change-hoax/pageall.html ''Evangelicals Push Back Against Global Warming Doom'', Dec. 04 2009, christianpost.com]</ref>

==Inaccuracies of Global Warming evidence==
===Climate "Science" Fraud===
{{main|Climategate}}

The [[Climategate#Climategate_scandal|Climategate scandal]] revealed how liberal scientists appeared to be deceiving the public with the use of fraudulent data for use as climate science. The [[Liberal media|liberal media]] has attempted to bury the story and discount it as the work of computer hackers illegally stealing data, however, [[FOIA|Freedom of Information]] requests is likely what led to the data being leaked — intentionally.<ref>http://www.junkscience.com/</ref> Dr. Willie Soon, a [[Physicist|physicist]], [[Astronomer|astronomer]] and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the [[Harvard University]]-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said in an interview, "[The Climatic Research Unit climate scientists] are making scientific progress more difficult now. This is a shameful, dark day for science." Dr. Soon also suggested that there has been systemic suppression of dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, ranging from social snubs to e-mail stalking and even threats of harm.<ref>Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.</ref>

[[Image:GoreFireBreathing.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Al Gore's [[Schlockumentary]] under fire; [[An Inconvenient Truth]] found to be an inconvenient [[lie]] based on [[junk science]] and digitally enhanced, totally faked scenes of polar icecaps melting.]]

===Liberal claims of "Consensus"===
Reports of a scientific "consensus" among scientists allege that the Earth is warming overall, and that this warming, as well as other changes in climate patterns, is largely caused by human activities.<ref>Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider. "Expert credibility in climate change." April 9, 2010. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html</ref><ref>From "IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007." Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-understanding-and.html</ref> These allegations do not necessarily make the consensus true, as discussed throughout the referenced citation. Numerous scientists, especially those outside of university faculties, have been critical of anthropogenic global warming. However, according to some researchers, scientists who do not support the anthropogenic global warming theory offer a general lack of comparative credentials; proponents of man-made global warming argue that this has led to agreement that, among authorities in scientific disciplines, there is a "[[scientific consensus]]" supporting the theory for greater government control. Scientists skeptical of the theory question whether there is a financial incentive for supporting research.<ref>[http://www.seattlepi.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=t&refer=http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/336889_climatepolicy26.html Pual Chesser,
''Be wary of climate policy development'', Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Act. 25, 2007]</ref> It has also been documented that on most college campuses criticism of the global warming theory is silenced or censored; evidence shows that scientists skeptical of AGW are being supressed.<ref>http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102031</ref>

It is well understood that most media companies do not offer balanced reporting. Many politicians have bought into the liberal claim of consensus, for example Barack Obama's views, "Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than fighting climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear." <ref>[http://cato.org/special/climatechange/ Climate Change Reality] Cato Institute</ref> In fact, many scientists disagree with the "facts," their certainty, and their interpretation. Over 100 of them have signed the statement that appears in the Cato Institute's newspaper ad. Liberals have failed to back up their claims with any scientific facts.

[[File:ad.jpg|center]]

===Past Speculation===

Speculation and warnings of catastrophic climate change are not unprecedented. In 2001 the ''Guardian'' noted that some 70s headlines shouted, "Brace yourself for another ice age". In 1971 the journal ''Science'' reported that the subsequent cooling effect resulting from a possible eightfold increased from atmospheric aerosol concentrations, "if sustained over a period of several years - is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age." <ref>Reported by Alison George in ''Breaking the ice'', The Guardian, Thursday 28 June 2001</ref>

[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992 on the doubtfulness of man-caused warming on Earth.

{{Cquote|Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). <ref name="cato">http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html</ref>}}

Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into "consensus" support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)

The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the "science is settled" began in 1988 or 1989.

By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.

Over 31,000 American scientists have signed the petition rejecting global warming. <ref>[http://www.petitionproject.org/</ref>

[[Image:Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg|600px|center|thumb| Global Warming Petition]]

In June, 1974, ''[[Time]]'' magazine published its front page article, ''Science: Another Ice Age?'',<ref>''Science: Another Ice Age?'' Time magazine, Monday, Jun. 24, 1974</ref> while a report by the [[CIA]] in the same year stated that, "The world's leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change”, noting such things as that the "world's snow and ice cover had increased by at least 10 to 15 percent", and "the Canadian area of [[Arctic]] Greenland suffered below normal temperatures for 19 consecutive months", which was unique during the last 100 years. A "major climatic shift" was speculated, which would threaten the "the stability of most nations.” It further warned that "Scientists are confident that unless man is able to modify the climate, the northern regions, such as Canada" to "major areas in northern China will again be covered with 100 to 200 feet of ice and snow", within the next 2500 years - or sooner.<ref>[http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf ''A study of climatological research as it pertains to intelligence problems'', August 1974]</ref>

Also in 1974, Nigel Calder, former editor of ''New Scientist'' and atmospheric researcher wrote in his book ''The Weather Machine'', "One might argue that there is a virtual certainty of the next ice age starting some time in the next 2000 years. Then the odds are only about 20-to-1 against it beginning in the next 100 years."

In 1975 the liberal magazine ''[[Newsweek]]'' reported that "Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend,...but they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century." These authorities were skeptical that political leaders would take any positive action to compensate for the [[climate change]], and they conceded that the more dramatic solutions, such as melting the arctic ice cap, might create worse problems than that which they were designed to solve.<ref>http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf</ref>

===Natural Variability of the Climate System===
It is virtually universally accepted amongst secular climatologists that the earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures fluctuated created glacial and inter-glacial periods. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.

===Natural Climate Change on Other Planets===

Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen. Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered. One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html</ref><ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977</ref>

Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming. Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars. The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.<ref>http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml</ref>

[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming. The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html</ref>

On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977. A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself. The reasons for this are not understood.<ref>http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf</ref>

Global temperatures change on other planets even when there is no life, something which strongly supports the idea that humans are not necessarily the cause of earth's global warming. Moreover, the temperature on Uranus has fluctuated back and forth. There is no reason that fluctuations cannot occur on earth, too.

Although measurements have been made of the temperatures of other planets these are by no means thorough or comparable with the measurements used for earth. The short space of time over which measurements have been taken and the very limited spatial coverage means that reliable average figures have not been obtained. They have certainly not been taken extensively enough to produce a five year average temperature, which is the standard when determining temperature trends on earth.

However, if accurate measurements could be made, and their accuracy and reliability is improving over time, then they may prove useful to climate science. Their different atmospheres and distances from the sun provide natural laboratories to study climatic changes without human influences. Though of course they will not be directly comparable due to the vast differences.

===Al Gore's Claims===
[[File:Gore GlobalWarming.jpg|right|200px]]
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film, ''An Inconvenient Truth'', became the subject of a legal challenge by [[New Party]] member Stewart Dimmock. A school governor from Dover and father of two, Dimmock charged the Government with brainwashing children with propaganda by presenting Gore’s sci-fi film as science. In October 2007, Mr Justice Burton of London's High Court found that while the film was "broadly accurate", it contained nine significant errors,“in which statements were made that were not supported by the current mainstream scientific consensus”, some of which had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”. He also found the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisers only worked to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.<ref>[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/clearly_its_al_gore_whos_in_de.html American Thinker; ''Clearly It's Al Gore Who's In Denial'']</ref><ref>Times online, October 11, 2007 ''Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment''</ref>

Taken from the official transcript,<ref>[http://noteviljustwrong.com/images/nejw/docs/22161.pdf Stuart Dimmock and Secretary of State for Education and Skills]</ref> the nine errors the judge found were:

*1. Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.

*2. Low lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming. In scene 20, Mr Gore states "that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand". There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.

*3. Shutting down of the "Ocean Conveyor". According to the IPCC, it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor (known technically as the Meridional Overturning Circulation or thermohaline circulation) will shut down in the future, though it is considered likely that thermohaline circulation may slow down.

*4. Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs. In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows two graphs relating to a period of 650,000 years, one showing rise in CO2 and one showing rise in temperature, and asserts (by ridiculing the opposite view) that they show an exact fit. Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts.

*5. The snows of Kilimanjaro. The film asserted that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidenced global warming. The Government's expert was had to admit that this is not correct. Mr Gore asserts in scene 7 that the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. It is noteworthy that this is a point that specifically impressed Mr Milliband (see the press release quoted at paragraph 6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

*6. Lake Chad etc. The drying up of Lake Chad is used as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. However, it is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.

*7. Hurricane Katrina. In scene 12 Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.

*8. Death of polar bears. In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through the water looking for ice, Mr Gore says: "A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before." The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.

*9. Coral reefs. In scene 19, Mr Gore says: "Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and other factors are bleaching and they end up like this. All the fish species that depend on the coral reef are also in jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate." The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and widespread coral mortality, unless corals could adapt or climatize, but that separating the impacts of climate change-related stresses from other stresses, such as over-fishing and polluting, is difficult.

Dimmock's lawyer, Mr. Downes, argued that by schools making available such film to its teachers, and if teachers then showed such film to their pupils, then this would inevitably result "in the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school, which is thus not only not being forbidden by the local education authority (and the DES), but being positively facilitated by them."

Mr Justice Barton stressed that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. “It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.

Justice Barton also stated that, “I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act.”<ref> BBC news, Thursday, 11 October 2007</ref>

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that

*1. The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.

*2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.

*3. Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.<ref>http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html</ref>

Science and Public Policy took issue with the response to the ruling by Al Gore’s spokesman and environment adviser, and asserted that his film contains ''35 Inconvenient Truths''.<ref>[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 Inconvenient Truths]</ref>

Regarding his claims that the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame, the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine stated,

:Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine." <ref name="sun" />

Many conservatives see Al Gore as an example of [[liberals]] using [[deceit]]ful tactics in important debates, in order to make a position seem more solid than it is.

===Scientists===

[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]

{|
| valign="top" width="35%"|
* [[Roger Revelle]]
* [[Achim Steiner]]
* [[Fred Singer]]
* [[Richard Lindzen]]
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]
| valign="top" width="33%"|
* [[James E. Hansen]]
* [[Michael Mann]]
* [[Charles Keeling]]
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]
|}

====Hal Lewis====
[[Liberal]] claims of global warming led to the resignation in October 2010 by Professor Hal Lewis from The American Physical Society because of "the [[global warming]] scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. '''It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist'''."<ref>http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html</ref>

===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===
::''See also : [[Climategate#Hockey_Stick_Graph|Climategate: hockey stick graph]]''

*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy & Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.
*[http://www.image.ucar.edu/~boli/manuscripts/2007-LNA-TeA.pdf The ‘hockey stick’ and the 1990s: a statistical perspective on reconstructing hemispheric temperatures] by Bo Li, Douglas W. Nychka and Casper M. Ammann, ''Institute for Mathmatics Applied to Geosciences''; (Manuscript received 22 March 2007; in final form 28 June 2007).
*[http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase] by Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D., Spring 1997; this article examines one of the main pillars of the global warming thesis.
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications] (''Energy & Environment'', vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance] (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, February 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick


==Effects of Global Warming==
===Beneficial effects of Global Warming===
[[File:Autumn foliage.jpg|thumb|Canoing on a Colorful Day, (NY).]]
Some researchers point out that benefits of health global warming have been overlooked, or minimized. As far back as 1996, Thomas Gale Moore, Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution (Stanford University) contended that positive health and amenity effects would be a result of projected increases in temperature. <ref>[http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming]</ref>

Another source notes,

In areas that see extreme cold temperatures, deaths related to colder weather would drop significantly, leading to decreased health care costs. Warmer temperatures would also mean less energy use to heat homes and buildings, helping to conserve energy. With the changes brought about by global warming more land would become available for uses like farming and living. Forests and plants would grow stronger, healthier, and more abundant because of the warmer weather, and this would mean more oxygen being released into the atmosphere.<ref>http://www.bionomicfuel.com/what-are-the-benefits-of-global-warming/</ref>

===Reported effects of Climate Change===

Besides Global Warming, reported past or expected/possible future environmental and societal consequences of Climate Change include,

*Global cooling.<ref>http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/global-warming-causing-global-cooling</ref>

* Decreased food production.<ref> Fred Pearce, ''Climate change warning over food production,'' Newscientist.com, April 26, 2005</ref>

* Increased food production. <ref>[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1127111.html] William Booth, ''Global Heating Could Benefit U.S. Farmers; Prices Seen Rising As Production Falls'' The Washington Post, May 17, 1990</ref>

* Shrinking forests.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/11/amazon-global-warming-trees/print David Adam, ''Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change''] March 11, 2009, guardian.co.uk</ref>

* Increased tree foliage.<ref>http://www.greenfingers.com/articledisplay.asp?id=1734</ref>

* Increased productivity of high-elevation forests.'<ref>'Global Warming May Spur Increased Growth In Pacific Northwest'' Oct. 20, 2009, Forests Science Daily</ref>

* Melting glaciers.<ref>Global warming causing hundreds of Antarctic Peninsula glaciers to melt,''
June 6, 2007, The Hindustan Times</ref>

* Growing glaciers.<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2043047/posts?page=51</ref>

* Increasing landmass in Antarctica.<ref>http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/27/antarctic-ice-a-global-warming-snow-job/</ref>

* Colder winters <ref>''Climate change could bring colder winters,'' March 13, 2003, Canadian Broadcasting Centre</ref>

* A new ice age.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/nov/13/comment.research/print Bill McGuire, The Guardian, November 13, 2003]</ref>

* Prevention of an ice age.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,296060,00.html Andrea Thompson, ''Global Warming May Cancel Next Ice Age''], Monday, September 10, 2007</ref>

* Taller mountains.<ref>Ker Than, ''Taller Mountains Blamed on Global Warming, Too'', August 4, 2006, LiveScience</ref>

* A lop-sided planet.<ref>Robert Roy Britt, June 29,2005 LiveScience.com</ref>

* Stronger hurricanes.<ref>''Global Warming: Warmer Seas Linked To Strengthening Hurricanes,'' Sep. 4, 2008, ScienceDaily</ref>

* Weaker Hurricanes.<ref>Randolph E. Schmid, AP Science Writer, ''Global warming may diminish Atlantic hurricane activity'', 04-17-2007, USA Today</ref>

* Shorter days.<ref>[http://www.itwire.com/content/view/11220/1066/ William Atkins, ''Researchers say global warming should cause shorter days''], ITWire, April 11, 2007</ref>

* Earthquakes and volcanoes, and other geological disasters. Attempts to prevent climate change may do the same.<ref>Richard Fisher, ''Climate change may trigger earthquakes and volcanoes,'' September 23 2009 Newscientist.com</ref>

* Shrinking brains.<ref>Gordon G. Gallup Jr., Human Nature (Vol. 18, Issue 2, 2007U)</ref>

* Shrinking sheep.<ref> Steve Connor, Science Editor, ''How global warming shrank St Kilda's sheep,''
Independent.co.uk, 3 July 2009</ref>

* Tiger Attacks.<ref>''Global Warming Linked to Indian Tiger Attacks'', Reuters, Mon Oct 20, 2008</ref>

* Shark attacks.<ref>[http://www.junkscience.com/news3/shark.htmlBruce Johnston, ''Shark attack on boat result of global warming''] Augsut 31, 1998, Electronic Telegraph (U.K.)</ref>

* Walrus stampede deaths.<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1939754/posts ''Global warming is blamed for walrus stampede deaths'', Associated Press - December 14, 2007</ref>

* Imminent cannibalism.<ref>Ted Turner, April 1, 2008, Charlie Rose PBS show</ref>

* The need for a drastic reduction of the earth’s population.<ref>http://thisistheendoftheworldasweknowit.com/archives/one-less-child-environmental-extremists-warn-that-overpopulation-is-causing-climate-change-and-will-ultimately-destroy-the-earth</ref>

* A strong increase in people dying of [[AIDS]]<ref>Daniel Tarantola, University of NSW, Australia</ref> <ref>http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/?p=608</ref>

* Increased risk of civil war in Africa.<ref>[http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/november23/climate-civil-wars-112309.html?view=print ''Global warming increases risk of civil war in Africa,''] Stanford Report, November 23, 2009</ref>

* Child ''climate cops''.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70811</ref>

*Increase in depression.<ref>Emily Sohn Thurs., Discovery Channel, Dec . 10, 2009</ref>

* Increase in psychiatric illness.<ref>World Health Organisation</ref> <ref>''Climate change leads to psychiatric illness'' 04-08, 2008, Sify.com</ref>

* Increased anxiety and loss of sleep among many children.<ref>Alan Jones, The Scotsman, February 22, 2007</ref>

{{liberalism}}
{{Climategate scandal}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

== See Also ==
*''[[Massachusetts v. EPA]]''
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]
*[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&articleID=604 "Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?", by Randall G. Holcombe].
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&articleID=296 "After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage," by Bruce Yandle].
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 "Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?", by Richard Lindzen]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=5 "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us"]
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]
*[http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php Refuting the Myth of Man-made Global Warming]
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html "CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming"]
*[http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm A complete list of things caused by global warming]
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam]

[[Category:Earth Sciences]]
[[Category:Environmentalism]]
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Christianity

2012-06-14T20:52:13Z

FrederickT3: Undo revision 986316 by Damncommies (talk)

{{Christianity}}
'''Christianity''' is the world's largest [[religion]], having 2.1 billion followers with a presence on all seven continents.<ref>http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html</ref> It is a [[monotheistic]] religion that professes belief in [[Jesus]] (in the Hebrew original, "Yeshua HaMashiach") as the Son of [[God]]. Followers of Jesus are called Christians, meaning "of Christ" or "belonging to Christ".<ref>[http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=2661&dict=CALD Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary]</ref> The early Christian faith was sometimes called ''That Way'', (Acts 19:1,9,23; 24:22), and its adherents were also called ''Nazarenes'' (Acts 24:5), evidently after the city of [[Nazareth]] where Jesus lived. The [[Acts of the Apostles|Book of Acts]] (Acts:11:26) records that "the disciples were called Christians first in [[Antioch]]." The title ''Christian'' is also used in Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16.

== Explosive growth of worldwide Christianity ==
[[File:Hong Kong Christians at Gateway Camp.jpg|thumbnail|left|200px|[[Hong Kong]] Christians at Gateway Camp. In 2005, there were four times as many non-Western World Christians as there were [[Western World]] Christians.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=30077</ref>
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/mckln/4815046728/in/set-72157624550425162 Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
''see also:'' [[Global Christianity]] and [[Internet evangelism]] and [[Evangelical Christians]] and [[Resources on becoming a Christian]]

Christianity has seen tremendous growth over its 2000 year history.<ref>http://users.adam.com.au/bstett/BChristianIncrease12.htm</ref> Christianity has recently seen explosive growth outside the [[Western World]].<ref>
*[http://pewforum.org/Christian/Faith-and-Conflict-The-Global-Rise-of-Christianity.aspx The global rise of Christianity - Pew Forum]
*[http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=30077 Is Christianity taking over the planet?]
*[http://pewforum.org/Religion-News/The-stunning-growth-of-Christianity-in-China.aspx The stunning growth of Christianity in China]
*[http://gratefultothedead.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/the-african-apostles-how-christianity-exploded-in-20th-century-africa/ The African apostles: How Christianity exploded in 20th century Africa]</ref> In 2000, there were twice as many non-Western Christians as Western Christians.<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=30077 Is Christianity taking over the planet?]</ref> In 2005, there were four times as many non-Western Christians as there were [[Western World]] Christians.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=30077</ref> There are now more non-Western missionaries than Western missionaries.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=30077</ref>

In 2011, the ''American Spectator'' declared concerning research published in the ''International Bulletin of Missionary Research'':
{{cquote|The report estimates about 80,000 new Christians every day, 79,000 new [[Islam|Muslims]] every day, and 300 fewer [[atheism|atheists]] every day. These atheists are presumably disproportionately represented in the [[Western World|West]], while religion is thriving in the Global South, where [[Charismatic movement|charismatic Christianity]] is exploding."<ref>http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/28/thriving-christianity</ref>}}

=== Implications of the growth of worldwide Christianity ===

''see also:'' [[Global Christianity]] and [[Internet evangelism]]

Given the increase in the public's access to global communications, it is thought that the more [[theology|theologically]] [[conservative]] non-Western Christian churches could influence Western Christianity to move in a more theologically [[conservative]] direction.<ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18774</ref> For example, non-Western [[Anglican]]s are exerting influence within the worldwide Anglican Communion against the stance of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Communion's North American provinces with regard to [[homosexual]] practices.<ref>http://www.maravipost.com/malawi-politics/district/5751-bishop-mw-anglicans-totally-against-homosexuality.html</ref><ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2156406/Anglican-church-schism-declared-over-homosexuality.html</ref>

== Main Christian Divisions ==
[[Image:Anglican Christ Church.jpg|thumb|left|150px|Anglican Christ Church in Western Australia]]
'''The three largest self-governing bodies of Christians are:'''

* The [[Roman Catholic Church]] (approx. 1.1 billion baptized members) traces its roots back to [[Saint Peter]] whom Catholics believe established their church and the succession of [[Pope]]s as the spiritual leaders of Christendom.

* The [[Orthodox Church]]es (approx. 300 million baptized members) trace their roots back to the Apostles, and are organized in Autocephalous national or regional churches in communion with each other. Differing theological perspectives led to the [[Great Schism]] between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches in A.D. 1054.

* [[Protestantism]]: the largest Communions are the [[Anglican Church|Anglicans]] (approx. 115 million baptized members) and the [[Lutheran]] World Federation (approx. 68 million baptized members). Protestantism has its origins in the European [[Reformation]]. It broke from the Roman Catholic Church under [[Martin Luther]] when differences over the nature of [[faith]] and works in the role of [[Christianity#salvation|salvation]], as well as other practices of the Catholic Church that Luther saw as unBiblical, were raised.

== Christian Beliefs ==
Christian beliefs [[Christian apologetics|are well supported via a large body of compelling evidence]]. Theologians, over two millennia, have debated a definitive summary of the Christian faith. While its interpretations vary drastically, probably the most commonly accepted statement of the faith is the [[Nicene Creed| Nicaea-Constantinopolitan Creed]].

Christians and Christian denominations agree on many points of doctrine while disagreeing on some. According to an online Harris poll from 2003, 99% of all American Christians believe in [[God]], 96% in the [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus Christ]], 93% in [[Heaven]], 93% in the virgin birth, 92% in the survival of the soul after death, 82% in [[Hell]], 50% in ghosts, 27% in astrology and 21% in reincarnation.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359</ref> Note that the latter two beliefs are in opposition to the religious tenants of most Christian denominations.

Nonetheless, the Nicaea-Constantinopolitan Creed offers a general overall picture of what Christian theology looks like, and serves as a useful outline and historic standard. Other creeds may prove helpful in research. See the [[Apostles' Creed]] and the Athanasian Creed.

===God===
{{main|God}}
God is a triune being. Though there is only one Divine nature there are three Divine Personages: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The three Persons are collectively called the [[Trinity]] or the Holy Trinity. While God is tripartite, this does not imply that Christians are polytheists. The doctrine of the Trinity is central to Christian theology, although several denominations that usually are considered Christian are non-Trinitarian. The God of the Christian is the creator of all things, is everywhere present, exists in all times, is transcendent, all-knowing (omniscient), just, and all-powerful (omnipotent).

A major theme of the Bible is [[love]]. In the Hebrew [[Old Testament]] the idea is expressed in the Hebrew word ''hessed'', which is variously translated as loyal love, tender mercy, steadfast love, mercy, goodness, etc. in the [[New Testament]] the same idea is expressed in the Greek word ''agape'', which is variously translated as love, compassion, charity, etc.

===Jesus===
[[Image:Jesus' Baptism.jpg|180px|left|]]
During the reign of [[Augustus Caesar|Caesar Augustus]] the Son (i.e. the second Person of the Trinity) took flesh from a virgin woman and was incarnated as a man. He was born in the town of [[Bethlehem]] and was given the name [[Jesus]]. At approximately the age of thirty he was baptised by his cousin [[John the Baptist]] and began to preach in the area of [[Judea]] and [[Galilee]]. About three years later, his teachings and works of mercy prompted the Jewish authorities to plot Jesus' death. Jesus was [[crucified]]. He rose from the dead and was seen by over 500 people. He ascended to Heaven. The four [[Gospels]] contain the basic account of what Jesus did and said.

Jesus summarized his moral teachings in two commandments from the Old Testament:

"'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." ([[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 22:37-39; [[Book of Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 6:5; Leviticus 19:18)

===Morality===
The fundamental principle in Christian moral teaching is [[love]] and forgiveness, as expressed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and the New Testament. In the Hebrew [[Old Testament]] the idea is expressed in the Hebrew word ''hessed'', which is variously translated as loyal love, tender mercy, steadfast love, mercy, goodness, etc. in the [[New Testament]] the same idea is expressed in the Greek word ''agape'', which is variously translated as love, compassion, charity, etc.

There has been endless debate over how a person should express love for God in his or her moral behavior. This moral dialogue found expression in the New Testament, where the [[Apostle Paul]] addressed such controversies as [[circumcision]] ([[Epistle to the Romans|Romans]] 2:25-29), eating meat that was sacrificed to [[pagan]] deities (1 Corinthians 8), speculating about myths and genealogies (1 Timothy 1:3-5), and observing ceremonial dates and seasons (Galatians 4:9-11).

Regardless of a person's ethical interpretations, adherents commonly point to New Testament passages John 3:16 and 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 as scriptural depictions of love. The former states that <blockquote>"God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."</blockquote> The latter characterizes love, saying <blockquote>"Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."</blockquote>

Jesus Christ affirmed, "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35) In trying to understand the reason for the growth of Christianity in a pagan culture, it has been noted that while love of one's neighbor is not an exclusively Christian virtue, it appears that the primitive Christian church practiced it much more effectively than any other group.<ref>E.R. Dodds, 1970:136-137</ref>

In addition to sacrificially showing care for those within the community as well as to those without, (cf. Gal. 6:10) the Christians elevated the sanctity of life, opposing abortion, infanticide, child abandonment, suicide, and gladiatorial contests.<ref>Kenneth Scott Latourette, ''A history of Christianity'' p. 244</ref><ref> Ted Cabal, Chad Owen Brand, Paul Copan, The Apologetics Study Bible, 274 </ref> While the primitive church tolerated the existing and pervasive cultural economic institution of slavery in the [[Roman Empire]], the mandate of equal pay and just treatment (Col. 4:1; Eph. 6:9) greatly ameliorated the treatment of slaves, while advising them to seek freedom if possible, (1Cor. 7:21) and requiring that the escape slave Onesimus be received back not "as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved". (Philemon 1:6) The Christian ethos of love also motivated a great expansion in the building of hospitals.<ref>Albert John Ochsner, Meyer Joseph Sturm, ''The organization, construction and management of hospitals'', p. 17</ref><ref>Roderick E. McGrew, ''Encyclopaedia of Medical Care'', p. 135</ref> By 500 A.D., most large towns in in the Roman Empire had erected them.<ref>George D. Pozgar, ''Legal aspects of health care administration', p. 2</ref>

===Atonement===
[[Image:Dalí The Christ of St. John of the Cross.jpg|thumb|The Christ of St. John of the Cross by [[Salvador Dalí]], 1951.]]
Christians believe with the New Testament that the death of Jesus, in conjunction with His resurrection, is an indispensable event for the reconciliation of lost sinners with God. There are three elements they see to the understanding of His death on the cross.

- Jesus having the knowledge that His path would lead to his own death, desired and willed that that take place, and persevered in that path though there was opportunity for Him to avoid it. "I have power to take my life and I have power to lay down my life. I lay down my life for the sheep."

- Jesus saw that in His death there would be a way for people to be brought back to the God from whom they were alienated and lost because of their sins. This would involve a substitution of Himself to effect, i.e. atone for, that development. "For the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve and give His life as a ransom for many." How this would take place was not new to the Jews of His day from their understanding of contemporary everyday practice of substitute payment - as in redemption of the first-born (Pidyon Ha Ben), or in the understanding of what aggadic stories such as the Binding of [[Isaac]] implied (see [[Midrash]]), but it was not the prevalent view that the Messiah was to be that payment. Though while alive on earth, he had hinted at it in sayings such as "unless a seed falls and dies, it remains alone, but when it dies, it brings forth..", it was only after He had risen from the dead that He explained Scripture (the Old Testament) clearly about the necessity of His death to have taken place. The disciples would henceforth preach, and Peter among them, that the death of Jesus the Messiah and His resurrection was for-planned and for-ordained by God the Father, and foretold in the Scripture (Isaiah 53).

- Christians of all generations have looked to the perfect Atonement, and the hope for reconciliation, accomplished by Jesus on the cross, to provide the means of understanding the solution to the vexing problems of the mind and of life itself.

===Salvation===
The Bible teaches that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). This is often interpreted to mean that everyone has displeased God and is now separated from him in a kind of alienation and enmity that results from the fundamental conflict between selfish human interests and God's interests (Romans 8:5-8; James 4:4). Jesus offered a solution to this Biblical dilemma in that, by repentance of sins and faith in him (Jesus), their sins would be forgiven. He said that "...the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins." ([[Gospel of Mark|Mark]] 2:10) Jesus also said, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Mark 2:17).

Jesus Christ taught that "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" ([[Gospel of John|John]] 3:3). Protestant Evangelical Christianity often uses the terms "saved" and "born again" to mean conversion, while other Christians, such as the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, use the phrase ''born again'' as a synonym for [[baptism|baptized]].

Christians are expected to continue living by Christ's teachings (John 8:31), as is appropriate for "children of Light" (Ephesians 5:8-10). Some believe that this is necessary in order to be saved. Others say that this is a common misconception of the text, that it refers instead to the "fruits" of saving faith. Christians in the [[Reformed]] tradition (following the teaching of the 16th century French lawyer and theologian [[John Calvin]]) say that salvation cannot be lost. One Bible passage often cited is John 10:28-29 in which Jesus said of his own Apostles that they could not be snatched from his hand.

== Resurrection of Jesus Christ ==
[[Image:Jesus resurrected.jpg|thumb|left|200px|"The Resurrection" by Carl Heinrich Bloch]]
The [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus Christ]] is critical to the Christian faith. The Apostle Paul wrote, "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (I Cor:15:14). Traditionally, Christianity has believed in a physical resurrection of Jesus Christ.<ref>http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/crj0056a.txt</ref>

In recent history, Gary Habermas is considered a leading [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] for defending the resurrection of Jesus.<ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/dialog_rexperience/dialog_rexperiences.htm Experiences of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection], ''Dialog: A Journal of Theology'', Vol. 45; No. 3 (Fall, 2006), pp. 288-297.</ref><ref>"Wildcat" and Holding, J.P., [http://www.tektonics.org/books/lichabrvw.html Book review of "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus"], 22nd June, 2004 (Tektonics)</ref><ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/CTR-NT/Habermas-Resurrection1-CTR.pdf Jesus' Resurrection and Contemporary Criticism: An Apologetic] ''Criswell Theological Review'' 4.1 (1989) 159-74.</ref><ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_explainingaway/crj_explainingaway.htm Explaining Away Jesus' Resurrection:
The Recent Revival of Hallucination Theories], Christian Research Journal / vol. 23, no. 4, 2001.</ref><ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html Why I Believe The New Testament Is Historically Reliable] (Apologetics.com)</ref>
Other notable defenders of the resurrection include: [[William Lane Craig]],<ref>Craig, William Lane, [http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html Articles: Historical Jesus]</ref> [[Lee Strobel]], [[Josh McDowell]],<ref>McDowell, Josh, [http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html Evidence for the Resurrection], 1992.</ref> [[Edwin M. Yamauchi]],<ref>Jamauchi, Edwin M., [http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History?]</ref> [[N.T. Wright]]<ref>Wright, N.T., [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm Early Traditions and the Origins of Christianity], ''Sewanee Theological Review'' 41.2, 1998.</ref> and [[Michael Horner]].<ref>Horner, Michael, [http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/resurrection/index.html Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?]</ref>

===The Meaning of the Resurrection for Christians===
The fact of the Resurrection of Christ is also believed to produce certain effects on the lives of Christians.

1. It is because Jesus rose from the dead that believers now can resort to a living Savior to help and deliver them from sin and from situations overwhelming for them by their own powers.

2. The New Testament sees in the resurrection of Christ a certain vindication of what apparently to the world and to all beings was a failure and an overcoming of Him by His crucifixion.

3. The coming of Jesus back to life means to the believer that, indeed, his sins are totally forgiven. This is because believers know that His death was as a payment for sins - a "wage of death" for our sins that He received in our stead. If He remained dead, believers would know that the wage had not been fully paid.

4. It is a now-living Savior that Christians know can go before them, can closely lead them through life - as He did when He was on earth. This makes following Him practical and real.

5. The New Testament reveals that it is the Risen Christ who received from the Father the Holy Spirit and He, through Himself, ascended to the Father, has given the Holy Spirit to us. This gives the believer in Christ both the knowledge and the power to live a godly life and live a life that can be an intimately and personally directed one.

6. The resurrected Christ was no mere reassembling of the molecules and particles of the Body that had been crucified. It was, indeed, a physical body, but one that was fully glorified. It was a "spiritual body". Christians know that likewise, they will one day be granted the nature of a spiritual body, and be full of health. They therefore are full of hope and consolation, and consider that, even now in this life, there is an overcoming through Him.

==Evangelism==
In what is called the [[Great Commission]], Jesus sent his disciples out into the world to preach the Gospel (literally "good news") and make disciples.
:'''Great Commission'''
:''But the eleven disciples proceeded to [[Galilee]], to the mountain which Jesus had designated. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in [[heaven]] and on [[earth]]." Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the [[#God the Father|Father]] and the [[#God the Son|Son]] and the [[#God the Holy Spirit|Holy Spirit]], teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."'' --[[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 28:16-20 [[New American Standard Bible|NASB]]
[[Image:Gleyre The Departure of the Apostles.jpg|thumb|240px|The Departure of the Apostles by [[Charles Gleyre]].]]
 

==Internet Evangelism==

see also: [[Internet evangelism]]

Campus Crusade for Christ International (CCCI) is one of the world's largest evangelism organizations within Christendom and has over 25,000 full time missionaries. In 2006, Alan Beeber of CCCI predicted that internet evangelism will result in more conversion that all other forms of evangelism for CCCI combined.<ref>http://www.lausanneworldpulse.com/pdf/issues/LWP0206.pdf</ref> At [[YouTube]], Christians and Christian creationists have faced problems with [[atheist bullying|atheist cyberbullies]], but they [[Essay: Sharing your Christian/creationist videos on the internet|have developed methods to overcome this problem]].

==Early Church Community and Commitment: The Biblical Period==

The Bible records that that, at least initially, the church saw itself as united. In the community:

"...they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. {43} And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. {44} And all that believed were together, and had all things common; {45} And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. {46} And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common."(Acts 2:42-47; 4:32)

This community was soon "scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles," due to determined persecution which resulted in the dispersed disciples going "every where preaching the word." (Acts 8:1,4) Christian communities were primarily to be found in two separate cultural and liguistic entities--the Greek and Latin-speaking empires of Europe and the mid-east, and the Aramaic speaking sphere of the Parthian empire of the mid-east and far-east. This latter sphere encompassed not only the eastern portions of Syria, the Arabian peninsula, and Persia, but also extended to portions of southern India and even China. To this day there are many [[Aramaic Church]] members in the Kerala province of south India.

==Early Church Community and Commitment: the Post-Biblical Period==

'''Justin martyr 100 A.D. - 165 A.D. From the "First Apology" (Defense)
'''

<blockquote>
But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to genoito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion. (Chapt. LXV - administration of the sacraments)</blockquote>

<blockquote>
And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist = the Thanksgiving], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone... (Chapt. LXVl - of the Eucharist)
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead...(Chapt.LXVll - weekly worship of the Christians)
</blockquote>

'''Tertullian (A.D. 160 -220), an Early ecclesiastical leader and writer, in his ''Apology'' (response to pagan charges) in describing the early church community wrote, ca. AD 197: '''

:We are a body knit together by one faith, one discipline and one hope. We meet together as a congregation, uniting together to offer prayer to God. We pray for the emperors and all in authority, for the welfare of the world, for peace and for the delay of the final end. We read our holy scriptures to nourish our faith, hope, steadfastness and good habits. We hear exhortations and rebukes. We take such judging very seriously – as befits those who believe they are in the sight of God – especially seriously when anyone sins so grievously we have to cut them off from our prayer, our congregation and all sacred things. Our elders preside over us, obtaining that honor not by money, but by their established character. There is no buying and selling in the things of God. Though we have a fund, but not because people can buy religion. Once a month, anyone who wants to makes a small donation – but only he who is able and willing; there is no compulsion. It is not spent on feasts, but to support and bury poor people, to provide for orphans, the elderly old persons, victims of shipwreck and those in prison for their faith.<ref>Defense by Tertullian (39), Trans. Rev. S. Thelwall. Modernized, abridged and introduced by Stephen Tomkins. Edited and prepared for the web by Dan Graves.</ref>

'''Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Pontus & Bithynia (northern Turkey) from A.D. 111-113, reporting to emperor Trajan of Christians, whom such pagan rulers found intolerable:'''

:... Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

:They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food.<ref>Pliny the Younger Letters, 10.96 </ref>

== Resources related to becoming a Christian ==
[[File:Hoffman Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane.jpg|thumbnail|170px|[[Jesus Christ|Christ]] in the Garden of Gethsemane by Heinrich Hofmann.]]
''see also:'' [[Resources on becoming a Christian]]

'''Below are some resources on becoming a [[Christian]]:'''

*[http://creation.com/good-news Good news of Christianity]

*[http://www.thewordfortoday.org/?page=C2000 Free audio Bible and Bible audio streaming]

*[http://www.allaboutgod.com/ AllAboutGod.com]

*[[Christian apologetics|Evidence for Christianity]]

*[[Video testimonies of Christians]]

*[http://www.gotquestions.org/repentance.html Repentance]

'''Tips on choosing a Christian church:'''

*[http://www.allaboutreligion.org/choosing-a-christian-church-faq.htm Choosing a Christian Church]

'''Spiritual growth as a Christian:'''

*[http://www.navpress.com/product/9781576839324/The-Pursuit-of-Holiness-Jerry-Bridges The Pursuit of Holiness] by Jerry Bridges
*[http://www.navpress.com/product/9780891099413/The-Practice-of-Godliness-Jerry-Bridges The Practice of Godliness] by Jerry Bridges
*[http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/529785.The_Complete_Book_of_Discipleship The Complete Book of Discipleship: On Being and Making Followers of Christ]

==Also See==
[[Image:Orthodox churches icon artwork.jpg|thumb|Orthodox Church's icon artwork.]]
'''Denominations or branches of Christianity'''
*[[Roman Catholic Church]]
*[[Eastern Churches -- Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East]]
*[[Protestantism|Protestant]]
**[[Amish]]
**[[Anglican]] ([[Church of England]])
***[[Episcopal Church]] (USA affiliate)
**[[Baptist]]
**[[Congregationalist]]
**[[Disciples of Christ]] and [[Churches of Christ]]
**[[Evangelical Christianity]]
**[[Friends]]
**[[Fundamentalism]]
**[[Liberal Christianity]]
**[[Lutheran]]
**[[Mennonite]]
**[[Methodist]]
**[[Pentecostal]]
**[[Plymouth Brethren]]
**[[Presbyterian]]
**[[Reformed]]
**[[Seventh-day Adventist]]

'''Disputed'''
*[[Christian Science]]
*[[Jehovah's Witnesses]]
*[[Latter-day Saints]]
*[[Unitarian]]

'''Christianity in the World'''
*[[List of countries by number of Christians]]

'''Other articles'''
*[[Essay: The earliest Christian Church, a prison in Armageddon]]
*[[Aramaic Church]]
*[[Cathedral]]
*[[Catholicism]]
*[[Christian apologetics]] (Defense of Christianity)
*[[Christians and the Law of Moses: an essay]]
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[Church]]
*[[Conservative Christianity]]
*[[Eucharist]]
*[[Evangelical Apostolic Church of North America (Syro-Chaldean)]]
*[[Christian apologetics|Evidence for Christianity]]
*[[Gospel reading in the Church: the Turgama]]
*[[Inspiration of Holy Scripture: An Eastern Christian and Jewish Perspective]]
*[[Jesus Christ]]
*[[Judaism]]
*[[Messiah]]
*[[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]
*[[The Sign of the Cross: a Jewish invention/ Essay]]
*[[Early Aramaic Jewish Christian prophesying]]
*[[First Century Aramaic Jewish Christian Gospel and poetry]]
*[[Aramaic Judaism, Jewish Aramaic Christianity, and John 1:1]]
*[[Passover Seder]]
*[[Persecution of Christians]]
*[[Red-letter Christian]]
*[[Sign of the Cross]]
*[[Essay: The Way of Salvation]]
*[[Gates of Hell]]
*[[Anti Abortion activism: a personal essay]]
*[[Transmigration of Words in Religion: an essay]]
*[[Singing the Hebrew Scriptures]]
*[[Christmas in the Holy Land: an essay]]

'''Internet evangelism:'''

*[[Essay: Sharing your Christian and creationist videos on YouTube and the internet]]

==Further reading==
===Encyclopedias===
* Bodensieck, Julius, ed. ''The Encyclopedia of the Lutheran Church,'' (3 vol 1965), ECLS perspective
* Brauer, Jerald C. ''The Westminster Dictionary of Church History'' (1971), 880pp
* [http://newadvent.org/cathen/index.html ''The Catholic Encyyclopedia'' (1907-1913)], old but highly detailed and online
** '' New Catholic Encyclopedia'', edited by the Catholic University of America, 17 vol. 1967-1979.
*Cross, F. L., and E. A. Livingstone, eds. ''The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church'' (3rd ed. 1997), 1840pp; [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Dictionary-Christian-Church/dp/0192802909/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b excerpt and text search]; online at [[OUP]]
* Elwell, Walter A., ed. ''Evangelical Dictionary of Theology‎'' (2001) 1312 pages; articles by over 200 Evangelical or Fundamentalist scholars
*Hastings, Adrian et al. eds. ''The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought'' (2000) 808pp; 600 articles by 260 Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox scholars; [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0198600240/ref=sib_dp_pt/105-4292297-2766841#reader-link excerpt and text search]; online at [[OUP]]
*''New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge'' (1911), ), major sources of older scholarly articles; mainline Protestant perspective
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc01.toc.html Vol. 1: Aachen - Basilians]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc02.toc.html Vol. 2: Basilica - Chambers]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc03.toc.html Vol. 3: Chamier - Draendorf]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc04.toc.html Vol. 4: Draeseke - Goa]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc05.toc.html Vol. 5: Goar - Innocent]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc06.toc.html Vol. 6: Innocents - Liudger]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc07.toc.html Vol. 7: Liutprand - Moralities]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc08.toc.html Vol. 8: Morality - Petersen]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc09.toc.html Vol. 9: Petri - Reuchlin]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc10.toc.html Vol. 10: Reutsch - Son]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc11.toc.html Vol. 11: Son of Man - Tremellius]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc12.toc.html Vol. 12: Trench - Zwingli]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc13.toc.html Vol. 13: Index]

===Histories===
*Briggs, J. H. Y., Robert D. Linder, and David F. Wright. ''Introduction to the History of Christianity: First Century to the Present Day'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-History-Christianity-Century-Present/dp/0800638123/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200823548&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search]
*Gonzalez, Justo L. '' A History of Christian Thought: Volume 1: From the Beginnings to the Council of Chalcedon'' (2nd ed. 1987); [http://www.amazon.com/History-Christian-Thought-Beginnings-Chalcedon/dp/0687171822/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200823941&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search vol 1]; ''A History of Christian Thought: Volume 2: From Augustine to the Eve of the Reformation'' (2nd ed. 1987) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Christian-Thought-Augustine-Reformation/dp/0687171830/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200823941&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search vol 2]; ''A History of Christian Thought: Volume 3: From the Protestant Reformation to the Twentieth Century'' (1987) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Christian-Thought-Protestant-Reformation/dp/0687171849/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200808706&sr=8-12 excerpt and text search vol 3]
*Horsley, Richard A. ''Christian Origins: A People's History Of Christianity, Vol. 1'' (2006), 318pp [http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Origins-Peoples-History-Christianity/dp/080063411X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200886474&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
*Latourette, Kenneth Scott. ''A History of Christianity'' (2 vol 1975) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Christianity-Beginnings-1500-Revised/dp/0060649526/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200823548&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search vol 1, to 1500], by leading Baptist scholar
*Latourette, Kenneth Scott. ''A history of the expansion of Christianity'' (7 vol 1939-1970), monumental history of missionary work worldwide
*MacCulloch, Diarmaid. ''The Reformation'' (2005), influential recent survey [http://www.amazon.com/Reformation-Diarmaid-MacCulloch/dp/014303538X/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200808706&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
*McGonigle, Thomas D., and James F. Quigley. ''A history of the Christian Tradition: From Its Jewish Orgins to the Reformation'' (1988); ''A History of the Christian Tradition, Vol. II: From the Reformation to the Present'' (1996) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Christian-Tradition-Vol-Reformation/dp/0809136481/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200808706&sr=8-15 excerpt and text search vol 2]
*Pelikan, Jaroslav. ''Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine'' (5 vol 1975-91) [http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Tradition-Development-Doctrine-Medieval/dp/0226653757/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201083460&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search v. 3, 600 AD -1300]]; [http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Tradition-Development-Reformation-1300-1700/dp/0226653773/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201083460&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search vol 4, 1300-1700]; [http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Tradition-History-Development-Doctrine/dp/0226653803/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201083460&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search vol 5, 1700-present] This is the standard history of Christian doctrine.
*Ward, Keith. ''Christianity: A Beginner's Guide'' (2008), 195pp

===United States===
* Ahlstrom, Sydney E. ''A religious history of the American people‎'' (1979) 1192 pages; classic history from broad perspective [http://books.google.com/books?id=5kFF6a1viGcC&dq=inauthor:ahlstrom&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES excerpt and text search]
* Balmer, Randall. ''Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism'' (2nd ed. 2004), 655pp [http://www.questia.com/library/book/encyclopedia-of-evangelicalism-by-randall-balmer.jsp ''Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism'' online edition]
* Lippy, Charles H. and Peter W. Williams, eds. ''Encyclopedia of the American religious experience: studies of traditions and movements'' (3 vol 1988) 1872 pages; standard reference work; long essays by scholars
* Noll, Mark A. '' A history of Christianity in the United States and Canada‎'' (1992), by leading Evangelical historian [http://books.google.com/books?id=VGF3wbzzy9QC&dq=intitle:christianity+inauthor:noll&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES excerpt and text search]
* Queen, Edward L. et al, eds. Encyclopedia of American Religious History'' (3rd ed. 2 vol. 2009) 1200pp
* Reid, Daniel G. et al. eds., ''Dictionary of Christianity in America'' (199)
* Wooley, Davis C. ed. '' Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists‎'' (5 vol 1958-19820; 2565 pages

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/christians/ What Liberals Say - Category: Christians], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://www.christian.com Christian] Social Network
[[Category:Christianity| ]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Worldviews]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Malcolm III (1057-1093)

2012-06-14T06:52:38Z

FrederickT3: Add missing references tag

Malcolm III 'Canmore' was the son of [[David I]]. Exiled to England at an early age following his father's death at the hands of Macbeth. He returned to Scotland in 1057 and, with the support of King [[Edward the Confessor]], king of [[England]], Defeated Macbeth. He also killed Macbeths stepson, Lulach, who had taken his stepfather's throne immediately after Macbeth's death.

Malcolm III then Married St.Margaret (then called Margaret Atheling, Princess of England) and ruled Until his death during a series of raids into England - which had been invaded by [[William the Conqueror]] a long time enemy of Malcolm III's wife.
<ref>www.rampantscotland.com/famous/blfamcanmore.htm</ref>

<references/>

[[Category:Scottish Monarchs]]

Talk:Second Law of Thermodynamics

2012-06-14T06:45:25Z

FrederickT3: /* My answers to Randall7 */

{{unprotected|19 March 2007|Tsumetai}}
== Protection and other issues ==

The trend towards protecting articles by users in edit conflicts is worrisome. Furthermore, the protected version is simply wrong. One of the Conservapedia Commandments is that everything should be sourced. I therefore would very much like to know if there is any source for the claim that "he Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum" This statement is wrong at multiple levels- the 2nd Law is about closed systems (or can be stated about open systems with a some tweaking of the consequent), it says nothing about the universe. Furthermore, tending towards a maximum doesn't even mean that the entropy levels can't decrease. For example, the sequence, 1,3,2,5,4,7,6,9,8... tends towards infinity but is not an increasing sequence. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 04:05, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Second law also says nothing about an upper bound to the entropy of a system; the entropy of the Universe could increase without limit, in principle, making the 'maximum' part wrong too.

:To be fair to Philip, the increase of the Universe's entropy ''is'' a tendency, not an absolute. The total entropy of an isolated system can decrease; it's just hugely improbable on the scales we're used to dealing with. Quantum effects can lead to a decrease in entropy; one has to deal with a very small system over short periods of time to actually notice this, however. Arbitrarily large decreases in entropy are also possible, given sufficient time. This is true whether one is discussing the fluctuation theorems of QM, or good old-fashioned classical systems.

:But these are not, strictly speaking, parts of the second law. Second law doesn't say anything about tendency. The rest of physics just says that second law is not absolute. So I don't think using the word 'tends' in the definition is very useful.

:The main problem with the article is, of course, the part about evolution, which as Horace says is just wrong, and painfully so. It's a seductive argument to the layman; after all, entropy is all about order and disorder, and evolution clearly requires the production of order. Right?

:Wrong, of course. The second law of '''thermo'''dynamics is a statement about '''thermodynamic''' quantities; 'order' is not one. One can choose to ''define'' the term 'order' in thermodynamic terms, in which case the statement that the Universe must become, on net, more disordered over time is true, for certain definitions. But the price for that is rejecting one's intuitive understanding of what constitutes 'order' and 'disorder,' and going with the maths. By a thermodynamic definition of order, my hot chocolate is self-organizing as we speak. Therein lies the danger of describing esoteric physics in terms which carry the baggage of their lay definition. Better to stick with entropy, and check one's prejudices at the door.

:Perhaps the simplest way to illustrate this is with a different statement of the second law; the Clausius statement, which reads:

::It is impossible to construct a heat engine which, operating in a cycle, produces no effect other than the transfer of a quantity of heat from a colder to a hotter body.

:Now, precisely which part of evolution violates ''that''? This version of the second law makes it abundantly clear that we're talking about a specific, mathematically rigorous statement about heat flow, not some general philosophical statement about order and chaos. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:51, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Oh, yes, I forgot to weigh in on the page protection issue. Tonya Harding strategy, right?

:A while ago, I [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Page_protection_policy suggested to ASchlafly] that a written policy on when page protection should be used, and for how long it should last would be helpful. Anyone else agree? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:58, 4 March 2007 (EST)

== The following is incorrect ==

From the article:

"It is impossible for the total entropy of an isolated system to decrease, therefore the universe is becoming more and more disordered. In this way the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution."

The first sentence is true, but the second is false. Evolution does not cause the total entropy in the universe to decrease, only local variations. By analogy, a fridge does not cool the universe, only a small part of it at the expense of the rest. Please correct this clear error to avoid the increasing levels of criticisms being levelled at this wiki. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 07:45, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:To add my thoughts on this: there are two errors in this article. First, the second law ''only'' applies to ''isolated'' systems, not to systems that are merely closed, let alone open. Then it becomes clear that the "disproving" of evolution by referring to the second law is severely flawed. There is nothing against a local decrease in entropy, as long as it is balanced by at least as large an increase elsewhere. Moreover, the assumption that evolution is directly linked to a decrease in thermodynamic entropy is not immediately obvious. I agree with Nematocyte that in its present state, this article will just serve to invite more criticism. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 09:16, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Strictly speaking, second law applies to all systems; for instance, consider the Clausius statement, which I posted up the page. No mention of an isolated system there. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:01, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That not what my stat.mech. text says ;-). Let's put it this way: the ''entropy'' formulation only applies to isolated systems. In fact, I think that the heat engine in the Clausius formulation should itself be taken as isolated. If we allow it to be (thermally or otherwise) coupled to anything else than a hot and a cold "temperature bath", I think we could make the heat flow up the temperature gradient, at the expense of course of something happening outside the engine. Of course, these thermal reservoirs are abstractions, etc. etc. Anyway, here as well, either we should take the system (engine) as isolated, or we should take it as the entire universe. Both cases are not going to help disprove evolution at any rate. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 12:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I think even the entropy formulation will work with open systems, so long as one takes care to quantify the entropy flow through the boundary. The requirement then becomes that entropy decrease within the boundary is no greater than the net entropy flow out of the system through the boundary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:37, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I think it's effectively the same as looking at an isolated system made out of two parts, inside and outside, and applying the second law to the total system. But what you propose should indeed work. I hadn't thought of doing it that way. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 13:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Absolutely; you can always expand the boundary of an open system to obtain an isolated one, in principle. But it's very useful to be able to work with open systems, if the boundary terms can be computed, since it allows one to ignore entropy generation in the environment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Time to unprotect ==

OK, it's been over a week now, and no one has attempted to defend the inclusion of such rubbish. Might we have the article unprotected so that those of us who actually understand elementary thermodynamics can fix it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Nothing doing sir, the numbskulls are the experts. Who said Sri Lanka became independent in the 1970s, none other than the owner of this site! [[User:Zaheerabbas|Zaheerabbas]] 02:12, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Ressurection a violation? ==

I think we should add a section about the resurrection of Jesus and that it "technically" violates the second law of thermodynamics, but that since it was a miracle, it does not need to adhere to the second law. Thoughts?
:...*blinks* Are there sources that are actually saying that? *honestly curious* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]]

:I think the latter part is pretty obvious, and negates the need for the former. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Gonna back Tsumetai up on this one. Also, it's shocking and appalling that this article is protected while containing such tripe in the content of it.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Not to mention the fact that in the ten days since criticisms were first raised, no one who supports the article in its current state has bothered to defend it.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Agreed. I'll leave a message on the protecting admin's Talk page, maybe it'll help. Talking on here doesn't seem to have any impact. =/ --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, of course. Many intellectuals here! Long live the stone age numbskull army!!! [[User:Zaheerabbas|Zaheerabbas]] 02:11, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==This law and evolution==

Timothy Wallace wrote:

*Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began (assuming it had a beginning).

*Beginning with the “Big Bang” and the self-formation and expansion of space and matter, the evolutionist scenario declares that every structure, system, and relationship—down to every atom, molecule, and beyond—is the result of a loosely-defined, spontaneous self-assembly process of increasing organization and complexity, and a direct contradiction (i.e., theorized violation) of the second law. [http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp]

Comments? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Its a considerable misunderstanding. Points:
::*The second law refers to the flow of heat, it is unclear how exactly that translates into "disorder" and "order" when applied to something like life.
::*The second law refers to closed systems, open systems are a much more complex processes and the "law" does not apply cleanly here. Life and Earth are open systems.
::*Evolution is essentially a favored random walk, these systems are able to produce violations of "disorder" all the time. For example any [[Monte Carlo method]] algorithm demonstrates this beautifully, you can reach local "maximum" and avoid "minimums" by using evolutionary algorithms and many other variations on the theme.
::*Complexity theory and Self-organizing systems also routinely violate the maxim that order can not be created from disorder. The sorts of things needed to produce an SOS or complex system are just the kinds of things we find in life.

:Life is not a good place to be trying to appeal a mathematical description of heat. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 16:31, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, applying the second law to evolution reflects a plain misunderstanding. Beings today are not "more perfect" than those that came before. Greater "perfection" may be a violation of the idea of entropy. However, evolved organisms are not more "perfect" than earlier organisms, since Darwin's point is that there is no biological level of "perfection." Evolved organisms don't violate entropy anymore than ''older'' organisms (a 20 year old relative to a 10 year old) do!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:02, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Ames, you're disagreeing with one of the best Renaissance minds, [[William Shakespeare]]:
:*"What a piece of work is man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals! ". - ([[Hamlet]], Act II, Scene II).

:Now, how does Evolution explain man evolving through an unguided process from one-celled organisms? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:56, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Shakespeare is not a scientist. Science and art are different. I realize they may not be for creationists, which is shocking and kind of funny. But they are different in the real world.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Discuss here before deleting information ==

OK. I deleted the "three types of systems the Second Law can apply to," because it only applies to closed systems. I also deleted the claim that it disproves evolution and relativity, because it doesn't. Evolution is nonsense, but isn't disproved by the Second Law because EARTH IS NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM. As for relativity, the Second Law has no connection to it at all. This article is about one of the key laws of science, and if it's blatant nonsense the credibility of the whole site suffers. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 23:47, 16 February 2012 (EST)

:There is no such thing as a perfectly closed system, so your attempt to limit the important Second Law to closed systems is misplaced. The Second Law is far more meaningful than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 16 February 2012 (EST)
::Irrelevant. The Second Law only applies to closed systems. If a system isn't closed then energy can be added, thus reducing entropy. That is the MEANING of the Second Law. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 23:52, 16 February 2012 (EST)
:::OK, give me a statement of the Second Law that works in an open system. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 23:53, 16 February 2012 (EST)

::::Your approach would appear to limit the Second Law to something that doesn't exist. It's more meaningful than that. Its entry here explains its insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 16 February 2012 (EST)
:::::No ''ideal gas'' exists either, yet the Ideal Gas Law only applies to this non-existent hypothetical gas. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 00:00, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::::The Second Law isn't an ''insight''. It's a description of energy available for work in a closed system. It doesn't have some deep ''meaning'' that can be applied to whatever you like. The Second Law is an accurate description of entropy (note: ''entropy'', not ''disorder'') in a closed system, and if ever a closed system is found then rest assured that overall entropy will not decrease inside it. But to say it disproves evolution is nonsense, especially when you yourself admit that Earth is NOT a closed system! --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 00:05, 17 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::And your point is ....? Attempts to limit the Ideal Gas Law to perfectly ideal gases would be misguided also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::Uh what? How can the Ideal Gas law be applied to something that isn't an ideal gas? --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 00:06, 17 February 2012 (EST)

:::::::::The Ideal Gas Law has insights that extend beyond ideal gases. Ditto for the Second Law with respect to closed systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:10, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::::OK then, tell me an "insight" that the Second Law can bring to a system that is ''not'' closed. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 00:14, 17 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::The entry explains this well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:25, 17 February 2012 (EST)
After going back and re-reading the article a few times, I think I know where the confusion lies with some editors. It appears that the article is conflating the thermal definition of entropy with the information theory definition of entropy. This conflation allows the topic of "disorder" to arise. Which has absolutely nothing to do with thermaldynamics. The basic definition of thermal entropy is simply a measure of energy that is unusable to perform work in a system. How a law that breaks down in layman's terms to: "heat won't travel from a cooler body to a hotter body without an additional input of energy" or "no process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body" can be used to "disprove" evolution or relativity escapes me. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 02:19, 17 February 2012 (EST)

:Perhaps [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth#Major earthquakes are doubling every 40 years? |this discussion]] sheds some light on Aschlafly's misconception of the 2nd law. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:27, 17 February 2012 (EST)

The thing is, is that there is a link between thermodynamics and disorder. This is the tour de force result of statistical thermodynamics vs classical thermodynamics - i.e. that the macroscopic quantity which we can measure called "entropy" is related to the number of possible microstates the system can explore. As has been correctly pointed out, the problems start when we directly equate this with "information", or entropy as defined in information theory i.e. "Shannon entropy". This is an analogous concept, based on the fundamental information content of a system. But there isn't an equivalence between information-theoretic entropy and thermodynamic entropy. In the actual physical world, there is no need to directly connect the quantities of "disorder" and "information". This, in part, along with the more important facts that all these things apply to closed systems and the Earth is not a closed system, means that any argument based on how "entropy" disproves evolution due to some information argument is bogus. [[User:DanPW]]

== Second Law and Evolution ==

I have removed the statement about the Second Law disproving evolution. It is pretty obvious that Mr. Schlafly does not have a correct understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and with all due respect, his inaccurate contributions to this article must be removed. From what I understand, Mr. Schlafly's reasoning is based on his belief that evolution is "disorder changing by itself into a more ordered state," which is not true. This has been explained in most of the above sections on this talk page, so I will not rehash arguments. I just expect a better explanation if the article is to be changed back to saying that the Second Law does disprove evolution.

I suspect that the Second Law does not disprove the theory of relativity either, but I have not looked into the arguments for or against this claim so I am leaving this in the article.

--[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 01:31, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

:Your edit was reverted because the Second Law does ban disorder becoming more orderly, just as it bans heat spontaneously flowing to hotter locations. The theory of evolution is based on the contrary claim that random (disordered) mutations create greater order.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:35, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::In thermodynamic terms, the concept of "order" is not usually applied to the Second Law except in rigorous terms of "molecular ordering," which you have not made a clear connection to the theory of evolution. Also, you are ignoring the fact that the Second Law only applies to a closed system (and the Earth is not a closed system), which has been explained many times above. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 02:02, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::And just what is this "closed system" that the 2nd Law here has to be restricted to? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:16, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::The standard thermodynamic definition of a closed system is one that cannot exchange mass with its surroundings. But in the context of Mr. Schlafly's assertions about the Second Law and evolution, his misunderstanding about the thermodynamic concept of order is even more significant. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 02:38, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::And why can't that happen on earth? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:42, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::The Earth is actually pretty close to being a closed system, but obviously it is possible for matter to leave or enter the Earth's atmosphere. But the main problem with the Second Law being used as an argument against evolution is the claim that evolution requires "disorder changing by itself into a more ordered state" (this was most recently stated on [[Talk:Main_Page]]) and the idea that "disorder" (however that is defined) is always increasing. Mr. Schlafly has not provided any substantial evidence or explanation for this, and that is why I removed the claim about evolution from the article. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 03:05, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::You and everyone else above kept right on saying that earth is a closed system; now you're changing it to "''pretty close'' to being a closed system"? Have you ever put together logs in a fireplace and watched them burn? Which was more complex: the logs assembled, or the ashes several hours later? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:10, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::::As I stated in my most recent 2 comments, the fact that the Earth is not a closed system is not as relevant to Mr. Schlafly's Second Law vs. evolution argument as is his concept of order. (And I do believe much of the discussion above on this talk page is not well focused.) I am not seeing the connection between your burning log example and evolution. Please elaborate. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 03:27, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::Now it's back to being a closed system? Did "pretty close" just disappear? Answer the question about the logs. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:45, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::::::The logs are more complex; in the act of burning them, matter goes from an ordered state to a more disordered one, and energy is given off. Are you going to elaborate on how this relates to evolution as Randall asked? [[User:CWest|CWest]] 08:28, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::::That is correct. Now explain why the 2nd Law only applies to a closed system. Those are your words, Randall7, and I expect you to answer it...not CWest. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:41, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::::The two statements that make up the foundation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics - the Kelvin-Planck statement and the Clausius statement - both describe systems that exchange heat and/or work with their surroundings, but not mass. But as I said before, my concern is less about the closed system argument and more about the abuse of the concept of "order" to claim that the Second Law disproves evolution. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 20:37, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

Several more questions, Mr. Randal7, because now you're drifting away from the "closed" system here.
:1. Is iron more complex than rust? And when iron does rust, does it constitute an improvement, or a breakdown?
:2. What happens to boiling water when you turn off the stove? Does it stay the same, or does it get cooler?
:3. Is CWest's statement above correct, in that ''"matter goes from an ordered state to a more disordered one"''? Does that statement apply only to the fireplace? Could it also apply to a freshly-cleaned living room, just prior to adding three eight-year-old spoiled brats with pop guns and a baby sitter unable to control the outcome? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:25, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

::I feel like this discussion is becoming less productive and more of a waste of time, but I'll answer the questions because I want to see how you relate them to the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproving evolution. (I so far have failed to see the connection.)
::#Iron is generally less complex than rust. (Although "complex" is not a very precise term.) Iron is a single element, whereas rust can be a number of iron oxide or iron hydroxide compounds. Iron is usually much more homogeneous than rust. When iron rusts it is a chemical and thermodynamic improvement - it would not happen spontaneously if it were not energetically favorable. In practical terms, rusting is not an improvement because pure iron is more useful for structural or electrical applications, but pure iron does not usually stay pure for long because of its propensity to oxidate. This is why iron alloys are much more common.
::#When the stove is turned off, boiling water cools as heat is transferred from the water to its cooler surroundings. Entropy is generated from this heat transfer.
::#In the burning log example, it is true that "matter goes from an ordered state to a more disordered one," and there are plenty of other examples where this statement is true. There are also many instances where matter goes from a disordered state to a more ordered one, such as water freezing or magnetization. But in theses cases of matter becoming more ordered, net entropy of the matter and its surroundings will still never decrease. The statement could also apply to a room of spoiled brats, but in this case the term "order" is no longer being used in a thermodynamic or chemical sense.
::--[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 15:27, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

===My answers to Randall7===
With regards to the iron, you are wrong. Rust is a breakdown; it is a disintegration of the iron itself. The rust can be stopped; the iron can be prevented from rusting further, but rust in and of itself can never be restored into iron. It goes one-way only. Likewise the water on the stove; take away the heat which makes the water boil, and the water temperature will drop to the lowest level possible, which one can call "room temperature". Likewise the fireplace logs, likewise the living room. One-way only. Complex to simple, order to disorder. It never, ever happens in reverse.

The 2nd Law of thermodynamics is the same way. You can restrict the 2nd Law to heating and/or energy concepts all you want, but the very core of this law is the same thing cited above: order ''always'' goes to disorder; complex ''always'' goes to simple. The 2nd Law may be about heat, but turn off the fire and what do you get? Water cooling down, heat cooling and dissipating, complex to simple, order to disorder. The fireplace scene has the heat, but the logs always end up as ashes. The ashes ''never'' turn back into logs.

And the final answer to the question "what does this have to do with evolution?". It was evolutionists who stated we should ''accept'' their scenario as to how life came to be: ''simple'' organisms ''evolved'' into more and more ''complex'' ones over time. ''Simple'' to ''complex''; ''disorder'' to ''order''. When making scientific investigations the very first step of the [[scientific method]] that must be followed is ''observation''; a scientist has to ''observe'' what is going on, and every single minute of every day scientists and layman alike are observing the 2nd Law in action; no one can get away from it. ''Observation'' proves complex always goes to simple; ''observation'' proves order always goes to disorder. ''Observation'', scientific or not, ''confirms'' the validity of the 2nd Law. The examples I posted above - the fireplace, the iron, the living room, the stove top - are perfect examples of the 2nd Law in action, closed system or not. It's impossible to go into reverse.

That is why we're going to post the impossibility of evolution on this website, ''vis-a-vis'' the 2nd Law. Case closed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:14, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

:You make a good point that irreversibility is an unavoidable consequence of the Second Law. There is no such thing as a truly reversible process and all processes generate entropy. But your claim that "order ''always'' goes to disorder; complex ''always'' goes to simple" is absurd. More ordered/"complex" materials can be formed through [[work]]. ("Simple" and "complex" do not have rigorous thermodynamic definitions, by the way.) Otherwise every single ordered object would have to have existed existed exactly as it is since the beginning of time, or have existed in a larger or more ordered form. Organisms gain energy - the capacity do do work - by eating, respiring, photosynthesizing, or otherwise absorbing energy from their surroundings. This allows them to become more ordered or more "complex," but this is not in violation of the the Second Law because during their processes of converting energy and exerting work, net entropy is generated. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 23:57, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
::Randall7, these organisms do take in food, use it as energy, and continue on with their lives, but their status as organisms remains unchanged until they ''cease the work''; when that happens they wither away and die; they decompose, they turn to dust. Complex to simple, order to disorder. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:03, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
:::I suppose that is true, but you did not refute anything I just said. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 00:11, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
::::If you can sit there and "suppose it is true", then I did refute everything you just said. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:00, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::You seem to focus very much on the "withering away" part of the cycle. What about the observations of growing crystals, growing plants, growing children? Those processes do go from simple to complex - whether the complex states can exist forever (they can't) is not relevant, what's important is that these processes occur naturally. And they're not in contradiction to the second law either; e.g. in the case of crystal growth the evaporating water occupies a larger volume afterwards and hence has increased entropy. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 02:35, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::Frederick, "growing" crystals do not constitute life. Grown humans and plants are still the same species; I don't see children take on a totally different form when growing up into completely-normal adult human beings, and I don't see an acorn grow into anything other than an oak. You don't have a valid argument. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:50, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

::::::Oh, Frederick, don't forget to tell the viewing audience here that your "crystal" things are actually water-soluable; they dissolve in water, and reappear back into crystals when the water evaporates. Nothing to do with entropy, the 2nd Law, or the antics of trolling via China. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:08, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::::The physical processes that I mentioned are exactly the processes to which the Second Law applies. Growth of crystals is a very simple process that can be described quantitatively in much detail; it's a toy model for the growth of living beings (not evolution!). I used it to clarify the relationship between entropy and order: A crystal is an ordered state that arises naturally from the unordered state of a solution. This process is compatible with the Second Law, because if you take the entropy of the evaporated water into account, the entropy of the full system increases. Of course the crystal is water-soluble, and the dissolution is even the simpler process, because the increased entropy of the crystal's particles alone is sufficient to fulfil the Second Law. What it shows is that order can arise from disorder in full compliance with the Second Law. Which is just as well, because otherwise we wouldn't be here. God created the Second Law, and it allows His creation to grow and prosper. Now, evolution is not a thermodynamical process, the Second Law has no relevance to it and it is not a good argument against it. My point is that if we argue against evolution, we need the right arguments - forwarding wrong or irrelevant arguments, making up or arbitrarily changing the meaning of words will not help the cause. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 02:45, 14 June 2012 (EDT)

----

:Andy, how do you explain the growth of a crystal (an ordered arrangement of ions) from a solution (a disordered arrangement), if "the Second Law does ban disorder becoming more orderly", as you say? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:39, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::Order is not really increasing when a crystal grows in a solution, or when water changes its phase and becomes ice. If the crystal or ice is melted again, then one back to where it started. This is no increase in order.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:53, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

:::Mr. Schlafly, it is clear that your concept of order differs from the thermodynamic concept of order. When water freezes, its entropy decreases and when ice melts, its entropy increases, but during these processes the entropy of the water's surroundings also increase/decrease (such that total net change in entropy is never negative, and in reality is net positive). I would like to hear an explanation of how changes in "order" during evolution relate to the actual Second Law of Thermodynamics. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 20:37, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::::: Mr. Schlafly, are you honestly suggesting there is no change in entropy when water melts? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:57, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::: That's a question about semantics - the answer depends entirely on how one decides to define "entropy".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:01, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Entropy has a very clear definition which you can look up in any textbook on thermodynamics. According to that definition, the entropy changes (increases) when water/ice melts. And of course a clear definition is prerequisite to being able to formulate and understand the second law properly in the first place. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 02:35, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm aware of two definitions of entropy in the context of thermodynamics. The statistical entropy, S, of a system is defined as <math>S = -k_{B}\sum_{j}P_{j}\log\left(P_{j}\right)</math> where <math>k_{B}</math> is Boltzmann's constant and <math>P_j</math> is the probability of the system to be in the ''i''th microstate (this reduces to <math>S = k_{B} \log \Omega</math> where <math>\Omega</math> when all the microstates are equiprobable and <math>\Omega</math> is the number of microstates). Alternatively, one has the thermodynamic definition of entropy <math>dS = \frac{\delta Q}{T} \!</math> where <math>\delta Q</math> in an infinitesimal change in heat and <math>T</math> is the temperature of the system. However, Boltzmann showed this was equivalent to the statistical entropy, so these two definitions are really just two different descriptions of the same thing. In any case, the second law of thermodynamics is talking about the statistical/thermodynamic entropy. It clearly changes when ice melts. If you have your own definition of entropy Mr. Schlafly that's fine, although it's confusing to use a word that already has a clear meaning and then use your particular definition in the talk page of the second law of thermodynamics. However, people here are using 'entropy' as its understood by actual scientists. What is your definition? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:00, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

::::::::: I don't have any reason to doubt your formulas for entropy, and thanks for posting them. But for the purposes of the Second Law the dictionary definition for entropy works fine: a measure of disorder in a system. It's always increasing unless there is some kind of intelligent intervention, like [[God]] creating the world. Perhaps [[faith]] can operate to reduce entropy. Otherwise, without intervention or faith, disorder is always increasing, and the Second Law is an expressing of that logical truth. Otherwise a [[perpetual motion machine]] would be possible, and it is isn't.

:::::::::: Considering we're talking about physics the definition used by physicists should take precedent. But fine, often "a measure of disorder in a system" is used to define entropy for the layman. However, under this definition the entropy ''still'' increases when ice melts since the structure becomes less ordered. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:15, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::: The melting of ice is simply a phase change to reflect the temperature. Refreeze the water and it's back to where it started. Observing water rather than ice is logically the same as observing the temperature on a nearby thermometer. This doesn't illustrate the basic truth that a [[perpetual motion machine]] is impossible. Do you think a perpetual motion machine -- one that that moves forever in a consistent manner without intelligent intervention -- may be possible?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

While this isn't really my area a scientific expertise, there are a few things I'd like to say.

1. Perhaps a "layman's dictionary" definition of entropy could get away with just saying it's a measure of disorder, but that really isn't good enough for a web site that prides itself on its articles on science and math. Look at the [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] for an example of the sophistication we have. By the way, my Webster's New Twentieth Century (yeah, it's out of date) Dictionary is a layman's dictionary, albeit unabridged. It gives its first definition as "a thermodynamic measure of the amount of energy unavailable for work in a system undergoing change." In any case, if you use the hand-wavy "disorder" definition, you can't then talk about thermodynamics and the fact that entropy increases. You'd have to explain how the act of cleaning one's room, or sorting a deck of cards, doesn't violate the second law. Of course we know why it doesn't, but we can't explain that without at least some thermodynamic terms. One needs to understand the connection between decks of cards naturally becoming ordered when we shuffle them, and heat spontaneously flowing from a colder object to a warmer one. It's not simple.

2. The connection between iron and rust, and the connection between wood and ashes, is not one of "disintegration". Iron does not disintegrate when it rusts. (In fact, because of its place on the nuclear binding energy graph, iron is the most indestructible element that there is.) Iron combines with oxygen. That is a chemical reaction, and it can be reversed, though, unfortunately, it doesn't naturally reverse itself when rusty objects are left outside. An understanding of how chemical reactions work, and how they can be reversed, is the result of the hundreds of years of research, first by the alchemists, followed by the more careful research of people like Priestley, Lavoisier, Dalton, Scheele, Gay-Lussac, and many others.

3. The oxidation of wood to make ash (it's more complicated than that, actually) is another chemical reaction, and it is also reversible. Trees burn down all the time. The ash goes into the ground, and, eventually, the forest grows back. The cycle repeats again and again, all over the world. The change in entropy between water and ice also goes in cycles, every year. When water freezes in winter, the entropy goes down. When the ice thaws, it goes up. Repeatedly. The heat budget of the Sun-Earth system (warm in summer, cold in winter) is easily enough to drive the entropy of all of these reactions. The same thing is true of salts going between solution (disorder, and high entropy) and crystals (order, and low entropy.) The energy needed to make these reactions go back and forth is easily available, from, say, a Bunsen burner. Or just leaving something out to dry.

4. The same sort of thing happens in the field of biology. The transition from a bunch of amino acids (disordered system) into, say, a kidney (ordered system) can take place easily, because the necessary energy is available. By the way, the force involved in turning amino acids into kidneys is related to the force turning a salt solution into a crystal. The ribosomes that put an amino acid into place are acting under electrostatic forces, albeit in a much more complex pattern than a positive Sodium ion falling into place next to a negative Chlorine ion.

5. In discussing the second law, one must keep in mind that there are two kinds of hypothetical "perpetual motion machines." A "perpetual motion machine of the first kind" violates the first law of thermodynamics, that is, conservation of energy. It is what people usually think of when they talk about perpetual motion machines. A "perpetual motion machine of the second kind" violates the second law of thermodynamics. It makes a cold thing colder and a hot thing hotter, while conserving energy. That is, it moves heat "uphill" without any external energy source.

6. Biological evolution is, of course, more complicated than all that. Whether the second law makes biological evolution impossible is a complicated question, and I have to defer to scientists who have studied this in much more detail than I.

[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 00:51, 14 June 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2012-06-13T06:44:25Z

FrederickT3: /* A.M. */

'''[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]''' 
'''[[/archive2 | Archive 2 ]]''' 
'''[[/archive3 | Archive 3 ]]'''
----

== Additional liberal terms? ==

What about "ethnocentrism" (1905-1910) and "multiculturalism" (1960-1965)? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 09:34, 16 January 2011 (EST)

: Superb suggestions. Please add as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:37, 16 January 2011 (EST)
==Refudiate==
Even though liberal dictionaries added this word, Palin admitted it was an error on her part. If it stays then we must add Corpse men for lib terms.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:01, 23 January 2011 (EST)
:Not necessarily--no dictionaries made "corpse man" a [http://www.execdigital.com/business/leader/who-s-laughing-now-sarah-palin-s-refudiate-oxford-s-top-word-2010 word of the year]. Moreover, the word seems to be getting some leverage and use on its own terms. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 14:43, 23 January 2011 (EST)

::Perhaps time will tell. The term "Big Bang" was born of mockery also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:15, 23 January 2011 (EST)
:::Andy, could that explain the perceived scarcity of conservative words dating from the 21st century? Because I think the notion that a word can "mature" to be conservative is a fascinating and powerful insight. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:10, 4 February 2011 (EST)

== Charisma? ==

I have doubts that charisma, despite its etymology, is a conservative term. It seems to elevate style over substance -- a definite [[liberal]] trait. Nowhere does the Bible refer to Jesus as having charisma.

I suspect the original meaning of charisma was for religious charisma.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 4 February 2011 (EST)
:I would suggest, (if we do ''indeed,'' keep it), to change the phrasing to something more on the order of:
::'''literally "a gift from God", charisma is the quality of a person imbued by God to leadership, often found in [[conservative]] public figures.'''
:This nixes the "magic" from the sentence since as wonderful as a gift from God is, it isn't "magic". [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 20:20, 4 February 2011 (EST)
::Andy, that's a good point. I prefer to think of charisma as ''the style of substance'', but that's definitely not the case for everyone (especially liberals). While the etymology is undoubtedly conservative, perhaps "difficult to classify" may be a better resting place for charisma. Devon, either way, definitely an improvement on your part, thanks. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 22:21, 4 February 2011 (EST)
==New words added==

Hi, I have added 4 new words: deference (1660), idealist (1701), god-fearing (1835) & Rogue state (1993). If everyone accepts these, they will fill out the doubling pattern for those centuries. Shall I change the numbers in the summary at the top of the page?

I have also added 'liberal creep' (2008). [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 01:08, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

:All your additions look superb except "deference," which I'm not sure is [[conservative]]. Please do update the counts the top (I already did increment the 1800s count for "God-fearing").--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:05, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

::I added 'deference' because CP has 'giving those in authority due respect' listed as a [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_values Conservative Value]. I will tweak the definition a bit to emphasis the necessary legitimacy of the superior. Thanks for the positive feedback. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 02:21, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

:::But look at the remainder of the chat quote: "giving those in authority due respect, but not to the point of accepting orders or assertions that are contrary to logic or morality."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:34, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

:::: Let's continue this discussion later Monday morning. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:40, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

Hi again. Firstly, let me tell you that I am an Aussie and my timezone is GMT+10. This makes me 12-15 hours ahead of you. Our conversations may be a bit disjointed because of this. Right now it is my bedtime, so I will post this comment & then go, leaving it for your consideration. (Editing has been switched off for a while, is that correct? I realise that you do this most nights. I didn't expect it to be on again tonight.)

To return to 'deference': to me the word embodies respect and consideration which I would regard as being conservative values, but not necessarily 'giving in'. However, I do not have the right American nuances to interpret this as you do and will not push this strongly and am happy to remove it from the list.

I have a couple of alternatives for consideration:

atheistic (1625-35) An adjective pertaining to or characteristic of atheists or atheism; containing, suggesting, or disseminating atheism.

secularize (1611) To make secular; to transfer from ecclesiastical to civil or lay use, possession, or control

To me, these are useful words for conservatives. They do not describe conservatives. My reading of the list suggests that useful words are acceptable eg alarmist. Anyway, goodnight for now, catch up with you tomorrow. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 08:32, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

: "atheistic" is good. Let's go with that. I didn't see why "patriarchy" was conservative, so I removed that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 18 March 2011 (EDT)
::No worries. I'll add 'atheistic'. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 22:36, 18 March 2011 (EDT)

== "Copacetic" ==

I'm not sure how conservative this word is. There's no reasoning given for its inclusion, apart from the fact that Bojangles Robinson supposedly created it (and even that is extremely weak evidence and I'm not sure what it adds. I'm going to remove it from the list if no one raises any opposition. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:37, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

: "Copacetic" is the very satisfactory result of conservative values. It is associated with good and honest living. I do object to removal of this conservative term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

== Moral Majority - A suggestion ==

Andy, I saw your addition "silent majority" and it made me immediately think of "Moral Majority". [http://www.answers.com/topic/moral-majority This page credits it to Jerry Falwell in 1979]. Although in it's strictest sense it describes a movement it is still has greater symbolism. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:30, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

:Great suggestion. Please included it ... and increment the total near the beginning for the 1900s.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
::Done! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:22, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

== Obambulate ==

Maybe it's just my public school education at work, but I fail to see how obambulate is conservative. Apart from its obvious similarities with "Obama", it simply means "to walk around". I know that Obama has been bumbling and whatnot, but it's an innocuous word that is being assigned a special significance due to coincidence. I'm not sure it belongs on this list. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:05, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:It is probably as a result of it being mentioned on Rush Limbaugh's show and the liberal reactions to it during the past week. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:08, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::What was the reaction? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:14, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

:::Denny, your comment is a valid one, but the modern usage of the term "obambulate" is to criticize the directionless wandering characteristic of liberal leadership. None of the terms in the list should be viewed in a vacuum independent of their usage.

::: Hey, my response used another candidate: "directionless". ''Trying to find its date of origin next ....''--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:35, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

== Agitprop ==
Sorry if I get the etiquette wrong, first time commenting. I was just wondering if there was a source for Agitprop? I always understood it to be derived from Soviet Russian institutions, so would be quite keen to see the conservative routes of it. Everything I have tried so far has turned up the term as being derived from Russian e.g. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=agitprop&searchmode=none , and I would be surprised if the internal machinations of the USSR would come up with something conservative, so would be keen to find out the alternative you uncovered"[[User:JTpldl|JTlpdl]] 09:18, 28 March 2011 (EDT)"

== Page dividing ==

Due to the success of this essay, it's really slow, so can I split it into pages by century of origin? This would allow the page to load faster and be easier to navigate. Any thoughts on the idea? [[User:BenDylan|BenDylan]] 20:09, 14 April 2011 (EDT)
:I'd like to see it be broken up by century and automatically numbered. I'm not sure that breaking it up into many pages would facilitate more than inconvenience. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:55, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

==Audit==
I'm getting 25,48,100,201,17 as the counts. If so, this wouldn't be the first time I've seen them wrong. As I mentioned above, we should consider breaking the list up by century to help avoid counting errors. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 18:37, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

== Word for 1700's ==
Could belittle be the word we are looking for to perfect the list? It was coined in 1785 by Thomas Jefferson himself, and is certainly a way to describe an action often done by liberals to protect their ideas. [[User:JoshuaL|JoshuaL]] 19:34, 28 April 2011 (EDT)
:Joshua, I'm inclined to agree, as Jefferson likely coined the term in response to critics trying to deceptively minimize issues he raised. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 02:07, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

::Not sure "belittle" is conservative. But how about "axiomatic"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:20, 30 April 2011 (EDT)
If you're still looking for an 18th century word, 'nationalist' would fit well - it's a core conservative value, synonymous with 'patriot', the antithesis of 'internationalist', and one of the defining features of the 18th century. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:17, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

== Liberal creep ==

How do we reconcile this with liberal creep? If language is becoming more conservative, why is opinion and perception becoming more liberal? Do liberals or conservatives dictate the terms of the national conversation? If someone could take a look at the two phenomena and find out what makes one move in one direction and the other in the opposite, it would make a great essay. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 15:05, 8 May 2011 (EDT)
:I've also brought this up for discussion [[Talk:Essay:Conservapedia's_Law#Putting_Conservapedia.27s_Law_in_perspective|here]]. Conservapedia's Law, the observation that conservative insights double over time, is clearly incomplete, perhaps even flawed. I agree that there could be a complex relationship between liberal creep and Conservapedia's Law and it is worth investigating. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 15:15, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

== Graph of words over time ==

While I was drawing graphs, I wrote a quick script to generate a graph of the data in this page. [http://static.inky.ws/image/405/image.jpg This graph] shows the growth in conservative terms year-by-year, rather than just per-century. The red line is the data from this page, the green line is a quadratic curve. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:59, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:Wow, that's a spectacular graph! Can you give permission for me to include it in the entry page?

:The graph disproves the theory that there were bursts of new words during certain periods. I'll remove that from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
::Please do use the graph as you see fit. I can generate new graphs from the latest data with no trouble at all, so if you'd like it can be updated periodically. I'm currently trying to find a suitably analogous source of data for liberal words/ideas, which would allow comparative analysis. This kind of data is very interesting as it seems to avoid the short-term political cycles which characterize much of popular discourse, focusing on the really significant point of the growth of ideas. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:59, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

:::I posted the graph and your idea is marvelous. However, I don't think the graph is completely accurate: the curve for the actual data should intersect the predicted curve at each turning of the centuries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:45, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

:::*Is the green curve really a fit for the data according to Aschlafly's theory? I mean, Jcw says ''the green line is a quadratic curve'' - at best it's a second approximation for the geometric curve...
:::*Personally, I find quite hard to judge the existance of ''bursts'' from a [[cdf]]. Perhaps Jcw could create a histogram - perhaps for decades?
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:30, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
::::You both raise valid points, which hopefully will be answered soon. Andy and August both mention that the x^2 curve isn't a perfect fit - it certainly isn't, and I'm pretty sure a 2^x curve with appropriate constants will fit better; I'm planning to do that tonight. August mentions different ways of representing the data - I'll happily produce a histogram of the data if that'd be interesting, but the reason for plotting it as I have is to produce a curve that I can use for my more grandiose scheme, of which more later. My background is not so much in statistics - although I've done a fair bit of that - but in purer maths, so my thinking is mostly based around the relationships between smooth(-ish) functions. That may not be the best way to deal with these data qua data, but to extract patterns for further, more abstract work, it's ideal. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:43, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
::::[http://static.inky.ws/image/412/image.jpg Et voila], a better fit. This is an exponential curve fitted to the same data. Note that it fits much better in the region with the most words, but is a bit out for the earlier period where there are fewer words in the list. This is because we can more easily find suitable words from more recent periods, so naturally the pattern is most exact there. No doubt if we could go through a large, representative corpus and extract words uniformly, it would fit nicely all the way along. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:25, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::'''@Aschlafly: ''' Could you recount the words? My count gave me 26-51-103-210-18 (Sum: 408) instead of 26-52-103-208-18 (Sum: 407). Perhaps a fourth column for the century (or even better, the decade) could be added? That would make it much easier to keep track of the numbers!

:::::'''@Jcw: ''' I don't think that your ''better fit'' is the function which Aschlafly has in mind: it should be <math>F_{theo}(t) = \frac{\#words }{15}</math><math>(2^{\frac{t-1599}{100}}-1)</math>, where ''#words'' is the number of words created before 2000, i.e., 390. This function touches/intersects the empirical cdf at the turn of each century, a fact which betrays the biased method of looking for these words.

:::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:12, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::August, so you've constructed a function which you claim 'betrays the biased method of looking for these words'? I'd be interested to see a more thorough explanation of that point. Another editor has attempted a similar argument above, but without success. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:42, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::::August, I have an open mind about this. I don't see how we could so easily find [[conservative]] words that double by century if the underlying pattern were not there. But please explain if you think that is in error.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:27, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

I hope we can agree on the function ''Ftheo'' - it should be uncontroversial:

*one layer exists from 1 - 2 - 4 - 8 words, i.e., 20, 21,22 and 23
*the partial sums are 1 - 3 - 7 - 15, i.e., 21-1, 22-1, 23-1, and 24-1
*so, with the turn of the n-th century, there should be 2n+1-1 words
*for K layers, the number is K * (2n+1-1). Each layer has 15 words, thus, if there are '''N''' feasible words, the number of layers is '''N'''/15
*now adjust for years instead of centuries, and don't start with the first, but with the 17th, and you get the formula <math>F_{theo}(t) = \frac{\#words }{15}</math><math>(2^{\frac{t-1599}{100}}-1)</math>.

'''@jcw: ''' ''Another editor has attempted a similar argument above, but without success.'' I read the sections above, and I ''was'' convinced by the argument.

'''@Aschlafly:''' ''I don't see how we could so easily find [[conservative]] words that double by century if the underlying pattern were not there.'' The effects of the miscount ([[Talk:Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words#PERFECTION: 20-40-80-160 BY CENTURY]]) have shown that you are able to match any pattern you were looking for.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:11, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

August's contrary theory aside, here's an interesting consequence of this trend: [http://static.inky.ws/image/421/image.jpg this graph] shows the curve from above in green, an hypothetical linear growth of liberalism ([liberal creep], in blue) and the effect of the latter on the former (in red). Note how the red line - the net effect of liberal and conservative ideas - falls for a while, reaching a minimum in the twentieth century before shooting up. This is because the exponential growth of conservatism is slower at first that the linear growth of liberalism, but gets very much faster later on, easily overtaking the linear function and increasing to infinity. Obviously the liberalism line is hypothetical, but it's interesting nonetheless. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:41, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

:That's remarkably insightful. In other words, the combination of linear [[liberal creep]] and the geometric growth rate of [[Best New Conservative Words]] results in a liberal trend for a while (until the [[Great Depression]]), and then a rapidly increasing conservative trend thereafter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:16, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

::Exactly. The precise shape of the final curve depends on the values assumed for the [[liberal creep]] line, but any reasonable values give a final curve with much the same shape. It agrees rather remarkably with the observed facts, especially as nothing in the calculations refers to historical events at all. Purely linguistic inputs produce an undeniably historical result, demonstrating the power of language very clearly. As ever, feel free to use the graph however you please. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:48, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

::: I am skeptical that the complexities of human society and political philosophies can be summed up simply as an exponential function minus a linear function. What evidence is there that this [[liberal creep]] is linear? How is that even quantified? Does this hypothesis make any specific predictions, in order to make it [[falsifiable]] and thus scientific? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 02:09, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: Good questions. I'll consider them (as others probably will also) and reply after some thought.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:15, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: Good questions indeed. The immediate answer is 'no': of course all the complexities of human society can't be summed up as simply as this. Quantifying complex abstract phenomena is a very rough business, most especially on a short timescale. The goal of my graphs isn't to present concrete mathematical laws, or anything like them, but just to illustrate a conceptual relationship using mathematics.
:::: To answer your specific questions:
:::: * 'how is that even quantified?': Crudely and by guesswork, like many first attempts in all sciences, especially those relating to human activity. The crude guess is justified by the answer to:
:::: * 'Does this hypothesis make any specific predictions...': In one way, the hypothesis is supported by the same kind of evidence as is used to defend evolution - the hypothesis I've produced now gives results which agree with events in the past. As we all agree, that's not the best kind of evidence, but in this case it's rather compelling. Secondly, it does make concrete predictions - indeed, it makes an inescapable prediction which can't be fudged or avoided - the 'conservatism' curve increases very rapidly to infinity, rather than going up and down or settling into a steady state. This suggests a discontinuity in the future, where the level of conservatism rises to something quite outside our experience. I'm not sure what that would look like, but I think we'd recognize it if we saw it. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:49, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: In furtherance of Jcw's remarks, it is perhaps easier to study the development of language and politics, which are closely related to each other, than it is to study and predict ... the weather. Nobody had a problem with [[Al Gore]] trying to predict the weather, so why object when a simpler task is undertaken?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:01, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::: @Jcw How specifically does your graph "agree with events in the past"? Also, the claim that "the level of conservatism rises to something quite outside our experience" is not a specific prediction. I'm not even sure what that means. Finally, in [http://static.inky.ws/image/421/image.jpg your graph] what does the y-axis represent? Words? Aschlafly above links the exponential function to the growth of conservative terms. If so, why is [[liberal creep]] linear? Is there any empirical or theoretical reason to believe this? Looking at [[Essay:New_Liberal_Terms|liberal terms]] by century it seems like liberal terms are also growing exponentially, even though the article claims they don't grow "geometrically" and are "heavily influenced by culture". In any case, it doesn't look linear. Wouldn't the diminishing intelligence of humans mean liberal terms would be growing quickly?
:::::: @Aschlafly Weather and climate are distinct things. I don't think anyone believes Al Gore is a climate scientist qualified to make scientific predictions, only a spokesman. Many people do have a problem with him and the whole idea of climate change.
:::::: Also, human beings are extremely complicated and it isn't obvious to me that accurately predicting and quantifying the political philosophy of a complex society is much simpler than either meteorology or climatology. Even if the development of politics and language are closely related (I'm not sure they are), why would studying them be necessarily be a simpler task than studying climates?--[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:39, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

(unindent)Matthew: now you're asking questions that have already been answered or are clear from the context. I note that your edits on this site are almost exclusively to talk pages; may we assume that you are here simply to argue rather than to contribute? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:44, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

The interesting question is, what would an (effectively) infinite level of conservatism look like? I'm afraid I don't know enough about the US to answer that: over here 'conservatism' looks a great deal like US liberalism... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:32, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

: One characteristic of infinite conservatism might be when it is impossible to notice a difference in the level of service and attitude between government and a perfectly competitive industry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:18, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
:: In a perfectly conservative society, would there be any need for government as we now know it? I suppose there are limits to how conservative a society can be in a fallen world... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:52, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Conservatives aren't [[libertarian]]s or [[anarchist]]s, so a '''''limited''''' government would exist ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:48, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: I'm sorry, I still don't understand what 'infinite conservatism' means. Perhaps an article detailing how conservatism can be quantified and what happens in the limit as it approaches infinity would help. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 21:32, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: That's an interesting idea, Matthew. I think that in the US conservatism is closely correlated with Evangelical Christianity, which is not at all the case here in the UK, where our conservatives are more likely to belong to the Church of England - a decidedly liberal institution by US standards. Andy's suggestion above is concise, but if you think about it it's a very acute description of a hypothetical perfectly conservative government. I shudder to think what a perfectly liberal government would be like. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:33, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Jcw, your description of US conservatism compared with the UK is interesting, and I've thought about it. While certainly there are more evangelicals here than there, not all are conservative. Moreover, the cause-and-effect is less than clear: does the conservative nature of America allow evangelicalism to develop more fully than in a liberal nation? If so, there still remains an underlying mystery of why America is more conservative than the UK.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, a very interesting question. Our two nations have a great deal of shared history, but today are vastly different in fundamental ways. I think the Reformation is particularly important in this context - the UK experienced it directly, while the nascent US only experienced the aftereffects; the US was never a Catholic nation in the Mediaeval sense. Another - perhaps related - aspect is the persistence of monarchy in the UK compared to its outright rejection by the US. There's a lot to be said on this topic, so I'll begin an essay with some of my thoughts and see how it compares with a US view. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:39, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Please do start an essay on this, hopefully here so that I can contribute to it too! Religious differences between the US and the UK are surely part of the explanation for the political differences, but I think there is more to it than that. [[Federalism]], for example, prevents [[liberals]] from gaining control over the US, while that protection does not exist in the UK. I will say this: the UK media is much more free with respect to American politics than the American press is!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:13, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

'''@Jcw: ''' What are the parameters of your interpolating function? And how did you calculate them? Could you also display:

:<math>F_{theo}(t) = \frac{\#words }{15}</math><math>(2^{\frac{t-1599}{100}}-1)</math>

And why not use these paramaters - they are the direct result of applying Aschlafly's rule of doubling-by-century...

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:08, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

August, if you'd like to do those calculations, please feel free - the data isn't kept secret, it's right there on the page. If you'd like to see another presentation of it, go ahead. I'm very happy to explain things - and to justify my choices! - to well-meaning editors with genuine questions, but you seem to be on the wrong side of every argument around here, as if you're deliberately disagreeing for the sake of it. The amount of time and attention you're willing to give to criticizing other people's ideas is remarkable. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:35, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

: Well put, Jcw. Actually, the entries begin with the year 1612, after the publication of the [[KJV]] and the completion of nearly all of [[Shakespeare]]'s works. So August's date in his exponent appears wrong, but your graph is correct in show an intersection with the x-axis over a decade after 1600.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:45, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

'''@Jcw:''' ''August, if you'd like to do those calculations, please feel free - the data isn't kept secret, it's right there on the page.'' I can't reproduce your calculations as there is not enough data: You say that it is a fit, but you don't explain how you fitted it:
::#How did you treat words like ''atheistic'' (1625-1635), ''deadweight loss'' (1930s) and ''design by committee'' (before 1958)
::#Which kind of fit did you use? For me, Maximum-Likelihood would be an obvious choice.
::#Which family of functions did you look at? Obviously a*2^x. Why not a*2^x+b?
::#Did you use any weights? Which ones (or why not)?
All these choices result in different interpolating functions. So, which choices did you make and what was your result?

''If you'd like to see another presentation of it, go ahead. I'm very happy to explain things - and to justify my choices! - to well-meaning editors with genuine questions'' Obviously I won't promise ''not'' to criticize your choices. Does this make me a not-well-meaning editor?

''You seem to be on the wrong side of every argument around here'' I seem to be constantly on the other side than you are. Doesn't make my side always wrong!

'''@Aschlafly: ''' ''Well put, Jcw.'' Do you condone the policy to share data only with those who you expect not to criticize it? When reading [[Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog]] and its talk page, I got quite another impression!

''So August's date in his exponent appears wrong, but your graph is correct in show an intersection with the x-axis over a decade after 1600'' Jcw's graph (the green line!) doesn't intersect the x-axis at ~1610. I doubt that it intersects the x-axis at all! The red line shows the empirical data, so of course it begins at 1612 with the first word found - though ''obambulate'' (1600) is the oldest word in the table, and seems to be always counted in the ''perfect counts''. OTOH, the graph which I proposed intersects the x-axis at the turn of the 16th century, and crosses the empirical curve at the turn of each century (whether you shift the function by 1599 or 1600 is just a matter of taste...).

== Americanadians ==

How about 'Americanadians'? I've observed many good Americans being influenced by the blatant propaganda of our socialist neighbors, and starting to espouse their flawed line of thought. What do others think? Let me know.

== Claptrap ==

I suggest "claptrap." I'm surprised it's not on the list already. --[[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 00:20, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:Superb suggestion! I'll add it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:45, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

::It was already on the list. I added an 1800s term instead.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:10, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== free speech ==

Perhaps I simply fail to understand the context you provided, but is free speech really a "conservative word?" Terms like "political correctness" and "obamacare" are undeniably conservative (to the point where liberals won't use them), but free speech is at best non-partisan, and at worst (I am attempting to write from a conservative viewpoint- I may fail miserably at this) a term co-opted by liberals to justify their perversions and excesses. </attempt to write from conservative viewpoint>--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 01:20, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:You raise a valid point. But isn't it the conservatives who protect, for example, corporate and many other types of expenditures in elections as "free speech"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:28, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
::Indeed, you are correct. But I think it's fair to say now that it is a word used by conservatives as well as liberals to represent their agendas. I do not know how this factors into this particular list--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 02:13, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:::I'll continue to think about your valid criticism. Maybe I can search Supreme Court opinions and see who is using the term "free speech" most. I don't think [[liberals]] are using it as much as [[conservatives]] are today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== Decades ==

I added a column for the decades (rather than for the centuries). I hope this will help to keep the count of the words up-to-date.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:05, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

:I'm not sure how that will help - surely the decade is already contained in the 'year' column? If you'd like a more accurate count, I suggest doing what I do - use a perl script to parse the wikitext and print out whatever information you want. To me the decade column looks annoyingly redundant, but perhaps I've missed something... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:27, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::I wanted to facilitate the count: as some of the dates are not purely numeric (1950s, before 1958, 1625-1635), it's hard to sort the table by the column ''date''. If there is a purely numeric column, the table can be easily copied into a spreadsheet and recounted even by those who don't know anything about regular expressions.

::If you have a script, please use it to keep an eye on the count: I'm surprised that you didn't spot the miscount earlier on.

::I'll add the column for the decades again, this time at the last place. This should be more pleasing...

::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:07, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

I don't know how to upload a picture, so here is an ascii-graphic for the distribution by decades:

*1600: *
*1610: ****
*1620: *****
*1630: *
*1640: ******
*1650: ****
*1660: **
*1670:
*1680: **
*1690: *
*1700: *
*1710: ***
*1720: *****
*1730: ****
*1740: ****
*1750: *****
*1760: ******
*1770: ******
*1780: ********
*1790: *********
*1800: ********
*1810: *********
*1820: ***************
*1830: ***************
*1840: *********
*1850: **********
*1860: **********
*1870: *******
*1880: ************
*1890: **********
*1900: ***********************
*1910: ***********************
*1920: **********************
*1930: *******************
*1940: ***************************
*1950: **************************
*1960: *************************
*1970: ****************
*1980: **********************
*1990: ******
*2000: ***************
*2010: ***

1820/1830,1900/1910, and 1940/1950 seem to be decades in which significantly more conservative terms were created than one would have expected... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:15, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

== Suggested additions ==

Eurabia - what Europe will become if people don't stand up for themselves.

Islamofascism - repressive muslim shariah regimes/totalitarian islamism.

[[User:MeganH|MeganH]] 01:01, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

: Go ahead and add if you have some dates of origin, even if only approximate. I hadn't heard of the first one ("Eurabia") before.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

== Dumpster diving ==

Was 'dumping diving' added because food is not going to waste, or am I misunderstanding why it's conservative? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 09:54, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

:I'll take a stab at it. Conservative words can describe liberal actions. I am not saying dumpster divers are liberal, those poor folks maybe hungry. Dumpster Diving is not limited to food. It's also a method to get trade secrets from companies or dig up dirt against somebody. Most likely, Dumpster Diving is used for deceitful purposes for example gaining a social security number from discarded bills used for the creation of fraudulent IDs. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:06, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

::Great points. This is a list of [[conservative]] terms, often insightful, about activities that may be conservative or liberal, harmful or helpful, or none of the above. Evidently this term was developed by small businessmen to describe an unhelpful activity outside their restaurants and other stores. Dumpster diving may sometimes be the equivalent of recycling or getting a hungry person some food, but in any event '''the term''' is a perfect description of the activity. And once there is a good term for something, then the activity can be understood and addressed better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:39, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

::: Good analysis. But is dumpster diving a conservative act? --[[User:GeorgeZ|GeorgeZ]] 15:53, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Read Andy's post. He specifically says that that does not matter. It was created by conservatives. Therefore it is a conservative word. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:12, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Right that it does not matter whether it is a conservative act. In the case of dumpster diving, whether it is ever conservative depends on what the purpose and effect are. It also doesn't matter if a conservative coined it; a liberal can sing a [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs|conservative song]]. The point is whether the insight is conservative. In this case, small businessmen (a conservative line of work) coined the term to criticize how homeless people were digging through their trash.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:19, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::I see Andy. Thanks for explaining. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:22, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Indeed, one might suggest that liberals have indirectly contributed to the increase in conservative terms by constantly inventing new ways to avoid work and personal responsibility. Conservatives are then, naturally, obligated to develop terms for these behaviors. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:18, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

== 2000s ==
It's fascinating how the new Conservative words and insights do seem to grow geometrically by century, but I'm curious as to why the 2000s seem to be pretty far behind. We're 11 years in, so you'd expect there to be roughly 40 new words so far, but we've got less than half that many. With the rise of the TEA Party, I'd expect to be much closer. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:06, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

: Excellent point. Possible reasons could include that it is too soon to recognize new words in the most recent decade ... or maybe there has been a short-term decline in conservative intellectualism? At any rate, I've been meaning to add the term "Tea Party" itself with its etymology in the last decade!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:12, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

::I have to agree with you, Andy. Even though we're in 2011 now, it might be too early to be able to fully appreciate all the new conservative words created last decade. I think "Tea Party" might just be one of the most important words to add and I think the movement itself will produce a lot of new, conservative words in its own right! [[User:BobSherman|BobSherman]] 19:58, 20 July 2011 (EDT)

:::Very perceptive, Andy. It takes time for the gatekeepers of knowledge to acknowledge the validity of new terms; therefore, while the public production of new conservative insights and terms may be quite rapid, the assimilation of those insights and terms into formal reference works is likely to be much slower. This is, I would suggest, exacerbated by reliance on archaic forms of knowledge dissemination such as print dictionaries.

An interesting side project might be to evaluate dictionaries (both online and print) to see how rapidly they accept and incorporate new conservative words versus new liberal words. In this way, it might be possible to determine which dictionaries are reliable and which are liberally biased. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:19, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

== Help! ==

I tried to archive the page - at least the parts which were from last year, but I totally botched it: my browser can't handle long pages, I have difficulties with the captchas & I created the wrong page for an archive [[Archive 3]] instead of [[Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words/Archive 3]] ([[Archive 3]] should be moved there...)

So I give up... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:58, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:I archived 2010... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:44, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

::Thank you - I had problems with the captchas! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:26, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== Maybe these two ==
Here's two possibilities I found in [[Federal debt limit]], "leveraged loss" and "debt spiral", but I'm not sure how to fit them in. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:01, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== More possibilities... ==

Constructionist (1835-45)
Inalienable (1635-45)
Hubris (1880-1885)
Scientism (1875-1880)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:11, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== Trickle-down? ==

As a descriptor for the trickle-down theory of economics, it dates to 1950-1955. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:43, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

: I think "trickle-down" is pejorative, and thus more a [[liberal]] term than a [[conservative]] one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::If trickle-down is the pejorative would the standard, conservative, phrase be "supply-side"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:53, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Yes, it would - and "supply side" is already on the list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::::ah, excellent. my work here is done! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:00, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

== Civil body politic ==

"Civil body politic" is an interesting bit of history but does not seem to have caught on as widely used term, and hence would not seem to warrant inclusion in this list. Does anyone disagree?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:43, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Medal of Honor (and other proper names) ==

I'm not sure that a proper name given to an award is inherently conservative-- the Medal itself reflects conservative values of course, but would do so even if had been called, say, the Award of Bravery or the Citation of Courage. "Coolant," "transistor" and "greasy spoon" are all truly conservative both in terms of content and syntax. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 19:50, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:Your point is valid. Perhaps it does not fit this particular list, but I'm reluctant to delete it. Isn't there something conservative about simply recognizing "honor", and calling the medal after the concept, rather than after, say, a liberal politician?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:15, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

==alcoholism ?==
Could you please explain how alcoholism is a conservative word ? Alcoholism is more of a liberal trait.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:24, 17 November 2011 (EST)

:"Alcoholism" is a criticism of excessive drinking, and thus is a conservative word. Words that end in "ism" are often pejoratives, as in "alarmism" and "collectivism" (which are also on the list).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:41, 17 November 2011 (EST)
:: And do you feel the same way about the word "liberalism"?--[[User:JeanB|JeanB]] 21:49, 17 November 2011 (EST)
::: Word that end in -ism are not always pejorative, capitalism is good. And when the words socialism or communism were invented, they were meant to be good.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:53, 17 November 2011 (EST)

==Handout==
1882, I wanted to add this to best new conservative words as it describes a liberal policy of government giveaways. But it also could be the conservative position of helping the poor through charity. Either way it is a conservative word but the proper way to describe alludes me. Op?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 09:28, 25 November 2011 (EST)

:That would a superb addition! It would also leave the list only two 20-century words shy of another perfect doubling by century.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:48, 25 November 2011 (EST)

== Level Playing Field ==

I added the term "level playing field" for two main reasons: 1) It is an intuitive metaphor used in its [http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/228650.html first recorded use] to describe how markets usually work best when they are fair for all participants and free of interference. 2) The term has since been used by liberals to describe policies such as affirmative action, progressive taxation, and government handouts, but it obvious to anyone who looks at these policies objectively that they actually distort the playing field.

I believe that is enough for the term to stand on its own merits, but it looks even more conservative if we compare it to other words on the list such as "motivation," "quantify," or "coolant."

Maybe I have overlooked something and the word does not belong on the list. Comments are welcome. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 21:03, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

:As you point out, the term is often used by liberals, so that makes it a doubtful candidate for "best" new conservative words. The term seems to imply that government is needed to level the playing field. Level playing fields rarely occur in nature, for example. The term almost sounds like the famous "life's not fair" expression ... which is not conservative either.

:"Motivation" is a far more conservative term - one can find motivation whether the playing field islevel or not. "Quantify" is logic, which is an essential difference between conservative and liberal approaches. "Coolant" is an essential part of nuclear energy -- which liberals loathe.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:51, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

== A.M. ==

This entry is an abbreviation for ''ante meridiem'', which originates from 1563 [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ante%20meridiem]. I'm not clear on whether the abbreviation is being claimed as a new conservative word or the phrase for which it stands. Additionally, it is unclear where the given date of origin in the article of 1762 comes from. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:43, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

:The online etymology dictionary gives a date of 1762. Perhaps it's referring to common usage.

:While you're right that the "A" in A.M. is from a Latin word that is different from the "A" in A.D., the popularity of "A.D." could have led to the popularity of "A.M."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:37, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
::Just seen this catch my attention on the mainpage. I highly doubt that the two could be related in any conservative sense. Of course "AD" refers to "In the year of our lord". But back in the 18th century, Latin was still being routinely taught in schools (especially in [[Britain]]), bring us many other Latin abbreviations, such as eg, etc, ie, RIP (from 'requiescat in pace', and later backronymed into 'rest in peace'). I highly doubt the link between any apparent 'popularity' of AD spurred the formation of AM, and personally I'd remove it. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 15:57, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

:::But what percentage of the overall British population learned Latin in school in the 1700s? Perhaps only 10%? Most Latin appreviations did not catch on with the general population the way that "A.M." did. The most plausible explanation is its proximity to "[[A.D.]]"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:19, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
::::Nonetheless etymological creation power lies not with those who use the language the most. One must remember that our records of language from the 1700s (both Britain and America) are not vernacular English of the working classes but written English of those who were educated. This was before widespread adoption of clocks and timepieces, which came later with the [[industrial revolution]] and the railways. Again, I highly disagree that likeness to AM would be a significant contributor. Those that would have used the world in our written records would have been educated in Latin, and would therefore be aware of the etymological roots of '''both''' AM and AD. Since the A stands for '''anno''' and '''ante''' respectively, there is no etymological proximity at all between the two. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 18:35, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::But "A.D." did gain widespread currency with the masses, and then "A.M." became popular in a similar manner. Many other Latin abbreviations, like "Q.E.D.", did not follow in their footsteps.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:54, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::You mean, the masses had a choice whether to use "A.M" or something else? It wasn't determined by the use of that convention by those few who created, say, railroad timetables or other documents? Incidentally, do we know what that date of "1762" refers to? Refering to some "online etymology dictionary" seems a bit like relying on hearsay. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 02:44, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

== It Really Is Amazing... ==

It really is amazing that the pattern of perfect doubling by century is so strong that almost every "layer" is complete before the next layer starts, even though words are added to the list pretty much randomly whenever a user thinks of one. --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 17:47, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

:Great discoveries are rarely random. In this case, it would not be possible to discover such a perfect geometric fit unless the underlying pattern existed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:12, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Second Law of Thermodynamics

2012-06-13T06:35:42Z

FrederickT3: /* My answers to Randall7 */

{{unprotected|19 March 2007|Tsumetai}}
== Protection and other issues ==

The trend towards protecting articles by users in edit conflicts is worrisome. Furthermore, the protected version is simply wrong. One of the Conservapedia Commandments is that everything should be sourced. I therefore would very much like to know if there is any source for the claim that "he Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum" This statement is wrong at multiple levels- the 2nd Law is about closed systems (or can be stated about open systems with a some tweaking of the consequent), it says nothing about the universe. Furthermore, tending towards a maximum doesn't even mean that the entropy levels can't decrease. For example, the sequence, 1,3,2,5,4,7,6,9,8... tends towards infinity but is not an increasing sequence. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 04:05, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Second law also says nothing about an upper bound to the entropy of a system; the entropy of the Universe could increase without limit, in principle, making the 'maximum' part wrong too.

:To be fair to Philip, the increase of the Universe's entropy ''is'' a tendency, not an absolute. The total entropy of an isolated system can decrease; it's just hugely improbable on the scales we're used to dealing with. Quantum effects can lead to a decrease in entropy; one has to deal with a very small system over short periods of time to actually notice this, however. Arbitrarily large decreases in entropy are also possible, given sufficient time. This is true whether one is discussing the fluctuation theorems of QM, or good old-fashioned classical systems.

:But these are not, strictly speaking, parts of the second law. Second law doesn't say anything about tendency. The rest of physics just says that second law is not absolute. So I don't think using the word 'tends' in the definition is very useful.

:The main problem with the article is, of course, the part about evolution, which as Horace says is just wrong, and painfully so. It's a seductive argument to the layman; after all, entropy is all about order and disorder, and evolution clearly requires the production of order. Right?

:Wrong, of course. The second law of '''thermo'''dynamics is a statement about '''thermodynamic''' quantities; 'order' is not one. One can choose to ''define'' the term 'order' in thermodynamic terms, in which case the statement that the Universe must become, on net, more disordered over time is true, for certain definitions. But the price for that is rejecting one's intuitive understanding of what constitutes 'order' and 'disorder,' and going with the maths. By a thermodynamic definition of order, my hot chocolate is self-organizing as we speak. Therein lies the danger of describing esoteric physics in terms which carry the baggage of their lay definition. Better to stick with entropy, and check one's prejudices at the door.

:Perhaps the simplest way to illustrate this is with a different statement of the second law; the Clausius statement, which reads:

::It is impossible to construct a heat engine which, operating in a cycle, produces no effect other than the transfer of a quantity of heat from a colder to a hotter body.

:Now, precisely which part of evolution violates ''that''? This version of the second law makes it abundantly clear that we're talking about a specific, mathematically rigorous statement about heat flow, not some general philosophical statement about order and chaos. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:51, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Oh, yes, I forgot to weigh in on the page protection issue. Tonya Harding strategy, right?

:A while ago, I [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Page_protection_policy suggested to ASchlafly] that a written policy on when page protection should be used, and for how long it should last would be helpful. Anyone else agree? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:58, 4 March 2007 (EST)

== The following is incorrect ==

From the article:

"It is impossible for the total entropy of an isolated system to decrease, therefore the universe is becoming more and more disordered. In this way the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution."

The first sentence is true, but the second is false. Evolution does not cause the total entropy in the universe to decrease, only local variations. By analogy, a fridge does not cool the universe, only a small part of it at the expense of the rest. Please correct this clear error to avoid the increasing levels of criticisms being levelled at this wiki. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 07:45, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:To add my thoughts on this: there are two errors in this article. First, the second law ''only'' applies to ''isolated'' systems, not to systems that are merely closed, let alone open. Then it becomes clear that the "disproving" of evolution by referring to the second law is severely flawed. There is nothing against a local decrease in entropy, as long as it is balanced by at least as large an increase elsewhere. Moreover, the assumption that evolution is directly linked to a decrease in thermodynamic entropy is not immediately obvious. I agree with Nematocyte that in its present state, this article will just serve to invite more criticism. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 09:16, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Strictly speaking, second law applies to all systems; for instance, consider the Clausius statement, which I posted up the page. No mention of an isolated system there. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:01, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That not what my stat.mech. text says ;-). Let's put it this way: the ''entropy'' formulation only applies to isolated systems. In fact, I think that the heat engine in the Clausius formulation should itself be taken as isolated. If we allow it to be (thermally or otherwise) coupled to anything else than a hot and a cold "temperature bath", I think we could make the heat flow up the temperature gradient, at the expense of course of something happening outside the engine. Of course, these thermal reservoirs are abstractions, etc. etc. Anyway, here as well, either we should take the system (engine) as isolated, or we should take it as the entire universe. Both cases are not going to help disprove evolution at any rate. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 12:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I think even the entropy formulation will work with open systems, so long as one takes care to quantify the entropy flow through the boundary. The requirement then becomes that entropy decrease within the boundary is no greater than the net entropy flow out of the system through the boundary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:37, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I think it's effectively the same as looking at an isolated system made out of two parts, inside and outside, and applying the second law to the total system. But what you propose should indeed work. I hadn't thought of doing it that way. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 13:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Absolutely; you can always expand the boundary of an open system to obtain an isolated one, in principle. But it's very useful to be able to work with open systems, if the boundary terms can be computed, since it allows one to ignore entropy generation in the environment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Time to unprotect ==

OK, it's been over a week now, and no one has attempted to defend the inclusion of such rubbish. Might we have the article unprotected so that those of us who actually understand elementary thermodynamics can fix it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Nothing doing sir, the numbskulls are the experts. Who said Sri Lanka became independent in the 1970s, none other than the owner of this site! [[User:Zaheerabbas|Zaheerabbas]] 02:12, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Ressurection a violation? ==

I think we should add a section about the resurrection of Jesus and that it "technically" violates the second law of thermodynamics, but that since it was a miracle, it does not need to adhere to the second law. Thoughts?
:...*blinks* Are there sources that are actually saying that? *honestly curious* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]]

:I think the latter part is pretty obvious, and negates the need for the former. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Gonna back Tsumetai up on this one. Also, it's shocking and appalling that this article is protected while containing such tripe in the content of it.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Not to mention the fact that in the ten days since criticisms were first raised, no one who supports the article in its current state has bothered to defend it.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Agreed. I'll leave a message on the protecting admin's Talk page, maybe it'll help. Talking on here doesn't seem to have any impact. =/ --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, of course. Many intellectuals here! Long live the stone age numbskull army!!! [[User:Zaheerabbas|Zaheerabbas]] 02:11, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==This law and evolution==

Timothy Wallace wrote:

*Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began (assuming it had a beginning).

*Beginning with the “Big Bang” and the self-formation and expansion of space and matter, the evolutionist scenario declares that every structure, system, and relationship—down to every atom, molecule, and beyond—is the result of a loosely-defined, spontaneous self-assembly process of increasing organization and complexity, and a direct contradiction (i.e., theorized violation) of the second law. [http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp]

Comments? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Its a considerable misunderstanding. Points:
::*The second law refers to the flow of heat, it is unclear how exactly that translates into "disorder" and "order" when applied to something like life.
::*The second law refers to closed systems, open systems are a much more complex processes and the "law" does not apply cleanly here. Life and Earth are open systems.
::*Evolution is essentially a favored random walk, these systems are able to produce violations of "disorder" all the time. For example any [[Monte Carlo method]] algorithm demonstrates this beautifully, you can reach local "maximum" and avoid "minimums" by using evolutionary algorithms and many other variations on the theme.
::*Complexity theory and Self-organizing systems also routinely violate the maxim that order can not be created from disorder. The sorts of things needed to produce an SOS or complex system are just the kinds of things we find in life.

:Life is not a good place to be trying to appeal a mathematical description of heat. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 16:31, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, applying the second law to evolution reflects a plain misunderstanding. Beings today are not "more perfect" than those that came before. Greater "perfection" may be a violation of the idea of entropy. However, evolved organisms are not more "perfect" than earlier organisms, since Darwin's point is that there is no biological level of "perfection." Evolved organisms don't violate entropy anymore than ''older'' organisms (a 20 year old relative to a 10 year old) do!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:02, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Ames, you're disagreeing with one of the best Renaissance minds, [[William Shakespeare]]:
:*"What a piece of work is man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals! ". - ([[Hamlet]], Act II, Scene II).

:Now, how does Evolution explain man evolving through an unguided process from one-celled organisms? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:56, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Shakespeare is not a scientist. Science and art are different. I realize they may not be for creationists, which is shocking and kind of funny. But they are different in the real world.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Discuss here before deleting information ==

OK. I deleted the "three types of systems the Second Law can apply to," because it only applies to closed systems. I also deleted the claim that it disproves evolution and relativity, because it doesn't. Evolution is nonsense, but isn't disproved by the Second Law because EARTH IS NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM. As for relativity, the Second Law has no connection to it at all. This article is about one of the key laws of science, and if it's blatant nonsense the credibility of the whole site suffers. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 23:47, 16 February 2012 (EST)

:There is no such thing as a perfectly closed system, so your attempt to limit the important Second Law to closed systems is misplaced. The Second Law is far more meaningful than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 16 February 2012 (EST)
::Irrelevant. The Second Law only applies to closed systems. If a system isn't closed then energy can be added, thus reducing entropy. That is the MEANING of the Second Law. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 23:52, 16 February 2012 (EST)
:::OK, give me a statement of the Second Law that works in an open system. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 23:53, 16 February 2012 (EST)

::::Your approach would appear to limit the Second Law to something that doesn't exist. It's more meaningful than that. Its entry here explains its insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 16 February 2012 (EST)
:::::No ''ideal gas'' exists either, yet the Ideal Gas Law only applies to this non-existent hypothetical gas. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 00:00, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::::The Second Law isn't an ''insight''. It's a description of energy available for work in a closed system. It doesn't have some deep ''meaning'' that can be applied to whatever you like. The Second Law is an accurate description of entropy (note: ''entropy'', not ''disorder'') in a closed system, and if ever a closed system is found then rest assured that overall entropy will not decrease inside it. But to say it disproves evolution is nonsense, especially when you yourself admit that Earth is NOT a closed system! --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 00:05, 17 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::And your point is ....? Attempts to limit the Ideal Gas Law to perfectly ideal gases would be misguided also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::Uh what? How can the Ideal Gas law be applied to something that isn't an ideal gas? --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 00:06, 17 February 2012 (EST)

:::::::::The Ideal Gas Law has insights that extend beyond ideal gases. Ditto for the Second Law with respect to closed systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:10, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::::OK then, tell me an "insight" that the Second Law can bring to a system that is ''not'' closed. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 00:14, 17 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::The entry explains this well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:25, 17 February 2012 (EST)
After going back and re-reading the article a few times, I think I know where the confusion lies with some editors. It appears that the article is conflating the thermal definition of entropy with the information theory definition of entropy. This conflation allows the topic of "disorder" to arise. Which has absolutely nothing to do with thermaldynamics. The basic definition of thermal entropy is simply a measure of energy that is unusable to perform work in a system. How a law that breaks down in layman's terms to: "heat won't travel from a cooler body to a hotter body without an additional input of energy" or "no process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body" can be used to "disprove" evolution or relativity escapes me. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 02:19, 17 February 2012 (EST)

:Perhaps [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth#Major earthquakes are doubling every 40 years? |this discussion]] sheds some light on Aschlafly's misconception of the 2nd law. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:27, 17 February 2012 (EST)

The thing is, is that there is a link between thermodynamics and disorder. This is the tour de force result of statistical thermodynamics vs classical thermodynamics - i.e. that the macroscopic quantity which we can measure called "entropy" is related to the number of possible microstates the system can explore. As has been correctly pointed out, the problems start when we directly equate this with "information", or entropy as defined in information theory i.e. "Shannon entropy". This is an analogous concept, based on the fundamental information content of a system. But there isn't an equivalence between information-theoretic entropy and thermodynamic entropy. In the actual physical world, there is no need to directly connect the quantities of "disorder" and "information". This, in part, along with the more important facts that all these things apply to closed systems and the Earth is not a closed system, means that any argument based on how "entropy" disproves evolution due to some information argument is bogus. [[User:DanPW]]

== Second Law and Evolution ==

I have removed the statement about the Second Law disproving evolution. It is pretty obvious that Mr. Schlafly does not have a correct understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and with all due respect, his inaccurate contributions to this article must be removed. From what I understand, Mr. Schlafly's reasoning is based on his belief that evolution is "disorder changing by itself into a more ordered state," which is not true. This has been explained in most of the above sections on this talk page, so I will not rehash arguments. I just expect a better explanation if the article is to be changed back to saying that the Second Law does disprove evolution.

I suspect that the Second Law does not disprove the theory of relativity either, but I have not looked into the arguments for or against this claim so I am leaving this in the article.

--[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 01:31, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

:Your edit was reverted because the Second Law does ban disorder becoming more orderly, just as it bans heat spontaneously flowing to hotter locations. The theory of evolution is based on the contrary claim that random (disordered) mutations create greater order.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:35, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::In thermodynamic terms, the concept of "order" is not usually applied to the Second Law except in rigorous terms of "molecular ordering," which you have not made a clear connection to the theory of evolution. Also, you are ignoring the fact that the Second Law only applies to a closed system (and the Earth is not a closed system), which has been explained many times above. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 02:02, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::And just what is this "closed system" that the 2nd Law here has to be restricted to? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:16, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::The standard thermodynamic definition of a closed system is one that cannot exchange mass with its surroundings. But in the context of Mr. Schlafly's assertions about the Second Law and evolution, his misunderstanding about the thermodynamic concept of order is even more significant. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 02:38, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::And why can't that happen on earth? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:42, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::The Earth is actually pretty close to being a closed system, but obviously it is possible for matter to leave or enter the Earth's atmosphere. But the main problem with the Second Law being used as an argument against evolution is the claim that evolution requires "disorder changing by itself into a more ordered state" (this was most recently stated on [[Talk:Main_Page]]) and the idea that "disorder" (however that is defined) is always increasing. Mr. Schlafly has not provided any substantial evidence or explanation for this, and that is why I removed the claim about evolution from the article. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 03:05, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::You and everyone else above kept right on saying that earth is a closed system; now you're changing it to "''pretty close'' to being a closed system"? Have you ever put together logs in a fireplace and watched them burn? Which was more complex: the logs assembled, or the ashes several hours later? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:10, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::::As I stated in my most recent 2 comments, the fact that the Earth is not a closed system is not as relevant to Mr. Schlafly's Second Law vs. evolution argument as is his concept of order. (And I do believe much of the discussion above on this talk page is not well focused.) I am not seeing the connection between your burning log example and evolution. Please elaborate. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 03:27, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::Now it's back to being a closed system? Did "pretty close" just disappear? Answer the question about the logs. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:45, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::::::The logs are more complex; in the act of burning them, matter goes from an ordered state to a more disordered one, and energy is given off. Are you going to elaborate on how this relates to evolution as Randall asked? [[User:CWest|CWest]] 08:28, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::::That is correct. Now explain why the 2nd Law only applies to a closed system. Those are your words, Randall7, and I expect you to answer it...not CWest. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:41, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::::The two statements that make up the foundation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics - the Kelvin-Planck statement and the Clausius statement - both describe systems that exchange heat and/or work with their surroundings, but not mass. But as I said before, my concern is less about the closed system argument and more about the abuse of the concept of "order" to claim that the Second Law disproves evolution. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 20:37, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

Several more questions, Mr. Randal7, because now you're drifting away from the "closed" system here.
:1. Is iron more complex than rust? And when iron does rust, does it constitute an improvement, or a breakdown?
:2. What happens to boiling water when you turn off the stove? Does it stay the same, or does it get cooler?
:3. Is CWest's statement above correct, in that ''"matter goes from an ordered state to a more disordered one"''? Does that statement apply only to the fireplace? Could it also apply to a freshly-cleaned living room, just prior to adding three eight-year-old spoiled brats with pop guns and a baby sitter unable to control the outcome? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:25, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

::I feel like this discussion is becoming less productive and more of a waste of time, but I'll answer the questions because I want to see how you relate them to the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproving evolution. (I so far have failed to see the connection.)
::#Iron is generally less complex than rust. (Although "complex" is not a very precise term.) Iron is a single element, whereas rust can be a number of iron oxide or iron hydroxide compounds. Iron is usually much more homogeneous than rust. When iron rusts it is a chemical and thermodynamic improvement - it would not happen spontaneously if it were not energetically favorable. In practical terms, rusting is not an improvement because pure iron is more useful for structural or electrical applications, but pure iron does not usually stay pure for long because of its propensity to oxidate. This is why iron alloys are much more common.
::#When the stove is turned off, boiling water cools as heat is transferred from the water to its cooler surroundings. Entropy is generated from this heat transfer.
::#In the burning log example, it is true that "matter goes from an ordered state to a more disordered one," and there are plenty of other examples where this statement is true. There are also many instances where matter goes from a disordered state to a more ordered one, such as water freezing or magnetization. But in theses cases of matter becoming more ordered, net entropy of the matter and its surroundings will still never decrease. The statement could also apply to a room of spoiled brats, but in this case the term "order" is no longer being used in a thermodynamic or chemical sense.
::--[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 15:27, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

===My answers to Randall7===
With regards to the iron, you are wrong. Rust is a breakdown; it is a disintegration of the iron itself. The rust can be stopped; the iron can be prevented from rusting further, but rust in and of itself can never be restored into iron. It goes one-way only. Likewise the water on the stove; take away the heat which makes the water boil, and the water temperature will drop to the lowest level possible, which one can call "room temperature". Likewise the fireplace logs, likewise the living room. One-way only. Complex to simple, order to disorder. It never, ever happens in reverse.

The 2nd Law of thermodynamics is the same way. You can restrict the 2nd Law to heating and/or energy concepts all you want, but the very core of this law is the same thing cited above: order ''always'' goes to disorder; complex ''always'' goes to simple. The 2nd Law may be about heat, but turn off the fire and what do you get? Water cooling down, heat cooling and dissipating, complex to simple, order to disorder. The fireplace scene has the heat, but the logs always end up as ashes. The ashes ''never'' turn back into logs.

And the final answer to the question "what does this have to do with evolution?". It was evolutionists who stated we should ''accept'' their scenario as to how life came to be: ''simple'' organisms ''evolved'' into more and more ''complex'' ones over time. ''Simple'' to ''complex''; ''disorder'' to ''order''. When making scientific investigations the very first step of the [[scientific method]] that must be followed is ''observation''; a scientist has to ''observe'' what is going on, and every single minute of every day scientists and layman alike are observing the 2nd Law in action; no one can get away from it. ''Observation'' proves complex always goes to simple; ''observation'' proves order always goes to disorder. ''Observation'', scientific or not, ''confirms'' the validity of the 2nd Law. The examples I posted above - the fireplace, the iron, the living room, the stove top - are perfect examples of the 2nd Law in action, closed system or not. It's impossible to go into reverse.

That is why we're going to post the impossibility of evolution on this website, ''vis-a-vis'' the 2nd Law. Case closed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:14, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

:You make a good point that irreversibility is an unavoidable consequence of the Second Law. There is no such thing as a truly reversible process and all processes generate entropy. But your claim that "order ''always'' goes to disorder; complex ''always'' goes to simple" is absurd. More ordered/"complex" materials can be formed through [[work]]. ("Simple" and "complex" do not have rigorous thermodynamic definitions, by the way.) Otherwise every single ordered object would have to have existed existed exactly as it is since the beginning of time, or have existed in a larger or more ordered form. Organisms gain energy - the capacity do do work - by eating, respiring, photosynthesizing, or otherwise absorbing energy from their surroundings. This allows them to become more ordered or more "complex," but this is not in violation of the the Second Law because during their processes of converting energy and exerting work, net entropy is generated. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 23:57, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
::Randall7, these organisms do take in food, use it as energy, and continue on with their lives, but their status as organisms remains unchanged until they ''cease the work''; when that happens they wither away and die; they decompose, they turn to dust. Complex to simple, order to disorder. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:03, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
:::I suppose that is true, but you did not refute anything I just said. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 00:11, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
::::If you can sit there and "suppose it is true", then I did refute everything you just said. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:00, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::You seem to focus very much on the "withering away" part of the cycle. What about the observations of growing crystals, growing plants, growing children? Those processes do go from simple to complex - whether the complex states can exist forever (they can't) is not relevant, what's important is that these processes occur naturally. And they're not in contradiction to the second law either; e.g. in the case of crystal growth the evaporating water occupies a larger volume afterwards and hence has increased entropy. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 02:35, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
----

:Andy, how do you explain the growth of a crystal (an ordered arrangement of ions) from a solution (a disordered arrangement), if "the Second Law does ban disorder becoming more orderly", as you say? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:39, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::Order is not really increasing when a crystal grows in a solution, or when water changes its phase and becomes ice. If the crystal or ice is melted again, then one back to where it started. This is no increase in order.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:53, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

:::Mr. Schlafly, it is clear that your concept of order differs from the thermodynamic concept of order. When water freezes, its entropy decreases and when ice melts, its entropy increases, but during these processes the entropy of the water's surroundings also increase/decrease (such that total net change in entropy is never negative, and in reality is net positive). I would like to hear an explanation of how changes in "order" during evolution relate to the actual Second Law of Thermodynamics. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 20:37, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::::: Mr. Schlafly, are you honestly suggesting there is no change in entropy when water melts? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:57, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::: That's a question about semantics - the answer depends entirely on how one decides to define "entropy".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:01, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Entropy has a very clear definition which you can look up in any textbook on thermodynamics. According to that definition, the entropy changes (increases) when water/ice melts. And of course a clear definition is prerequisite to being able to formulate and understand the second law properly in the first place. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 02:35, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

's-Hertogenbosch

2012-06-11T19:24:03Z

FrederickT3: this is an American site

'''Den Bosch''' is the informal name of ''''s-Hertogenbosch''' (literally, the Duke's Wood; ''Bois-le-Duc'' in French, ''Herzogenbusch'' in [[German]]), the capital of the southern Dutch province of [[Noord Brabant]]. Created a city in 1185, it was an important center in the [[Middle Ages]] and as late as the sixteenth century was the second-largest city in the present [[Netherlands]]. It suffered during the [[History of the Netherlands#Dutch Revolt 1568-1648|Dutch Wars of Independence]], and later in the 19th century from blinkered municipal authorities who forbade industrial or educational development in the city. This has, however, led to the preservation of an antique townscape which has made Den Bosch a tourist center.

The city has a population of 136,000.

[[Category:Dutch Cities and Towns]]

's-Hertogenbosch

2012-06-11T19:23:33Z

FrederickT3: removed a stray full stop

'''Den Bosch''' is the informal name of ''''s-Hertogenbosch''' (literally, the Duke's Wood; ''Bois-le-Duc'' in French, ''Herzogenbusch'' in [[German]]), the capital of the southern Dutch province of [[Noord Brabant]]. Created a city in 1185, it was an important center in the [[Middle Ages]] and as late as the sixteenth century was the second-largest city in the present [[Netherlands]]. It suffered during the [[History of the Netherlands#Dutch Revolt 1568-1648|Dutch Wars of Independence]], and later in the 19th century from blinkered municipal authorities who forbade industrial or educational development in the city. This has, however, led to the preservation of an antique townscape which has made Den Bosch a tourist centre.

The city has a population of 136,000.

[[Category:Dutch Cities and Towns]]

Talk:E=mc²

2012-06-11T15:09:54Z

FrederickT3: /* Bohr disagreed with Einstein's 1905 paper */

==I'm Finding This a Little Hard to Understand==
First off, E = mc2 describing a relationship between energy and matter is only one corollary. It is also part of a well known problem in chemistry... Or is isotopic mass not less than the sum of it's parts? The equation itself HAS been derived from the Theory of Relativity, and is a direct consequence of the energy momentum four vector for an object with 0-momentum. The quote you provide from the paper states that the theory is not enough for a rigorous PROOF, but it never tries to deny the derivability of the equation. Derivation and proof are two entirely different things.

==This Article Could Use Sources or Better Explanation==
Wow. Classic Andy. Unsourced statements supposedly contradicting well-established theories of physics. No real proof other than "the Bible says it's not true," even though this is an extremely uncommon interpretation Genesis. --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 01:06, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:It's a start for now, and will expand over time. That's how wikis work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:18, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::Doesn't it relate energy to mass? The speed of light is just a constant here. [[User:IanR|IanR]] 02:22, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

== Humbug ==

The phrase ''meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement '' (as used in the article) fits the first paragraph to a t.

Aschlafly, please try to refute the explanation of the experiments of John Cockroft and Ernest Walton, which is accepted generally under physicists. And try to give some sources - or if not, some of your own calculations!

If not, just erase the first section.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:23, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

== Nobel Lecture ==

I took out the link to the Nobel lecture, it can be found in the short summary. But be aware that John Cockroft is using the dreaded formula with ease (but without stating so explicitly - why should he, it's already generally accepted!) An astute reader, who not only searches for the formula finds e.g., the formulation:

:'''This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass units.'''

Indeed, these are the ≈ 17MeV!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:51, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

==Irrelevant claims==
Are these claims of so called "experimental verification" valid or useful? If you look at enough so-called science you can find people claiming anything. --[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 12:59, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:''you can find people claiming anything'' Indeed - and that's why there is a difference between the unsubstantiated claims in the first section, and the actual experiments in the following paragraphs. If you have a good explanation of the outcome of these experiments (some math would be nice), feel free to add your personal ''claim''.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:03, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::Why do you feel that I need to do that? I understand that you may wish to believe relativity is true, but that is no reason to impose your personal beliefs on others.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 13:40, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::Thinking that all claims have the same validity seems not a very conservative position. I don't expect you to accept my personal beliefs, but there is a tendency in physics that the claims which are backed up by those willing to do the experiments and the maths have a greater following than random insights. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:47, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::I don't understand why your personal beliefs are even included in the article.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 13:58, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::*Because they are bolstered by experiments...
:::::*...and they aren't just my beliefs - in fact it will be very hard to find a physicist who doesn't share them. And that's something which shouldn't be easy to ignore in an article on a physical subject.
:::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::If science is your religion then you will find scientists who share your views. I still don't see why they should be hosted here. The introduction makes the Biblical position clear.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 14:07, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Religion is my religion, science is my hobby. And just because there is one single interpretation of a few verses of Genesis out there which you think to contradict the experiments of the physicists doesn't shatter my religious beliefs nor my trust in physics. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::::Then why do you insist with this anti-religious pseudoscience?--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 14:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
← Now you have intrigued me: what's your definition of pseudoscience? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:45, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

Pssst! DavidEdwards! You're trying waaaaay too hard. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 21:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:Too hard about what?
:As far as the pseudoscience question is concerned - "science" which is used to promote a worldview which has no basis in moral reality is pseudoscience. Science which is designed to suggest that morality is relative clearly falls into this category.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 18:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

==Question==
This snipet of sentence appears in the introduction: "...''a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory.''" Let's compare that to the entire sentence it was lifted from: "'''''Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally,''' a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory.''" One can't help but notice that the part of the sentence that states that the theory has been observed to be valid in real world experimentation, has been surgically removed. Why is this? Is it because it stands in contradiction to the claim the lead author of this article is trying to promulgate? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 20:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:Peer-reviewed journals won't publish a criticism of relativity. That's obvious. Although I don't have a copy of the full paper, I doubt it attempts to fully support the [[hearsay]] that was excluded, and I would not be surprised if it was included simply to safeguard against complaints for what followed. It adds nothing to the basic point that follows and is quoted here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::Why won't a peer-reviewed journal publish a criticism of SR or GR? Liberal conspiracy? Also, do you not accept that mass and energy are interchangeable or is it a problem with this specific equation? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 21:24, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::JoshuaB, do you accept the possibility that the [[Theory of Relativity]] may be false, and would you approve a well-written paper that criticized it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Yes. We already know the Theory of Relativity is an incomplete model of our universe. So yes, the theory may be "false", but the one that takes it's place will most likely have many of the same properties. Secondly, would I approve of a "well-written paper that criticized it"? I don't know what that means. I'm not a physicist, so I don't see what difference my "approval" of said paper would make. Now that I've been so kind as to answer your questions, would you return the courtesy and answer the ones I posted above? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 22:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::The qualifications on your answer render it almost meaningless. I'm not asking whether your approval of a paper would make a difference, or your opinion about whether you think the replacement of the [[Theory of Relativity]] will "most likely" be another theory of relativity. The question was simple and straightforward, referring to a paper critical of the theory of relativity without any appeasement to those who insist on believing in it. An unqualified answer is requested.

:::::Also, did you ever answer my simple question on [[Talk:Main Page]] about how much time you've spent reading the [[Bible]] this month?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::Come off it Schlafly. This article is not about my Bible reading, is it? No. Does my opinion of the publishing criteria of physics academia have any bearing on the assertions you are trying make? No. Again: Do you not accept that mass and energy are interchangeable or is it a problem with this specific equation? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 23:11, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::Andy, do you accept the possibility that the Theory of Relativity may be correct, and would you approve a well-written paper or book that supported it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:28, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Some points ==

*''Misplaced claims of experimental verification'': if you want to put on the disclaimer ''misplaced'', please explain the results of the experiments in another way.
*''Why won't a peer-reviewed journal publish a criticism of SR or GR?'' But they do: remember the neutrino thing? Or the papers of H. Ives? In fact the first event has shown that especially the publication of experiments (seemingly) violating currently accepted theories gets attention!
*Taking only the second half of ''"Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."'' makes you looking deceptive. Take the whole sentence and try to explain the motivation of the first half. Otherwise anyone who looks the quote up will suspect an ulterior motive!
*The whole first section is a train wreck.
*''[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of [[gravity]].'' Only when you accept the general theory of relativity it is, otherwise inertial mass and gravitational mass are quite different animals.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:46, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::I have attempted to clarify the last point on the [[Mass]] page, and also removed the fact template from the first paragraph, since the explanation is given later on. As it stood, the "citation needed" banners following important points tended to undercut the authority of the article.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:29, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::The problem is not a confusion of weight and mass, but the conflation of gravitational and inertial mass. In the classical theory, there is no reason why both should be the same, it's just an experimental fact.
::So, I'm sorry, your new entry didn't help.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::But they always are the same, aren't they? I don't see why knowing or not knowing the reason (yet) has any bearing on the question.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:43, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly writes: ''Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of gravity. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity.''
::::E=mc² isn't about gravity, to invoke it here is a deflection. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:49, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::::: OK. But bear in mind that this page clearly exists to provide a counterweight to certain liberal views. To do that, clarity of message is needed, and a "citation needed" banner has a deflating effect on the strength of that clarity. So perhaps you could suggest a wording that might be acceptable without the "citation needed" bit?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:03, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

No, I can't. Frankly, I don't see the clarity in this piece: at the moment, it is still sadly missing. So I hope, that Aschlafly taking care of the fact-tags (other then trimming them away) will add to this clarity! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:13, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman ==

Try to explain a complicated formula in 1-2min, then have a single sentence of this soundbit taken out. You can bet that this may sound meaningless. That's no fault of the formula. I'll change the title back. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:58, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:The quotes (and others that could be added) illustrate how meaningless the formula is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::The quotes illustrate how difficult it is to explain the concept to a layman. Take a look [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/expe-text.html here], where you can find the quotes in context. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:16, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::The quotes were solicited to describe the meaning of the equation to laymen, not to illustrate how difficult that is. The difficulty arises from the meaningless nature of the equation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::Actually the meaning of the equation is very clear: the total energy contained in matter is its mass multiplied by the speed of light in a vaccum squared. Experiment after experiment, and nuclear reactor after nuclear reactor, has clearly demonstrated that the total energy released by a reaction is the lost mass multiplied by c2. Therefore whether the theories of relativity are true or not, E=mc2 is true. Equally, even if classical Newtonian mechanics was false, the kinetic energy of a moving mass would still be accurately described by Ek=1/2mv2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:34, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::::Indeed. Internet quotes are really not very useful. A skilled researcher can always find someone saying something to justify their position however bizarre or immoral. This is a typical weakness (and response!) of those who have no real moral or religious basis for their convictions. --[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 19:04, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::These quotes are absolutely meaningless. It looks like you took random sentences from the PBS article and then inserted them into the article as if they had any real significance. This is made even more moot when you consider the fact that the article claims that "Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc²" and then you go on to quote three. Not to mention, most of the quotes aren't actually explaining what the equation means - a basic understanding of algebra and what the symbols mean is sufficient to understand its basic meaning - but rather what it entails, its implications. Tim Halpin-Healy's quote I think is better than taking some random sentences and then implying that they mean that physicists don't know what E=mc² means. --[[User:Tyg13|Tyg13]] 15:58, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::The problem is that '''E=m2does not meaning anythimg that makes sense. Anyone is welcome to try to explain it here. Eating a pound of cake does not cause one's energy to increase by the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:06, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::No, it doesn't. It causes your energy to increase by a number of foot-pounds equal to '''one pound''' times the speed of light squared. I've explained this to you already and it isn't difficult. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:23, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::The equation is essentially just a conversion ratio, its not difficult to understand that units of energy (Whether it is Joules, pound-foot, or erg) look essentially like a velocity squared times a mass (in SI units - kg m^2/s^2) this is not relativity or theory dependent, its the definition of Energy. The Special Relativistic analysis that results in the basic equation just determines that the conversion ratio is precisely that universal constant '''c''' in whatever units are convenient. There is no blindingly obvious or intuitive reason why this SHOULD be the case (conceivably the conversion ratio could have any number of complicated dimensionless constants in front), but basic mathematical logic allows us to derive this simple relationship from the postulates of Special Relativity. That being said, its a rather useless equation on everyday scales. In reality, after consuming a pound of cake your body begins to break down the chemical bonds in the sugars/fats/proteins to extract usable energy, about 1500 food calories worth of it. If you had a precise enough scale and could somehow keep a human in a hermetically sealed bag that prevents the escape of any moisture/gas etc. you would be able to measure that after consuming and digesting the cake your bodyweight would not be +1 lb, but about 70 pg (picograms - 10^-12 grams) less, so if you weighed 150.0lb and ate a pound of cake (total of 151lb), after digestion you would actually weigh 70pg less than 151lb. It is important to note that this "mass" isn't "lost" it is merely the "weight" of the energy stored in the chemical bonds, in other words in a pound of cake there is (1lb - 70pg) of stuff and 70pg worth of "chemical energy" with a conversion ratio of c^2. If you had some magic machine that could convert mass to energy at 100% efficiency the detonation of a body sized bomb would release 20 times more energy than the largest nuclear weapon detonated by man kind, however due to the nature of nuclear transitions/processes such a 100% conversion rate is not possibe . On the scale of nuclear bonds (order of MeV) this difference becomes conceivably measurable, but even so, in the detonation of a hiroshima sized nuclear weapon, the loss of mass due to the nuclear fission is approximately 500mg, the rest of the nuclear material is dispersed as fallout, considering that there was ~60kg of nuclear material in the weapon, this corresponds to an energy "efficiency" ~1%, which is typical of fission devices. In a 100MT nuclear bomb this is conceivably larger at nearly 5kg, and the fusion type weapon that can achieve this high yields has considerably higher mass-energy conversion efficiency at around ~20% [[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 16:53, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::: Another way of thinking about is this. Consider your typical AA batery, it is not a difficult stretch of the mind to understand that this battery stores electrical energy, approximately 2Ampere-hours at 1.5v which is approximately 5000J worth of STORED electical energy. Now, CONSUMING this battery does not cause your kinetic energy to increase by 5000J the same way that consuming a pound of cake does not cause your kinetic energy to increase by 1lb*c^2, you are still limited by your ability to convert between different energy sources. So A RC car would be able to use that battery to move around for several hours, YOU on the other hand will most likely just pass the battery through your body and the basic chemicals that are storing this electric energy will come out unaltered. The same way that a pound of cake can sustain you for a day, but try stuffing it into the battery compartment of your RC car and it won't move an inch. "Mass-energy" works much the same way, sure consuming a pound of cake increases your "rest energy" or by an enormous amount, but in reality there is no way to convert mass directly to energy so its much the same as swallowing a battery or stuffing cake into the RC car. [[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 17:05, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:At any rate, eating a pound of cake, is not nuclear physics, it is chemistry, where your cells digest and utilize the sugars within. Protiens are also converted into sugar.[[User:JonM|JonM]] 18:28, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

== Aschlafly, could you give us... ==

... your interpretation of the results of the experiment by Cockroft and Walton? Cockroft describes in his Nobel Lecture how the kinetic energy of the alpha-particles could be provided by ''diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass
units.'' (p. 170). Please take into account that this isn't about energy in form of electromagnetic waves!

If you don't address the results of the actual experiments, all your claims are just meaningless verbiage.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:39, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:Cockcroft (please spell his name correctly) does not even cite E=mc2 in his Nobel lecture.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::You don't think that it is ''implied'' by the quote that AugustO provided? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::No, I don't. E=mc2 is supposedly a general truth of universal applicability. The case for it, if true, needs to be far stronger than what is quoted above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:15, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

From the lecture: ''It was obvious then that lithium was being disintegrated into two α-particles with a total energy release of 17.2 million volts. This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass
units.''

Aschlafly, your ignorance is showing:
17.2 MeV /c² = 1.602*10-19kg m²/s² *17.2 *109/(3*108 m/s)² = 3.0616 * 10-29kg = 0.0184 amu

In fact as this is such a ''general truth of universal applicability'', J. Cockroft could take it for granted that his scientifically literate audience would be able to make this calculation.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:26, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::One question, though: We have four protons and four neutrons on the left hand side of the equation, and four protons and four neutrons on the right hand side. So why the difference in mass?
:::Also, forgive my ignorance, but why is the 'energy' measured in volts? Volts are not a measure of energy.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

*Bainbridge measured the mass of 7Li directly, using mass spectrometry.
*Indeed, three protons and four neutrons weight less than a 7Li - kernel
*Energy is measured in this cases in [[Electron-Volts]]. One electron volt is the energy of an electron which passed through a potential of 1 Volt.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:54, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:AugustO, please contribute something substantive instead of talking up a storm. Thanks.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 11:56, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::James Wilson, please don't interfere in interesting and substantive discussions. Thank you! [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 12:12, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::"Baobab", please state what substance is coming out of this conversation. You have had a history of engaging in hefty talk. Please start contributing. I have had some great insights contributing in a few articles today and will continue to do so. Many thanks for your future contributions.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 12:47, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::"James Wilson", AugustO is clarifying things and giving us some great insights, as CPalmer's latest reply shows. Discussions will often lead to better articles, which is why your interference was totally uncalled for. I guess your only motive was to defend Mr. Schlafly, but he can take care of himself and really doesn't need your help. Regards, [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 13:30, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::Thanks, AugustO. Relativity or no relativity, I am learning a lot from this discussion.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:00, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::You are posing excellent questions! Indeed it should be of interest for Aschlafly, too:
:::'''Aschlafly, two protons (1.0073amu) and two neutrons (1.0087amu) have a combined mass of 4.0320 amu. An alpha-particle - existing from two protons and two neutrons - has a mass of 4.0015 amu. How do you explain this diminution of mass?
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:42, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::What real evidence do you have that these particles even exist? No doubt you've read it in a book or some "qualified person" has said it is true. In reality you accept these things on the word of somebody else - in other words your belief in the existence of these particles is a matter of scientific faith in something which you have no personal knowledge. There is obviously no problem with believing things on faith, but please don't pretend it's "true because science says it's true". Christians get their real truth from a higher authority.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 18:49, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::I find Mr O's position to be rather odd. He insists that Mr Schlafly - and only Mr Schlafly answers his questions. Yet at the same time Mr O steadfastly ignores comments specifically directed at him.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 16:11, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::If you're referring to your question about how he knows that protons and neutrons really exist, I suspect he thought it wasn't worth answering. I tend to agree. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:15, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

@DavidEdwards: Sorry, [[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]], I didn't want to ignore you. I hadn't caught up after the databank mishap, I'm afraid.
So, to answer your questions: At school, we performed a couple experiments -there were teltron tubes, the Millikan the photo-electric effect, the Millikan Oil Drop experiment, de Broglie's electron diffraction experiments, etc. These experiments confirmed my persuasion that the electrons, protons and neutrons are physically real entities. The proposed theories explained these effects - and sitting in front of a computer, I'm surprised that you aren't willing to accept the theories behind semi-conductors. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:25, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
@SamCoulter: There is some truth in your statement, too: it's like asking a priest: ''let's talk about your religion without mentioning Jesus''... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:28, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

== Restoration ==

I could restore this page to the last version which I had edited. I don't know whether there were more entries. This should help to restore the article: perhaps one positive effect could be that Aschlafly marvels about the questions in the previous section for a while and rethinks his position! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:36, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Instead of the source - tag ==

*''E=mc² is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate all matter to light.''
It relates matter to energy, the square of the speed of light is just the conversation factor
*''In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism).''
It isn't about gravitational mass, but about inertial mass. To identify both means to invoke the General Theory of Relativity
* ''Simply put, E=mc² is liberal claptrap. ''
How so? It works!
* ''Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis.''
So, physicists should just give up looking for it? I dare to say that there are many Christian physicists - they may just not follow your special interpretation of Genesis!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:29, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

== A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton ==

I'd appreciate an answer by Aschlafly (and him alone) to the following questions:

'''1.''' Do you accept that the mass of the Lithium-kernel (7Li), of alpha-particles (4He) and of protons (1H) can be measured fairly accurately, as these are charged particles?

'''2.''' Do you accept the measurements for the mass of the particles as used by Cockcroft¹ and Walton, i.e.
:::{|
!particle
!mass
|-
|1H||1.0072 amu
|-
|4He||4.0011 amu
|-
|7Li||7.0130 amu
|}
If not, which values do you think to be right?

'''3.''' Do you agree that before the reaction the mass of the particles involved was 8.0202 amu?

'''4.''' Do you agree that after the reaction the mass of the particles involved is 8.00220 amu?

'''5.''' Do you agree that there is a mass decrease of 0.0180 amu?

'''6.''' Before the experiment, the Li was at rest and the proton had a kinetic energy of less than 1MeV. Do you accept these values?

'''7.''' After the experiment, a pair of alpha-particles was observed, both having an kinetic energy of 8.6MeV. Do you think that this value is correct?

'''8.''' Can you tell me where the mass went? Can you tell me where the energy came from?

'''9.''' If your answer to question 8. is ''no'' in both accounts, than my answer is that there is a theory which explains the conversion of mass to energy, even if you don't like it!

As this theory works for this experiment, and for all the other fissions and fusions, it isn't liberal claptrap, but a meaningful theory. And you can't blame physicists for using it! Of course, you can blame journalist to abuse the formula - but this isn't the result of ''liberal physics'', but of ''bad reporting'', as an abuse of the dictum ''1+1=2'' doesn't reflect badly on number-theorists, but only on the person misattributing it.

Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:04, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:AugustO, chemical reactions can release energy, typically based not on the size of their mass but on the electrostatic energy prior to the reaction. Cockcroft's own paper accepting the Nobel Prize does not claim that his work proved that '''''E=mc2'''''. Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula, or else we'd have seen far more claims of experimental verification of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:20, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly, you haven't answered any of the questions above! Instead you are talking about something completely different:
*We are not talking about a ''chemical'' reaction! You should know the difference.
*Cockcroft¹ claims that the energy comes from the loss of mass - and he calculates it according to ''E=mc²''. Please read (and understand!) his lecture.
*Please give a list of a few (or at least a single) experiment which contradicts the formula. This should be easy, as you stated that ''Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula''. Oh, wait, you made that up...
*Please answer the questions 1 to 9: all the question are covered in Cockcroft's¹ lecture, so I'd be interested in your explanation!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:32, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
:AugustO, if you cannot even spell Cockcroft's name properly, how can Andy take anything you say seriously? --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 22:03, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

(1) : spelling of ''Cockcroft corrected [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:22, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

== Move ==

Could you please move this article to [[Essay:E=mc²]]? Then I could ignore all the misleading and outright wrong statements in the first section! Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:57, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

== Experimental Facts ==

Aschlafly, on the one hand side, you state that ''no experiment distinguishes between "gravitational" and "inertial" mass'' - and that seems good enough for you. On the other hand side, you have a problem with the statement that E=mc² ''continues to be affirmed experimentally''. Do you spot the inconsistency? Indeed, I could write: ''the equivalence between inertial mass and gravitational mass has never been mathematically derived from first principles in classical mechanics, indeed, a rigorous proof of this equivalence is probably beyond the purview of classical theory.''

BTW, omitting the first part of the sentence ''"Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally..."'' makes you look very disingenuous (even if you have good motives) to anyone who looks up the link to the abstract!

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:07, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:It's hair-splitting jargon of doubtful significance. 99% of people know what mass is, and it's directly related to weight, not electrostatic energy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:38, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::And the remaining percent are the physicists which draw such distinctions with good reason! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]]
:::Even more confusing is that the article states mass is a measure of inertia. Inertia is resistance to acceleration, and that has nothing to do with gravity at all. The article as it stands is simply inaccurate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:51, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly: ''....may not even have any justification in the paper''
::::Aschlafly, havn't you read the paper? Here is a part of the conclusion:
:::::''Einstein produced about 18 virtuoso derivations and demonstrations all aimed at establishing the mass-energy principle. We have shown that although each of them gave evidence for the applicability of E0 = mc² to a particular set of circumstances, no one derivation, or collection of them taken together, succeeded in providing a definitive proof of its complete generality. That should not be surprising because the same situation occurs, for example, with F = ma, which is a different kind of relation than E0 = mc². Even so, 300 years of successful theoretical work have not proven the correctness of F = ma. Indeed, relativity showed that this expression, one of the bedrocks of classical mechanics, holds only approximately.
::::Here is another excerpt, on mass, electromagnetism etc:
:::::''In the 19th century, a number of European physicists, including the leading theoretician of the time, Hendrik Lorentz, were working to establish that mass was, in whole or in part, electromagnetic. There were primarily two competing theories, one by Lorentz, the other by Max Abraham. Both agreed that depending on the relative direction of its velocity and acceleration, an “electron” a generic charged particle moving through the aether could manifest both transverse and longitudinal speed-dependent mass components. There was even experimental evidence that seemed to confirm as much. Electromagnetic theory was then at the center of physics.''
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:56, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::(May I add that I think one shouldn't make such fundamental statements as ''E=mc² has no meaning'', if one only skims a few abstracts! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]])

Aschlafly, maybe you have not the time (or the access) to read the actual papers - as you should when drawing conclusions. But perhaps you can take a look at [http://www.lbl.gov/abc/Basic.html Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's ABC of Nuclear Science] to refresh the basics?Even there, they use ''Einstein's famous equation...''... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:44, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== ...purports to relate all matter to light ==

When I write that for iron I get:
::V [cm³] * 7.874 g/cm³ = M [g]
I don't relate the mass to 7.8474, but to the volume. So, similarly Einstein's equations says that mass is proportional to energy, not light. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:38, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:But the constant applied in this case is the (square of the) speed of light! Are you saying that that is a coincidence? If so, why not just say "E=mc"?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:57, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
::no, of course not, but we could write, e.g., Eε0 = m/μ0: the relationship is given between mass and energy... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:04, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:::But the relationship itself is somehow connected to light. Or maybe, the relationship is connected with some third factor that also determines the speed of light.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:58, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
::::yes, but the c² is a constant. Does the equation E/c²=m relate all energy to light? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:18, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::Yes - the equation in any form relates mass, energy, and the speed of light. I think the article doesn't emphasise the light-energy relationship because it's the mass-energy relationship that appears absurd once the theory of relativity is discounted.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:22, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Even if you discount the theory of relativity, the experimental facts remain: in experiments where mass is deleted or created, this happens with the release or absorption of energy. And this energy is given by ≈8.99*1016m²/s² times the mass... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:31, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== Misleading footnote ==

::(Your footnote about the units is bogus. SI units are not arbitrary, since eg Joules can be derived from other SI units including kilograms, metres and seconds. Therefore, the relationship to light ''is'' (purported to be) a natural one.)--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:00, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Which footnote about units? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:04, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Ah, I see, no, not ''my'' footnote. The text was inserted by [[User:GregG/RSS_6#Mon.2C_26_Mar_2012_18:05:11_GMT_.28edit_by_MihailD.29_2|MihailD]], and obviously the equation holds in other systems, too. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:10, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

I took out the main part of the footnote: it should be obvious that in a physical equation only compatible physical units can be used, and that otherwise conversion factors have to be introduced. But there is no problem, if we have c in feet/h, m in pounds, and E in pound*feet²/h²
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:30, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

:I see - my apologies. I thought you had added the footnote in order to try and make the point above. I agree that in any sensible unit system the equation will work (assuming the theory is right of course).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:32, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

:Looks like [[User:MihailD|MihailD]] received a lifetime block for this and related edits, so he'll be unable to explain or justify his comments. --[[User:JasperK|JasperK]] 08:58, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::That's a pity! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:38, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== We will, we will, we will ==

Generally I enjoy the great contribution of SamHB. My only rub: the ''royal we'' - ''we will dispel'', ''we will show'', ''we don't do''. I don't think that this is the best way to phrase an encyclopedic article, and I'd like to see alternatives. For the moments, I just commented out some of the occurrences which in my opinion spoiled the fun of reading the article....

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:38, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:It is a bit chatty. The first one could be rephrased "This article sets out to...". I have reworded two of the others, and the rest might possibly be omitted entirely.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:44, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== I don't understand... ==

Why you guys destroyed a wonderful original piece of work by Mr. Schlafly. There are hundreds of books and web sites that explain relativity, why did you feel the need to reproduce that content here? --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:18, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
:Perhaps because they are right and he is wrong? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, you still haven't answered my [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|reasonable questions abouts this subject]]. To be ignorant on a subject isn't that big a deal, but to willfully stay ignorant while lecturing about it, that is! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:32, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

BTW, the ''wonderful original piece of work'' was not destroyed - you find it embedded in the text. A blanket reversion of the work of a couple of editors should be a no-no, please give reasons for reverting at least for each paragraph! And answer the [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|questions!]] [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:42, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== Protection of the Article ==

Stated reason: ''(with reluctance, and repeated reversions; for now, post specific suggestions for edits on the talk page)''

Aschlafly, this must be one of these definitions of irony, as I asked for specific reasons for your deletions of material. Isn't that censorship? BTW, you still haven't replied to the [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|sections above]], and frankly I'm starting to call your knowledge on this matter in question! Ignorance is not always bliss!

And if you are not willing to address the points made above by various contributors, are you at least willing to read and answer to ''specific suggestions for edits on the talk page''? Or is this a sham to force-feed your view to the readers?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:The lead focus of the entry was converted into a parade of [[hearsay]] rather than logical analysis. Simply put, the entry had denigrated into the ''antithesis'' of the truth-seeking integrity expected of ''Conservapedia''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:41, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
::And what about the current entry? The fact is that E=mc2 is a perfectly valid equation demonstrating the equivalence of matter and energy and it has been thoroughly verified; the energy a piece of matter contains DOES equal its mass times ''c'' squared. This has been repeatedly demonstrated by experiments, which consistently show that the energy released by a reaction is equal within measuring limits to the overall mass lost. It's perfectly reasonable to reject any claim that this demonstrates the truth of moral relativism, atheism or anything else, but to criticise the equation itself as "meaningless" or "liberal claptrap" demonstrates no truth-seeking or integrity. E=mc2 is no more liberal than d=vt or 1+1=2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:53, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::The entry explains how nonsensical the formula is as a general principle -- and how it has never been derived as a matter of logic or demonstrated in any general, meaningful manner. Reliance on [[hearsay]] is not a serious alternative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::But it ''isn't'' a general principle. It's a mathematical expression of matter-energy equivalence and it's perfectly valid. Whether or not it's ever been derived as a matter of logic or not is irrelevant because it's been repeatedly demonstrated to be true in the most meaningful manner possible: if you turn matter into energy the amount of energy that comes out is always equal to the lost mass times ''c'' squared. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:59, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::You restate the claim as though its repetition would make it true. It doesn't. If someone gains one pound in weight, then it is preposterous for anyone to claim that his energy has thereby increased in proportion to the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::Yes, it would be absolutely preposterous. In fact his energy would have increased by a number of foot-pounds equal to one pound times ''c''2 in feet per second. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:11, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::::To explain that further, his energy would have increased in proportion to his '''weight''', not to the speed of light. If a person who weighed 150lb gained 1lb the energy contained in their mass would increase from 1.4467x1017 ft lb to 1.4564x1017 ft lb. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::::The formula '''E=mc2''' does assert that his energy for a fixed gain in weight would increase in proportion to the speed of light squared and, as you say, that is preposterous.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::No, his energy for a fixed gain in weight will increase in proportion to his '''weight'''. In my example of a 150lb man gaining 1lb, his new energy content will be 0.6667% higher, '''as will his weight'''. ''c''2 is just a constant. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:52, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::::::Andy seems to imagine that this energy should be immediately available for sports or doing work around the house, and that we should all be superheroes after having eaten a bar of chocolate. This is, of course, not so. The energy is still locked up in the mass, and it would require nuclear or particle reactions to convert even small parts of it into useful forms of energy. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:28, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
''The lead focus of the entry was converted into a parade of [[hearsay]] rather than logical analysis''. Then let's get factual: just answer a [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|few questions]]. Shouldn't be difficult, as you are so insightful. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:26, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

Of course this is hearsay - and so it should be. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia - a collection of established information cited from other sources. Hearsay may be inappropriate in court, but it is the lifeblood of an encyclopedia. Anything that is not 'hearsay' is personal opinion or original research, and should be reserved for articles prefixed 'Essay:'. --[[User:JasperK|JasperK]] 08:23, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:Then again, heresy tends to be more reputable when it comes from a professional who has studied the issue for years, instead of a man who doesn't understand how food works. [[User:JackFerner|JackFerner]] 12:23, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Bare links ==

I noticed that [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&diff=971455&oldid=971446 this edit] removed publication information about the references. Personally, I think this information is useful for two reasons: it helps Conservapedia editors locate the references from other sources if (and when) the links go dead, and it helps who print out Conservapedia articles and wish to look up the references offline. (Of course, I'm not suggesting that the URLs be removed, but this could be in addition to the publication information). Of course, there may be perfectly good reasons for removing the publication information of which I am not aware, but I otherwise think that the publication information should be included again (and I plan to do this once the protection expires). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:17, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:Great point. I retrieved and added many of the citations back. If I missed any then I'd be happy to add them also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== Niels Bohr ==
Andy, for how often you rail against the Nobel Prize I'm surprised that you would try and use a former winner as an authority to support your misguided assertion. [[User:DennisR|DennisR]] 21:48, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:Even a broken clock (like the Nobel Prize) gets it right every once in a while!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:07, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

::''. As a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light, it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, including Niels Bohr. '' Who were these physicists? And what said Niels Bohr? I couldn't find anything. In the famous ''Gedankenexperiment'' at Solvay, he accepted ''E=mc²! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:14, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

:::And of course it ''isn't'' a "general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light." It's a statement of equivalence between energy and matter. Andy seems to be obsessed with the idea that light is involved somehow, and that conflicts with his rather odd idea that the Bible forbids a unified theory. I can only wonder what he'll do if science comes up with a unified theory. Probably deny that too. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:16, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly, according to the information I found (Einstein and Bohr at the Solvay-conference), Niels Bohr accepted ''E=mc²''. So, a fact-tag was the only alternative to downright deleting the sentence: it allows you to bring up your sources! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:31, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
:I'd have been amazed if he hadn't. Bohr was on the British team for the Manhattan Project, and he wouldn't have been much use at nuclear weapon design if he didn't accept E=mc2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:41, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, you have a tendency to make up claims (''As a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light, it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, including Niels Bohr. '', ''Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula'', and, yes, '' "suddenly" or "at that time" is a nuance of the Greek ἰδού''). And when your bluff is called, you are miffed! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:00, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
::''Protected "E=mc²": insertion of a fact tag instead of finding and adding a reference.'' That is ridiculous: there is no way of ''finding and adding a reference'' for this made-up "''fact''"!
::It is, however, not very difficult to show that the ''fact'' was invented: just take a look into ''"Foundations of Quantum Physics I''", a book written by Niels Bohr and Jorgen Kalckar. Here Bohr uses what he calls ''Einstein's relation'' without any trepidation! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:00, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Presumably, then, the relevant text should be changed to something like "it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, although Niels Bohr later accepted it." and then add the citation. Or you could clarify with something like "the liberal Nobel Prizewinner Niels Bohr".--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:18, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
::::*There is no reason to think that there was a time at which Niels Bohr didn't accept it!
::::*Is there any source which shows that it was ''widely rejected at the time''? Of course, there was the [[Deutsche Physik]], but does this count?
::::*That said: the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag was absolutely appropriate.
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:44, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::You make some valid points as the online evidence is remarkably scant, even though the disagreement between Bohr and Einstein is well-known. This may be a (rare) example where the internet is less adequate than books. I did add an explanatory footnote and the protection to the page should be expiring soon, if not already.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

*Einstein disagreed with Bohr regarding quantum mechanics. Could you provide a source that Bohr disagreed with Einstein on the theory of relativity? I can't find one!
*As I said, the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag was absolutely appropriate, and I'll reinsert it, as I don't think that there are any sources to back-up your claim.
*Furthermore, I have difficulties to believe that Lord Rutherford had problems with ''E=mc²'', he seemed to appreciate the liquid-drop-model of Gamov, Bohr, et al.
*''a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light'': no one claims that the '''three''' are equivalent!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:22, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== First sentence ==

I've changed the introduction to something a bit more encyclopaedic. Please don't revert without discussing it first. Thanks. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:28, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Political Pressure ==

''Political pressure has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of this nonsensical equation''

More likely the fact that similar experiments as the one Cockcroft and Walton are performed by undergraduates in each department teaching physics around the world! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:30, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

:No, that would not explain why it "is impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of" E=mc2. Even if you think the formula is somehow true, surely you do not deny the political pressure in academia against anyone who might consider questioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:37, 3 April 2012 (EDT)
::It's entirely possible for someone who questions the validity of E=mc2 to pursue a career in science; scientists are encouraged to question the validity ''everything''. However if they ''deny'' the validity of E=mc2 then a scientific career is indeed off-limits to them, for the same reason as it's off-limits to someone who denies that 1+1=2. The fact is, E=mc2. It's been verified time and time again. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 18:44, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

To talk about political pressure in this context is ridiculous. The conversion of Mass to Energy and vice versa and the validity of E=mc2 has been demonstrated experimentally so often(an early example is given in the main page) that to deny that the equation describes observed nature flies in the face of observation and is thus unscientific. To question its validity without hard experimental evidence or a sound theoretical argument (neither of which has been demonstrated) would simply be a matter of scientific (in)competance.[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:16, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

:*Aschlafly, if you argue against ''E=mc²'' out of a position of (willful) ignorance, you won't be taken seriously. Unfortunately this is what you are doing, as your (non-) answer [[Talk:E=mc²#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockroft and Walton|above]] is showing.
:*Criticism of ''E=mc²'' on ideological grounds just doesn't work, as the adherents of the [[Deutsche Physik]] found out in the early 1940s.
:*But obviously, the theory is under constant discussion, as is the concept of energy or mass.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:34, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

== Matter-light relationship ==

Mr. Schafly, I think you are misunderstanding the nature of the <math>E=mc^2</math> relationship. To illustrate, I will give an example.

Suppose we have a map where 1 inch of distance on the map corresponds to 5 miles actual distance. If points A and B are located 2.5 inches apart on the map, we can compute the actual distance between them as follows:
:<math>2.5 \textrm{ map\,in} \cdot \frac{5 \textrm{ mi}}{\textrm{map\,in}} = 12.5 \textrm{ mi}</math>
In general, if the map distance between two points is <math>d</math> and the actual distance between the points is <math>D</math>, then the following formula is satisfied:
:<math>D = dc</math>
where <math>c</math> is the conversion factor <math>\frac{5 \textrm{ mi}}{\textrm{map\,in}}</math>. The equation above does not relate distance to five or map distance to quintessence. Rather, it posits a direct relationship (or equivalence) between the map distance and the actual distance, related by a conversion factor.

Likewise, <math>E=mc^2</math> posits a direct relationship between mass and energy. It does not relate mass to the speed of light (or light itself), nor does the equation related light to energy. Rather, <math>c^2</math> is a conversion factor, just like the <math>c</math> was in our equation for computing actual distances from map distances. I hope this helps explain why some editors have concern with your statement of the relationship posited by <math>E=mc^2</math>. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:19, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:But Energy and mass have known meanings in other contexts, unlike the distances (in inches) on the map page in your example. If Energy or mass were being redefined by E=mc2, then I think your analogy would work. But people are not defending E=mc2 by saying it entails a redefinition of Energy or mass.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
::The equation postulates how mass and energy can be interchanged while conserving the total amount of mass energy. For example, according to the equation, a nuclear reaction that causes 1.0 kg of mass to be lost will produce 9.0 x 1016 J energy. The amount of energy produced ''by the loss of mass'' is proportional to the mass lost. It is the same sort of equivalence between the number of pounds you get at a currency exchange and the number of dollars you pay (which, come to think of it, is probably an even better analogy). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:13, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:::(inserted reply here) E=mc2 claims more than the relation between mass and energy is linear (which is itself implausible). It also claims that the proportional factor is precisely equal to the speed of light squared. Restating the meaning of the equation in plain terms demonstrates how implausible it is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:41, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Energy and mass have known meanings in THIS context! The equation tells us how much energy will be liberated by losing a set amount of mass, or how much energy (for example hard gamma rays) is required to create a set amount of mass. It is a valid equation. It doesn't matter ''what'' objections anyone has to it based on principle or logic; it's been tested and it's correct. This is getting pretty frustrating. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 01:56, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

Perhaps we should have two articles [[E=mc² (science)]] and [[E=mc² (new age)]]: every sentence Aschlafly writes on this subjects shows that he knows so very little about the science involved - and has no interest to get informed any further. Instead his methods reminds me of homeopaths and other quacks advertising their craft by misrepresenting sources, cherry-picking evidence and generally repeating false statements over and over again despite of better knowledge. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:05, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

===A question===

Mr Schlafly, you've said that this equation "purports" to describe the equivalence of matter and energy. The fact is, it's been repeatedly tested and it ''does'' describe the equivalence of matter and energy. However I get the feeling that there's some misunderstanding here. What, exactly, is your objection to E=mc2? Do you think it's incorrect - in which case go check the experimental data - or do you think it's being used to advance some sort of political agenda? I think we've reached a deadlock here and to make any progress on improving the article it would be helpful to know what you think is wrong with the equation. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:02, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
:The problem is that it is a self-sustaining myth presented as "fact" by the same self-serving scientific establishment who have built an tautological edifice on nothing. It is designed to subtly indoctrinate children into the world of moral, social and scientific relativity by suggesting that "everything is relative".--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 17:03, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:The equation is nonsensical. Mass has nothing to do with the speed of light, and cannot be equated to energy simply by multiplying it twice by the speed of light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
::Andy, how do you explain the result of the Cockcroft- Walton experiment? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 01:42, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:::A very good question! Aschlafly, you could try to answer it by responding to [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|this section above]]! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:01, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

== Bohr disagreed with Einstein's 1905 paper ==

Aschlafly, do you have any source for this claim? It seems to be factual incorrect. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:27, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

I looked into it and for me it is an ''ad-hoc'' fabrication to make a point - even the time-line doesn't work out: a '''''trustworthy''''' encyclopedia shouldn't work this way! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:58, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:My dad's grandfather [[Charles Lane Poor]] also disagreed with this paper, although I think he eventually came around once enough evidence piled up for it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:36, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::Why ''also''? There is no evidence that Bohr disagreed with the paper (therefore the statement about Bohr is ''factually incorrect'', i.e., false) and the fabrication was removed from the article. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:18, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

:Bohr and Einstein, though friends, had a famous debate about the new theories. If it was not about the particular 1905 paper you have in mind, then what were the Bohr–Einstein debates about? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:22, 11 June 2012 (EDT)
::They had famous debates about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates quantum mechanics], which has nothing to do with the 1905 paper. I'm not aware of any debates about relativity. Can you provide a reference? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:09, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

== Some questions ==

I still don't understand why (a) Andy Schlafly doesn't know the difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass and (b) he seems obsessed over the speed of light in the equation. The m in the equation is inertial mass! As others have stated, when talking about gravitational mass, you need to consider general relativity.What E=mc^2 says is that mass is just a form of energy. It says nothing about the unification of electromagnetism and gravity (it doesn't even say anything about gravity!). Moreover, do you, Andy Schlafly, understand that electromagnetism is not the only theory that has c as a special value? All massless particles travel at the speed of light. In GR, gravity travels at the speed of light.

If you deny it, how do you account for changes in mass in nuclear reactions? How do you account for electron-positron annihilation as well as dozens of other examples of reactions that don't conserve mass in particle physics?

And by the way, as has been pointed out, if you deny special relativity, you have to reject Maxwell's equations. Are they a liberal conspiracy as well? --[[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:"Usually when we speak of an object's mass we do not distinguish whether we are referring to its inertial mass or its gravitational mass. This is because the quantity of matter present in an object, i.e., its mass, does not depend on the method by which it is measured." [http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=Dynamics_InertialGravitationalMass%2525252Exml] Indeed, no measurement has ever detected a difference between the two.

:As to your second point, chemical reactions can cause energy to be released, and the remaining mass to be reduced. This is hardly astounding and certainly does not imply that E=mc2.

:Your third point is often repeated by Relativists but overlooks that Maxwell's equations were developed and demonstrated decades before the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Maxwell's equations survived just fine for years without anyone claiming that somehow E=mc2. Indeed, an assertion that people "have to reject Maxwell's equations" based on relativity suggests a mathematical approach to physics, rather than an observational one. Are you aware of how Eddington claimed that a physical constant "must" have a certain value due to some mathematical rationale? (He was wrong, of course.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:06, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

::Your first point: It's good that we all agree that inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same thing. (This is the fundamental hypothesis of general relativity, by the way.) But the term "mass" always means "inertial mass". Gravity never appears anywhere in special relativity. Even if Newton's constant of universal gravitation ("G") were zero, that is, we lived in a hypothetical universe in which there is no gravity, special relativity, the Lorentz transform, and E=mc^2 would still be true. There should be no mention of gravity anywhere in the article. But the second sentence of the article refers to "mass (i.e., gravity)". Please take that out. I would do it myself, but I'd get it wrong, since I don't know what point you were trying to make.

::Your second point: That chemical reactions that cause energy to be released result in a reduction of the final mass most certainly '''''is''''' astounding. No one had ever seen this, or suspected it, before E=mc^2, and it is doubtful that anyone has seen it to this day, since the effect is so small for chemical reactions. The phenomenon is known only because we know that E=mc^2 is true.

::Your third point: Yes, Maxwell's equations were developed decades before relativity, and survived just fine before anyone suspected that E=mc^2. Your claimed "assertion that people 'have to reject Maxwell's equations' based on relativity" is not made by anyone. It's the ''denial'' of relativity that would necessitate a denial of Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations imply relativity, though Maxwell didn't realize it. In fact, it was an analysis of Maxwell's equations, not the Michelson-Morley experiment, that led to relativity. If we lived in a hypothetical universe in which there were no electric or magnetic forces, relativity would still be true.

::[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 23:36, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:::You didn't respond to my point about [[Arthur Eddington]], who was the biggest promoter of the [[Theory of Relativity]] in the English world.
::::The reason is that has nothing to do with E=mc^2. Your point about Eddington was presumably referring to the alpha=1/137 business, right? I am aware of that. It was in the late 1930's. Would you like me to write an article about it? I'd be glad to do so. Eddington's promotion of relativity in England was in the 1920's, after the eclipse (his book was in 1923), and was about ''general'' relativity. E=mc^2 is in ''special'' relativity, and was widely accepted by then. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 17:59, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Simply put, the [[Theory of Relativity]] is a mathematical theory (which, by the way, is taught in math departments in some universities); this mathematical theory has never been based on meaningful physical observations. Any statement that someone must reject Maxwell's equations if he rejects the [[Theory of Relativity]] shows how the mathematical cart can be incorrectly placed before the physical horse.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:21, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Of course it's been based on meaningful physical observations. To be more precise, it's based on repeated experiments where the relation between the observed mass loss and the observed energy release is E=mc2. I really don't know what your problem is, but to challenge the validity of something as thoroughly confirmed as E=mc2 is not going to get you anywhere. The equation is valid. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 03:17, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::My comments were aimed at people who accept that both mathematical theory and experimental observations have a role to play, and that they complement each other. There is no cart and no horse. Relativity, like Newtonian mechanics, involves both elegant mathematics and observation, and the observations buttress the theory very well. It's possible for people to get carried away with the mathematics, as Eddington did with the 137 business, but that hasn't happened with relativity. And yes, if you don't accept relativity, you can't make Maxwell's equations work correctly, though Maxwell didn't realize that at the time. It was only later that Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein fixed that. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 17:59, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

''As to your second point, chemical reactions can cause energy to be released, and the remaining mass to be reduced. This is hardly astounding and certainly does not imply that E=mc². ''
Aschlafy, it may not come as a surprise, but you are wrong again:
*The mass of the products of a chemical reaction is nearly equal to the mass of the reagents, because the energy which is involved is so much less than that of a nuclear fusion or fission.
*A kilogram of [[TNT]] will release 4.484 MJ of energy, if you break this down for a single molecule, you see that less than 10 eV are released per molecule in the explosion. Compare this with the 17,200,000 eV per nucleus in the experiment of Corckcroft and Walton!
*In fact, if you let the products of the explosion cool down, the equivalent of this energy will be missing - but it is such a small amount that it is hard to detect it. But nevertheless, E=mc² could be observed.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:40, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

===Answer to the above===

Cockcroft's experiments were not performed until 1932 [http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-speech.html], and recognition for his work did not occur from the Nobel Prize committee until 1951. I could find nothing in the Prize, Cockcroft's acceptance speech, or anything else contemporaneous that suggests that Cockcroft proved that E=mc2.

One comment above suggests that E=me2 was accepted long before 1932. Based on what, mere politics? This formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically even to this day, and the first (dubious) proof for it was not observed until 1932. Folks, E=mc2 seems to be based on politics rather than physics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:02, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:"This formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically"--It is more correct to say that the formula cannot be mathematically derived from first principles (in the way that Kepler's laws can be derived from Newton's law of universal gravitation) rather than that the formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically. Indeed, experimental observation reveals that the added energy is proportional to the mass lost in a linear fashion, with <math>c^2</math> as the slope. These are the same sorts of phyiscal observations that allow you to deduce laws like <math>F = ma</math> (apply varying amounts of force to a mass and see what the resulting acceleration is). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 18:38, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::The formula cannot be derived ''in any sensible way'', not merely a rigorous way. Numerous attempts to derive it have been failures. Moreover, the first claimed experimental observation for the formual was not dates from 1932, long after the formula was declared to be unquestionable dogma.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:20, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Could you please give us some references to these failed attempts? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 19:22, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::::This took only one search on the internet: [http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/01-einstein.s-23-biggest-mistakes 7 failed attempts to prove E=mc2].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:27, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::Aschlafly, your reading of Cockcroft lecture is insufficient. He writes: ''It was obvious then that lithium was being disintegrated into two α-particles with a total energy release of 17.2 million volts. This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass units, '' so he thinks that energy can be provided by decreasing the mass of an object. And if you do a little math, you can see for yourself that he uses Einstein's formula to calculate the amount.
:::::As for the ''seven failed attempts'': Even if there were mathematical errors in the papers as your ''"source"'' suggests, it is not clear that they render the calculations invalid!
:::::I'm impressed which sources you are willing to ignore, and which seem to be absolutely acceptable,,,
:::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:29, 9 April 2012 (EDT)
::::I assume you've read the book and not just that chronology, Andy? Looks like an interesting read, even though the [http://einsteinsmistakes.com/the_author_5.html author] is a [[Professor values|professor]] in liberal [[Vermont]] and has written a [http://www.amazon.com/Special-Relativity-A-Modern-Introduction/dp/0971313415/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333999210&sr=8-1 textbook] on special relativity. Incidentally, amazon.com gives access to a few pages of "Einstein's mistakes". Let me quote from page 330: "His (Einstein's) first derivations of this equation, although flawed, convinced physicists that the energy-mass relation ought to be of general validity. In 1905, Einstein did not have available the mathematical tensor techniques needed for a correct derivation of this formula, but he instigated the theoretical investigations that later led von Laue and Klein to the correct derivation." Could you explain in more detail why you think the attempts failed? Von Laue and Klein's attempts would be particularly interesting, because your reference claims they were correct. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:28, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::A recent peer-reviewed scientific paper, which has been cited in this entry, also confirms that E=mc2 cannot be mathematically derived.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:53, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::Aschlafly, have you read the paper? I doubt it, as your statement isn't entirely correct. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:06, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::You mean the paper by Hecht (2011)? That's also interesting. Let me quote from the Conclusions (I happen to have access to the paper): "Einstein produced about 18 virtuoso derivations and demonstrations all aimed at establishing the mass-energy principle. We have shown that although each of them gave evidence for the applicability of E=mc^2 to a particular set of circumstances, no one derivation, or collection of them taken together, succeeded in providing a definitive proof of its complete generality. That should not be surprising because the same situation occurs, for example, with F=ma, which is a different kind of relation than E0=mc2. Even so, 300 years of successful theoretical work have not proven the correctness of F=ma." ... "That aside, countless experiments from Cockcroft and Walton63 to Rainville et al.64 have, with increasing accuracy, confirmed that E0=mc2 is one of the greatest insights of the 20th century." But maybe that's not the paper you mean? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 17:18, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::::That sounds like what the paper would have to say in order to be published, yes. An academic journal will withdraw its acceptance of a paper if it conflicts with the [[Theory of Relativity]] in any way. Anyone in academia who criticizes the Theory of Relativity in any way, no matter how minor, is risking the end of his professional career due to liberal orthodoxy. [[Robert Dicke]], the greatest American physicist ever, was denied the [[Nobel Prize]] because he criticized the Theory of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::::And that doesn't sound like someone who actually read the paper! Drawing your conclusions just from your interpretation of the abstract (and wishful thinking) doesn't make a compelling argument. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:01, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::How does Asclafly explain electron-positron annihilation? How do you explain that quantum electrodynamics (which is a relativistic theory) is the most accurately tested theory in physics? What's the theoretical basis for the spin of the electron if you deny SR? And are you telling me that Maxwell's equations are invariant under the Galilean transformations? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:13, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::The claim that something "is the most accurately tested theory in physics" is a canard often heard by defenders of the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Step back, look at the phrase objectively, and it's easy to see that such a claim is unscientific. Indeed, such a claim sounds like something one would hear in politics. Not only are there more than three dozen [[Counterexamples to Relativity|counterexamples disproving the Theory of Relativity]], but the claim on which it was based (the advance of the perihelion of Mercury) is now disproof of the theory. But notice how few people are interested in reviewing more precise data, and instead cite imprecise data that are a half-century old or more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:49, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::::You're getting a bit muddled here. One valid counterexample can deliver a fatal, knockdown blow to a purely philosophical / logical argument. Scientific theories (and their corresponding mathematical equations), however, are judged on the width and depth of their explanatory power, rather than on their ability to hold true in ''all'' cases. This is why we can still use Newton's equations to describe the motion of everything we can reasonably expect to bump into in everyday life. They might not hold true in ''all'' cases, but they still have sufficient explanatory bite to be very, very useful.

:::::::::::If you wish to pursue this line of reasoning, then you'll have to reject Newton's equations because of the instances where they fall down and fail to make accurate predictions. I'm pretty sure that you don't want to do that. --[[User:JohanZ|JohanZ]] 20:23, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Andy, I think you are underestimating both the scientific savvy and the inquisitiveness of the contributors here. First, as you well know, but presumably don't like, those "counterexamples" are all wrong, and probably everyone here, except you, knows it. They have been refuted on the "rebuttal" page. Second, and this is my more important point, your claim that "few people are interested in reviewing more precise data" is not correct. I would be interested in reviewing such data, as would nearly everyone else here. Please post the data. Don't bother with the full observed precession of 5600 (or whatever) seconds relative to the old equinoctial frame, or 574 seconds with the new celestial frame. However that is calculated, the precession, after accounting for all the usual factors like gravitational effects of other planets and solar oblateness, is supposed to be 42.98 seconds or so. Please give a citation for the data showing that the GR figure is wrong. This argument has gone on for too long. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:17, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

===Robert Dicke===
*Aschlafly, have you any reason to believe that R. Dicke had any problem with the special theory of relativity?
*Your reverence for R. Dicke is understandable, but surprising in light of your statement about the equivalence principle: ''It's hair-splitting jargon of doubtful significance. 99% of people know what mass is, and it's directly related to weight, not electrostatic energy.'' R. Dicke took quite an effort to perform experiments on this ''hair-splitting jargon of doubtful significance''.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 00:12, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

:Robert Dicke's criticism of the general theory of relativity is well-known. For that, he was disqualified from receiving the Nobel Prize, despite being the most accomplished American physicist ever.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:41, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

::Robert Dicke's criticism of the '''general''' theory of relativity may be well known, but we are here firmly in the realm of the '''special''' theory of relativity. And he didn't have problems with that one - so why have you? Are you a more able physicist than Robert Dicke? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:21, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

== Speed and Kinetic Energy of Relativistic Electrons ==

William Bertozzi [http://muj.optol.cz/richterek/data/media/ref_str/bertozzi1964.pdf performed some experiments] in 1964 to exemplify the effects of the theory of special relativity. W. Bertozzi undertook the effort to measure the values involved as directly as possible. He writes:
:''In the past few decades, the successful operation of multi-MeV accelerators and the planning and interpretations of many high-energy physics experiments have affirmed and illustrated the results of special relativity. However, because these efforts generally involved many other concepts, the relations of relativity are not demonstrable from the data in a simple quantitative manner. The purpose of this paper is to describe an experiment that was performed to help fill the need for such simple and direct data for the teaching of relativity.'' (p. 551)
And from the concluding remarks:
:''The Newtonian relation, usually adequate for the description of the motion of bodies at very low speeds, is obviously in disagreement with this high-speed data. Equally apparent is the conformity of the experimental data to the Einstein relation with its prediction of a limiting speed.''
So, these experiments seem to be performed with Aschlafly in mind! Perhaps Aschlafly can explain the data in a non-relativistic way (via quantum dynamics, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or even nuance of ἰδού?)
But there are even [http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5977 experiments for undergraduates] which show relativistic effects:
:''We have developed an undergraduate laboratory experiment to make independent measurements of the momentum and kinetic energy of relativistic electrons from a \beta -source. The momentum measurements are made with a magnetic spectrometer and a silicon surface-barrier detector is used to measure the kinetic energy. A plot of the kinetic energy as a function of momentum compared to the classical and relativistic predictions clearly shows the relativistic nature of the electrons. Accurate values for the rest mass of the electron and the speed of light are also extracted from the data. '' Robert E. Marvel, Michael F. Vineyard
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:02, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::Then why hasn't William Bertozzi won a [[Nobel Prize]] for this work?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:11, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Why should he? It is a relatively simple demonstration of a basic principle. Do you intend to ignore everyone who didn't get a Nobel prize? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 23:58, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::::If this were a "simple demonstration of a basic principle," then that would be all the more reason why it should be recognized with a [[Nobel Prize]], given the lack of a prize for the same principle. Indeed, has any [[Nobel Prize]] been awarded for a purported confirmation of E=mc2? (Cockcroft's work did not claim to confirm the equation.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:40, 14 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::I find it fascinating how you on the one hand use the Nobel Prize as a source of authority when it hasn't been awarded for things you don't believe in and on the other hand berate the Nobel Prize as nothing more than liberal claptrap when it hasn't been awarded for things you do believe in. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 14:52, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::It's completely logical. Some liberal claptrap is even too much for the [[Nobel Prize]] committee, and that's worth pointing out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

== A reminder ==

Aschlafly, could you please answer the questions in the questions in the section above: [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockcroft.C2.B9_and_Walton|A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton ]]?

I'm interested in your interpretation of their results. (But please take into consideration that a chemical reaction releases perhaps the 1,000,000th part of the energy per unit of mass as the reaction observed by Cockcroft and Walton.)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:28, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

== Does Andy Schlafly Understand what E=mc^2 means? ==

Aschlafly, do you know what E=mc^2 means? You say that "E=mc² is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement that purports to relate all matter to light." No. What it says is that matter is just another form of energy. That's it! It says nothing about unification of electromagnetism and gravity. Moreover, the m in the equation is inertial mass, not gravitational mass! If you look at any decent book on SR, it is the inertial mass that appears in the equations of relativistic energy-momentum. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 09:42, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

== Open questions ==

Many questions in the sections above are still unanswered and I'm especially waiting for Aschlafly to answer those in the section ''[[Talk:E%3Dmc%C2%B2#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockcroft.C2.B9_and_Walton|A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]''.

Aschlafly, could you at least provide me with your interpretation of the bolded sentence of Cockcroft's lecture: ''It was obvious then that lithium was being disintegrated into two α-particles with a total energy release of 17.2 million volts. '''This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass units'''''? Feel free to show your calculations!

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:03, 5 May 2012 (EDT)

== Many leading scientists ... ==

...(including Lord Rutherford and Princeton Physics Professor [[Robert Dicke]]) rejected the [[Theory of Relativity]].

This article is about a result of the ''special theory of relativity''.
*Robert Dicke had no problems with the ''special theory'', he proposed an alternative to the ''general theory''. Or do you have a source where he attacked the ''special theory''?
*Ernest Rutherford thought that it was not beautiful, but he didn't reject the theory. Or do you have a source where he attacked theory for any other reason than being not beautiful?

Without any source, the statement in the article is meaningless - it's more a reflection of the opinion of the main author of the piece and is as convincing as a sentence like ''Sir Isaac Newton wouldn't have liked the theory neither.''

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:12, 10 May 2012 (EDT)

Detergent

2012-06-09T07:45:31Z

FrederickT3:

{{move|Detergent}}
'''Detergents''' are cleaning products that [[emulsion|emulsify]] [[fat]]s and [[oil]]s. They are attracted to both fats and oils and water, so the detergent chemical surrounds [[grease]] and allows it to dissolve into water, so that it can be washed away.
[[Category:Chemistry]]

Talk:Second Law of Thermodynamics

2012-06-09T07:39:03Z

FrederickT3: /* Second Law and Evolution */

{{unprotected|19 March 2007|Tsumetai}}
== Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!==

I am getting a little tired of the (pardon the immoderate language) stupid edits in relation to the second law of thermodynamics. As has been stated by a number of people on the Talk:Theory of Evolution page, the second law of thermodynamics does not disprove the theory of evolution. You are just making this site look stupid by stating that it does. I see that the person who committed the muddleheaded reversion has now protected the page. Might I respectfully suggest that the protection be removed and some scholarship prevail. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:01, 3 March 2007 (EST)

== Protection and other issues ==

The trend towards protecting articles by users in edit conflicts is worrisome. Furthermore, the protected version is simply wrong. One of the Conservapedia Commandments is that everything should be sourced. I therefore would very much like to know if there is any source for the claim that "he Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum" This statement is wrong at multiple levels- the 2nd Law is about closed systems (or can be stated about open systems with a some tweaking of the consequent), it says nothing about the universe. Furthermore, tending towards a maximum doesn't even mean that the entropy levels can't decrease. For example, the sequence, 1,3,2,5,4,7,6,9,8... tends towards infinity but is not an increasing sequence. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 04:05, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Second law also says nothing about an upper bound to the entropy of a system; the entropy of the Universe could increase without limit, in principle, making the 'maximum' part wrong too.

:To be fair to Philip, the increase of the Universe's entropy ''is'' a tendency, not an absolute. The total entropy of an isolated system can decrease; it's just hugely improbable on the scales we're used to dealing with. Quantum effects can lead to a decrease in entropy; one has to deal with a very small system over short periods of time to actually notice this, however. Arbitrarily large decreases in entropy are also possible, given sufficient time. This is true whether one is discussing the fluctuation theorems of QM, or good old-fashioned classical systems.

:But these are not, strictly speaking, parts of the second law. Second law doesn't say anything about tendency. The rest of physics just says that second law is not absolute. So I don't think using the word 'tends' in the definition is very useful.

:The main problem with the article is, of course, the part about evolution, which as Horace says is just wrong, and painfully so. It's a seductive argument to the layman; after all, entropy is all about order and disorder, and evolution clearly requires the production of order. Right?

:Wrong, of course. The second law of '''thermo'''dynamics is a statement about '''thermodynamic''' quantities; 'order' is not one. One can choose to ''define'' the term 'order' in thermodynamic terms, in which case the statement that the Universe must become, on net, more disordered over time is true, for certain definitions. But the price for that is rejecting one's intuitive understanding of what constitutes 'order' and 'disorder,' and going with the maths. By a thermodynamic definition of order, my hot chocolate is self-organizing as we speak. Therein lies the danger of describing esoteric physics in terms which carry the baggage of their lay definition. Better to stick with entropy, and check one's prejudices at the door.

:Perhaps the simplest way to illustrate this is with a different statement of the second law; the Clausius statement, which reads:

::It is impossible to construct a heat engine which, operating in a cycle, produces no effect other than the transfer of a quantity of heat from a colder to a hotter body.

:Now, precisely which part of evolution violates ''that''? This version of the second law makes it abundantly clear that we're talking about a specific, mathematically rigorous statement about heat flow, not some general philosophical statement about order and chaos. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:51, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Oh, yes, I forgot to weigh in on the page protection issue. Tonya Harding strategy, right?

:A while ago, I [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Page_protection_policy suggested to ASchlafly] that a written policy on when page protection should be used, and for how long it should last would be helpful. Anyone else agree? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:58, 4 March 2007 (EST)

== The following is incorrect ==

From the article:

"It is impossible for the total entropy of an isolated system to decrease, therefore the universe is becoming more and more disordered. In this way the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution."

The first sentence is true, but the second is false. Evolution does not cause the total entropy in the universe to decrease, only local variations. By analogy, a fridge does not cool the universe, only a small part of it at the expense of the rest. Please correct this clear error to avoid the increasing levels of criticisms being levelled at this wiki. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 07:45, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:To add my thoughts on this: there are two errors in this article. First, the second law ''only'' applies to ''isolated'' systems, not to systems that are merely closed, let alone open. Then it becomes clear that the "disproving" of evolution by referring to the second law is severely flawed. There is nothing against a local decrease in entropy, as long as it is balanced by at least as large an increase elsewhere. Moreover, the assumption that evolution is directly linked to a decrease in thermodynamic entropy is not immediately obvious. I agree with Nematocyte that in its present state, this article will just serve to invite more criticism. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 09:16, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Strictly speaking, second law applies to all systems; for instance, consider the Clausius statement, which I posted up the page. No mention of an isolated system there. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:01, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That not what my stat.mech. text says ;-). Let's put it this way: the ''entropy'' formulation only applies to isolated systems. In fact, I think that the heat engine in the Clausius formulation should itself be taken as isolated. If we allow it to be (thermally or otherwise) coupled to anything else than a hot and a cold "temperature bath", I think we could make the heat flow up the temperature gradient, at the expense of course of something happening outside the engine. Of course, these thermal reservoirs are abstractions, etc. etc. Anyway, here as well, either we should take the system (engine) as isolated, or we should take it as the entire universe. Both cases are not going to help disprove evolution at any rate. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 12:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I think even the entropy formulation will work with open systems, so long as one takes care to quantify the entropy flow through the boundary. The requirement then becomes that entropy decrease within the boundary is no greater than the net entropy flow out of the system through the boundary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:37, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I think it's effectively the same as looking at an isolated system made out of two parts, inside and outside, and applying the second law to the total system. But what you propose should indeed work. I hadn't thought of doing it that way. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 13:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Absolutely; you can always expand the boundary of an open system to obtain an isolated one, in principle. But it's very useful to be able to work with open systems, if the boundary terms can be computed, since it allows one to ignore entropy generation in the environment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Time to unprotect ==

OK, it's been over a week now, and no one has attempted to defend the inclusion of such rubbish. Might we have the article unprotected so that those of us who actually understand elementary thermodynamics can fix it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Nothing doing sir, the numbskulls are the experts. Who said Sri Lanka became independent in the 1970s, none other than the owner of this site! [[User:Zaheerabbas|Zaheerabbas]] 02:12, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Ressurection a violation? ==

I think we should add a section about the resurrection of Jesus and that it "technically" violates the second law of thermodynamics, but that since it was a miracle, it does not need to adhere to the second law. Thoughts?
:...*blinks* Are there sources that are actually saying that? *honestly curious* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]]

:I think the latter part is pretty obvious, and negates the need for the former. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Gonna back Tsumetai up on this one. Also, it's shocking and appalling that this article is protected while containing such tripe in the content of it.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Not to mention the fact that in the ten days since criticisms were first raised, no one who supports the article in its current state has bothered to defend it.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Agreed. I'll leave a message on the protecting admin's Talk page, maybe it'll help. Talking on here doesn't seem to have any impact. =/ --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, of course. Many intellectuals here! Long live the stone age numbskull army!!! [[User:Zaheerabbas|Zaheerabbas]] 02:11, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==This law and evolution==

Timothy Wallace wrote:

*Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began (assuming it had a beginning).

*Beginning with the “Big Bang” and the self-formation and expansion of space and matter, the evolutionist scenario declares that every structure, system, and relationship—down to every atom, molecule, and beyond—is the result of a loosely-defined, spontaneous self-assembly process of increasing organization and complexity, and a direct contradiction (i.e., theorized violation) of the second law. [http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp]

Comments? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Its a considerable misunderstanding. Points:
::*The second law refers to the flow of heat, it is unclear how exactly that translates into "disorder" and "order" when applied to something like life.
::*The second law refers to closed systems, open systems are a much more complex processes and the "law" does not apply cleanly here. Life and Earth are open systems.
::*Evolution is essentially a favored random walk, these systems are able to produce violations of "disorder" all the time. For example any [[Monte Carlo method]] algorithm demonstrates this beautifully, you can reach local "maximum" and avoid "minimums" by using evolutionary algorithms and many other variations on the theme.
::*Complexity theory and Self-organizing systems also routinely violate the maxim that order can not be created from disorder. The sorts of things needed to produce an SOS or complex system are just the kinds of things we find in life.

:Life is not a good place to be trying to appeal a mathematical description of heat. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 16:31, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, applying the second law to evolution reflects a plain misunderstanding. Beings today are not "more perfect" than those that came before. Greater "perfection" may be a violation of the idea of entropy. However, evolved organisms are not more "perfect" than earlier organisms, since Darwin's point is that there is no biological level of "perfection." Evolved organisms don't violate entropy anymore than ''older'' organisms (a 20 year old relative to a 10 year old) do!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:02, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Ames, you're disagreeing with one of the best Renaissance minds, [[William Shakespeare]]:
:*"What a piece of work is man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals! ". - ([[Hamlet]], Act II, Scene II).

:Now, how does Evolution explain man evolving through an unguided process from one-celled organisms? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:56, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Shakespeare is not a scientist. Science and art are different. I realize they may not be for creationists, which is shocking and kind of funny. But they are different in the real world.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Discuss here before deleting information ==

OK. I deleted the "three types of systems the Second Law can apply to," because it only applies to closed systems. I also deleted the claim that it disproves evolution and relativity, because it doesn't. Evolution is nonsense, but isn't disproved by the Second Law because EARTH IS NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM. As for relativity, the Second Law has no connection to it at all. This article is about one of the key laws of science, and if it's blatant nonsense the credibility of the whole site suffers. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 23:47, 16 February 2012 (EST)

:There is no such thing as a perfectly closed system, so your attempt to limit the important Second Law to closed systems is misplaced. The Second Law is far more meaningful than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 16 February 2012 (EST)
::Irrelevant. The Second Law only applies to closed systems. If a system isn't closed then energy can be added, thus reducing entropy. That is the MEANING of the Second Law. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 23:52, 16 February 2012 (EST)
:::OK, give me a statement of the Second Law that works in an open system. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 23:53, 16 February 2012 (EST)

::::Your approach would appear to limit the Second Law to something that doesn't exist. It's more meaningful than that. Its entry here explains its insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 16 February 2012 (EST)
:::::No ''ideal gas'' exists either, yet the Ideal Gas Law only applies to this non-existent hypothetical gas. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 00:00, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::::The Second Law isn't an ''insight''. It's a description of energy available for work in a closed system. It doesn't have some deep ''meaning'' that can be applied to whatever you like. The Second Law is an accurate description of entropy (note: ''entropy'', not ''disorder'') in a closed system, and if ever a closed system is found then rest assured that overall entropy will not decrease inside it. But to say it disproves evolution is nonsense, especially when you yourself admit that Earth is NOT a closed system! --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 00:05, 17 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::And your point is ....? Attempts to limit the Ideal Gas Law to perfectly ideal gases would be misguided also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::Uh what? How can the Ideal Gas law be applied to something that isn't an ideal gas? --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 00:06, 17 February 2012 (EST)

:::::::::The Ideal Gas Law has insights that extend beyond ideal gases. Ditto for the Second Law with respect to closed systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:10, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::::OK then, tell me an "insight" that the Second Law can bring to a system that is ''not'' closed. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 00:14, 17 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::The entry explains this well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:25, 17 February 2012 (EST)
After going back and re-reading the article a few times, I think I know where the confusion lies with some editors. It appears that the article is conflating the thermal definition of entropy with the information theory definition of entropy. This conflation allows the topic of "disorder" to arise. Which has absolutely nothing to do with thermaldynamics. The basic definition of thermal entropy is simply a measure of energy that is unusable to perform work in a system. How a law that breaks down in layman's terms to: "heat won't travel from a cooler body to a hotter body without an additional input of energy" or "no process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body" can be used to "disprove" evolution or relativity escapes me. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 02:19, 17 February 2012 (EST)

:Perhaps [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth#Major earthquakes are doubling every 40 years? |this discussion]] sheds some light on Aschlafly's misconception of the 2nd law. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:27, 17 February 2012 (EST)

The thing is, is that there is a link between thermodynamics and disorder. This is the tour de force result of statistical thermodynamics vs classical thermodynamics - i.e. that the macroscopic quantity which we can measure called "entropy" is related to the number of possible microstates the system can explore. As has been correctly pointed out, the problems start when we directly equate this with "information", or entropy as defined in information theory i.e. "Shannon entropy". This is an analogous concept, based on the fundamental information content of a system. But there isn't an equivalence between information-theoretic entropy and thermodynamic entropy. In the actual physical world, there is no need to directly connect the quantities of "disorder" and "information". This, in part, along with the more important facts that all these things apply to closed systems and the Earth is not a closed system, means that any argument based on how "entropy" disproves evolution due to some information argument is bogus. [[User:DanPW]]

== Second Law and Evolution ==

I have removed the statement about the Second Law disproving evolution. It is pretty obvious that Mr. Schlafly does not have a correct understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and with all due respect, his inaccurate contributions to this article must be removed. From what I understand, Mr. Schlafly's reasoning is based on his belief that evolution is "disorder changing by itself into a more ordered state," which is not true. This has been explained in most of the above sections on this talk page, so I will not rehash arguments. I just expect a better explanation if the article is to be changed back to saying that the Second Law does disprove evolution.

I suspect that the Second Law does not disprove the theory of relativity either, but I have not looked into the arguments for or against this claim so I am leaving this in the article.

--[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 01:31, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

:Your edit was reverted because the Second Law does ban disorder becoming more orderly, just as it bans heat spontaneously flowing to hotter locations. The theory of evolution is based on the contrary claim that random (disordered) mutations create greater order.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:35, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::In thermodynamic terms, the concept of "order" is not usually applied to the Second Law except in rigorous terms of "molecular ordering," which you have not made a clear connection to the theory of evolution. Also, you are ignoring the fact that the Second Law only applies to a closed system (and the Earth is not a closed system), which has been explained many times above. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 02:02, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::And just what is this "closed system" that the 2nd Law here has to be restricted to? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:16, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::The standard thermodynamic definition of a closed system is one that cannot exchange mass with its surroundings. But in the context of Mr. Schlafly's assertions about the Second Law and evolution, his misunderstanding about the thermodynamic concept of order is even more significant. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 02:38, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::And why can't that happen on earth? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:42, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::The Earth is actually pretty close to being a closed system, but obviously it is possible for matter to leave or enter the Earth's atmosphere. But the main problem with the Second Law being used as an argument against evolution is the claim that evolution requires "disorder changing by itself into a more ordered state" (this was most recently stated on [[Talk:Main_Page]]) and the idea that "disorder" (however that is defined) is always increasing. Mr. Schlafly has not provided any substantial evidence or explanation for this, and that is why I removed the claim about evolution from the article. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 03:05, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::You and everyone else above kept right on saying that earth is a closed system; now you're changing it to "''pretty close'' to being a closed system"? Have you ever put together logs in a fireplace and watched them burn? Which was more complex: the logs assembled, or the ashes several hours later? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:10, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::::As I stated in my most recent 2 comments, the fact that the Earth is not a closed system is not as relevant to Mr. Schlafly's Second Law vs. evolution argument as is his concept of order. (And I do believe much of the discussion above on this talk page is not well focused.) I am not seeing the connection between your burning log example and evolution. Please elaborate. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 03:27, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:Andy, how do you explain the growth of a crystal (an ordered arrangement of ions) from a solution (a disordered arrangement), if "the Second Law does ban disorder becoming more orderly", as you say? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:39, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

Double-slit experiment

2012-05-06T23:09:54Z

FrederickT3:

The '''double-slit experiment''' is a [[physics]] [[experiment]] which demonstrates [[wave-particle duality]].

The experiment is easy to do, but difficult to understand. It consists of setting up a light source on one side, facing a barrier (such as a piece of cardboard) that has two slits in it to permit some light to pass through to a distant wall on the other side. If both slits are open, a distinct pattern of bright and dark bands is observed on the distant wall. If one slit is covered, a different pattern is seen on the distant wall.

This simple experiment demonstrates the wave-particle duality of light. Light behaves as a wave when both slits are open, such that the wave simultaneously passes through both slits and creates an interference pattern on the distant wall.

The experiment can also be done with particles, e.g. electrons, such that a series of particles are directed at a grid, or other similar device, while observing the pattern on the other side.

[[Category:physics]]
[[Category:Quantum Mechanics]]

Double-slit logic experiment

2012-05-06T23:04:32Z

FrederickT3: effect -> affect, and another typo

A '''double-slit logic experiment''' is the use of [[probability]] to determine of there is an underlying logical basis for the surprising effect observed in the [[double-slit experiment]] in [[physics]].

The logical essence of the double-slit experiment is to have two levels of uncertainty in sequence. First, there is uncertainty about which of the two slits a "particle" passes through, and then there is uncertainty about where it lands on the distant screen. Resolving the uncertainty at the first level through observation then affects the outcome at the second level.

A logic or thought experiment could model this phenomenon by setting up a [[random variable]] at the first level, and then another random variable at the second level that is a function of the first random variable.

== Simple case ==

Consider a double-slit experiment where a particle has a 50% chance of being found, if observed, to be passing through one of the slits. When it ends up on a distant background screen could then be one of three places for each slit: further left, straight ahead, or further right, each with a probability of one third. Assume that the placement on the distant screen of "further right" for the left slit is the same as "further left" for the right slit. ''''What is the pattern observed on the distant screen when the double slits remain unobserved?'''''

'''''Answer''''': The five locations on the distant screen have these probabilities:

:far left: 1/2 * 1/3 = 1/6
:center left: 1/2 * 1/3 = 1/6
:center: 1/2 * 1/3 * 2 = 1/3
:center right: 1/2 * 1/3 = 1/6
:far right: 1/2 * 1/3 = 1/6

:Total = 1

==See also==
*[[Conditional probability]]
*[[Bayes' theorem]]
*[[Law of total probability]]
[[Category:mathematics]]
[[Category:physics]]

Talk:Conservapedia proven right

2012-04-30T15:36:12Z

FrederickT3: /* A related issue */

The two rows about gold seem repetitive. How about combining into only one row?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 20 November 2011 (EST)
:::It is a lot of information plus Conservapedia mentioned gold and precious metals a lot. But at the same time reportedly positively about having a broad commodity strategy if possible. I think it would make a very long single entry. I will look at it though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:18, 20 November 2011 (EST)
::::::I will combine them. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

== Neutrinos and the speed of light ==

The article claims that Conservapedia's prediction about the theory of General Relativity being wrong was proven by Neutrinos travelling faster that the speed of light. It has recently been found that this is in fact false, the accuracy of the measurements was affected by a loose fibre optic cable <ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp</ref>. Shall I remove this claim?

:The issue remains unresolved, rather than the claim by the scientists having been proven false. Feel free to edit accordingly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 29 February 2012 (EST)

::Thanks for the help Andy. Sorry, I'm new so I thought I would ask. Either way, the statement is invalid as there is reasonable concern that the results are inaccurate. I will delete it for now as it will save face for Conservapedia. But if the anomaly is still present (as some physicists believe it will be), then we can alwpays re-insert it.--[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 11:23, 29 February 2012 (EST)

== Cristie and Palin ==

If Conservapedia thought those two weren't likely nominees why is [[Presidential Election 2012|Palin still listed as one]] and [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&diff=938676&oldid=937791 Christie was only removed as a potential nominee only two days ago]?

:The way that mathematical probabilities work, nobody, including Palin, has an absolute zero probability of being nominated. An absolute zero probability for an uncertainty is, by definition, impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:05, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Newt Gingrich ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Newt Gingrich is the most likely to win the Republican nomination for President"
*Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination as per the linked article right now: #1 - Mitt Romney
So Conservapedia is proven right for a prediction it's not making anymore? Oh, let me guess: If Mitt Romney wins the nomination after all, you will again claim that Conservapedia is proven right by linking to the first version where he happened to be at the top?

Make up your mind - either actually promote Newt as your top choice or strike this out. It's not much of a prediction when you're basically playing "Heads, I win! Tails, you lose!" with the wiki revision system. ;) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:41, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:I see that the "most likely" list at least reflects this "prediction" again. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

== Britain, atheism and the World Cup ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Atheistic Britain would embarrass itself in the World Cup"
*Liberal claptrap in response: "Liberal denial shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement"
*Result: "'England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa.'"
Uh... your logic isn't sound. You roughly guessed a soccer result correctly, but that doesn't prove anything about a supposed correlation between atheism and underachievement.

Let's look at the actual statistics and results:
*Both England and the religious USA dropped out in the Top 16 round.
*The Top 3 spots of the World Cup went to Spain, the Netherlands and Germany (in that order).
*[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html This] site lists somewhat recent atheism/agnostic/nonbeliever rates per country:
**Spain: 15 - 24%
**Netherlands: 39 - 44%
**Germany: 41 - 49%
**Britain (as a yardstick for "atheistic country"): 31 - 44%
**USA (as a yardstick for a religious country): 3 - 9%
What was that? Correlation between atheism and underachieving? Citing the World Cup 2010 as an example? Not quite. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:08, 22 November 2011 (EST)

:Obviously nobody said atheism was the ''only'' factor. Of course there are other factors in fielding a successul soccer team, such as the level of interest in the sport.

:Looking at British soccer performance over time isolates the effect of atheism. As atheism has grown in Britain, it's ability to compete in the World Cup has fallen to pathetically weak levels. Atheism causes underachievement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:09, 22 November 2011 (EST)
::England's past World Cup ratings:
::*1950: '''8th'''
::*1954: '''6th'''
::*1958: 11th
::*1962: '''8th'''
::*1966: 1st
::*1970: '''8th'''
::*1974: not qualified
::*1978: not qualified
::*1982: '''6th'''
::*1986: '''8th'''
::*1990: '''4th'''
::*1994: not qualified
::*1998: 9th
::*2002: '''6th'''
::*2006: '''7th'''
::*2010: 13th
::Whenever England qualified for a World Cup, it ended up in the Top 16. And I highlighted (in bold) the times in which England made it at least into the quarterfinals. Fallen to pathetically weak levels? During the last three World Cups, England twice had one of the best eight teams on the planet. Or are you claiming that there was a sudden atheism spike between 2006 and 2010?
::Also, the FIFA World Rankings currently rank England as #7, and the [http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankingtools/compareteams.html#g=m&t1=ENG&t2=ENG&t3=ENG&t4=ENG&dRange=4&fm=8&fy=1993&tm=11&ty=2011 trend there] isn't exactly indicating growing failure.
::So let's do this right. What are your sources for the claim that "atheism has grown in Britain"? How much during what time period? And then we can see how that compares to the the World Cup and the World Ranking.
::And you claim that atheism causes underachievement, but completely fail to address how the atheism in other countries somehow isn't causing underachievement there. You can't make a claim and then only consider a single country with "high" levels of atheism. How do you explain that the best three teams during the last World Cup have high atheism rates? Why aren't highly religious countries doing better?
::Sorry, but I don't see this going anywhere. You considered only a single data point (the performance of a single team during a single World Cup) to make a claim that doesn't seem to fit the moment you expand the scope at all. You called a single team's performance during a single event correctly, but that doesn't make your reasoning right. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:32, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Earthquakes ==

I'm surprised that this is ''still'' doing its rounds: It's wrong.

I don't even have to make a longwinded speech; just look at [[Talk:Main Page/Archive index/102#Severe_earthquakes_double_every_40_years.3F|this]] discussion and also at [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth#Major_earthquakes_are_doubling_every_40_years.3F|this]] one. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:13, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Jon Stewart Curse ==
Since the "prediction" was made, Stewart hasn't actually been in any movies. Hosting the Academy Awards was not movie acting. If you want to count "has appeared in front of a camera" as movie acting, then The Daily Show also counts, and it does [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394561/The-force-Jon-Stewart-Daily-Shows-ratings-higher-FOX-News.html very] well. In addition, this prediction was originally made by somebody who was banned as a vandal. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

==What is the point of this article ?==
It just look like boasting. And I shall remind you that ''"As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil."'' - James 4:16 --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:10, 8 February 2012 (EST)

:''Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.'' - Matthew 5:15. Your move!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:45, 29 February 2012 (EST)
::Admittedly, the title is a bit on the nose. I'm inclined to change it to "Conservapedia prescience" or "Presience of conservative insight." Or simply "Conservative Insight." [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:38, 29 February 2012 (EST)

::(edit conflict) Well put, CPalmer. And if "accountability" had been a term known to the [[King James Version]] translators, then it would be in the English translations of the Bible too. It's very important to circle back and check what was right and what was wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:40, 29 February 2012 (EST)

:::Douglas, I'm [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open-minded about this]], but don't think the alternative titles would be an improvement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:41, 29 February 2012 (EST)

== Gay penguin ==

Isn't it possible (and indeed more likely) that the penguin was never gay in the first place? I can't really picture one penguin (peacefully or otherwise) convincing another penguin to change from his ways. There are no penguin therapy support groups. Either way, Conservapedia is right about the gay animal myth (either he's an ex-homosexual or he never was one in the first place). But I do think that possibility is worth mentioning. I'm not sure how to word it though. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:44, 9 February 2012 (EST)
:::I think the idea of a homosexual animal is wrongheaded and that the homosexual animal notion is a myth. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:12, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

== Stalking Horse ==

Don't we need some evidence of intent before deciding that Santorum was a stalking horse for Romney? Was Nader a stalking horse for Bush in 2000? He certainly did more to hurt Gore than Santorum did to hurt Gingrich --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 20:57, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

:I have an [[open mind]] about whether Santorum was a [[stalking horse]] for Romney. But what other plausible explanation is there for the abrupt pull-out by Santorum at this time, stranding so many [[conservatives]] who had rallied behind him?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:42, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
::Winning less than half as many delegates as Romney. A sick kid at home. Nothing near the financial resources that Romney has. Poll leads in his home state that weren't incredibly solid. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 22:03, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Just speculating, but I'd say the potential loss in Pennsylvania had to play a big part in his timing. It's been clear for a while now that he didn't really have much of a chance of turning things around this time out, but the longer he could stay competitive, the more influence he'd have going forward. A loss in his home state would have cost him a lot of credibility he's gained these last few months. It's also not implausible that Romney made some pseudo-promises behind the scenes that now allow him to cancel what was going to be a huge ad buy in Pennsylvania. At any rate, if you/we/Conservapedia still have an open mind about Santorum's status as a stalking horse, is it really an appropriate time to count this as an example of [[Conservapedia proven right]]?[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 00:40, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::: Yeah, it seems silly to proclaim [[Conservapedia proven right]] about something that isn't even clear is true yet. And if Conservapedia did indeed think Santorum was just a stalking horse for Romney, why has it portrayed Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney for the past few months? Why was this prediction from two years ago not brought up weeks ago? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 01:56, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::Although this will unfortunately make me sound like a jerk, this really isn't the place for those questions. Can we focus on trying to improve this particular article? I do appreciate the pro not-yet-a-stalking-horse sentiment though. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 02:09, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::: I think those questions are relevant. Conservapedia is claiming have been proven right about X when it doesn't appear to have actually believed in X and X hasn't been shown to be true. That's about as far away as 'proven right' as you can be. Hence an improvement of this article would be to remove the entry. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 12:01, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::You're right. Sorry about that and carry on. I guess I was more tired than I thought last night. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 12:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::It was asked "why has it portrayed Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney for the past few months?" - Answer: because, obviously, voters '''''perceived''''' "Santorum as the [[conservative]] alternative to Romney." The strength of the votes for that conservative alternative was significant.

::::::::What Santorum's own intentions have been are, of course, another matter. The sbrupt timing of his pull-out seemed to have been coordinated with the Romney campaign, or at least to help him. Gingrich didn't pull out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:32, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::Exactly. I completely agree. This strongly hints that Santorum might not be as conservative as Romney really is (perhaps the plan was something like this; Romney would appeal to moderates while Santorum distracted the easily amused Liberals as Romney gained support. Now with his "shield" down Liberals have spent all their ammo on Santorum so Romney can advance as the real, true Conservative? When you think about it it's brilliant; the Republicans appear to compromise with the more simpleminded voters when in reality the Conservative train steams ahead with more power than ever! [[User:Insel|Insel]] 00:01, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

== Another case of selective reading.... ==

That's bordering the ridiculous: Aschlafly, have you read your source beyond the headline? Surely you want to differ between man-made quakes and natural ones! And a quote from the article: "''America's Natural Gas Alliance, which represents major energy companies involved in natural gas fracking, said it was difficult to conclude anything based on an unpublished abstract. ''" So perhaps you want to wait for the scientific article until you declare triumph - or will this be another article you quote, but don't read? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:05, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:You seem to be focusing on the [[hearsay]] in the article, which of course would be [[inadmissible]] in court for its lack of reliability. The article is cite here for its admissible factual content, which is that large earthquakes are increasing.

:Please see [[hearsay society]] for an enlightening discussion of the key distinction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:13, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

::I think AugustO's point is that although Conservapedia is technically correct in saying the number of earthquakes is increasing, there is a very real possibility that the increase is due to recent human activity. If this is the case, the increase in earthquakes is not a logical counterexample to an old Earth. Even though the increase in earthquakes has not been conclusively linked to fracking, ignoring this possibility and claiming the counterexample to be definitively true is an example of [[deliberate ignorance]] or [[closed-mindedness]]. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 15:16, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Previously there was denial that earthquakes are increasing. Conservapedia was correct about that, and there's no denying that now, right? As to why, that's a separate issue, but the claim that mankind is causing this is implausible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:21, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

::::To answer your question, yes, you are correct. Whether this item belongs in this article and whether it belongs in [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]] are two seperate issues. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 15:31, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly would be correct if his claim were that ''the number of magnitude 3 and greater earthquakes increases dramatically in an area that includes Arkansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Texas''.
:::::But his claim is ''Large earthquakes are increasing in frequency.'' That's quite a difference!
:::::And calling ''the claim that mankind is causing this'' [...] ''implausible'' seems to be a sign of severe closed-mindedness! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:17, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

== Predicted Increase in Premature Graying ==

Mr. Schlafly, I know from the [[Andy Schlafly|article about you]] that you have a background in law and engineering, two fields that highly value logic, evidence, and truth. So you must understand that one nonspecific example of one case of premature graying at one point in time - or even the few example given in the [[Counterexample to an Old Earth]] page - does not nearly offer rigorous proof that premature graying is increasing. (Not to mention the almost nonexistent relationship between premature graying and the age of the Earth.) --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 23:19, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

:The example is specific, and one case can prove a theory. The solitary example of [[Christ]] rising from the dead does prove several theories in [[Christianity]].

:With young people having gray hair with increasing frequency, this does suggest that the slope of man's developmental path is a much sharper incline (downward) than Old Earth believers claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:46, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::Of course you are correct that there are some theories that can be proven true with a single example. But this is certainly not one of them. To prove your claim is true, you need to present a substantial amount of data from the past as well as from the present. At the risk of being called part of the [[Hearsay society]], I am going to suggest you present some credible references. (Also, I called the example on this page nonspecific because the "Result" column does not give the person's name or a reference.) --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 00:25, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Good point about the need for specificity. The link is on the front page but this entry should identify the person. I've corrected that.

:::Your request for references is unpersuasive, as evidence is abundant in daily life. Would anyone ask [[Jesus]] for a reference after telling the parable of the [[Prodigal Son]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

::::I appreciate your point - I doubt anyone asked Jesus for references during his numerous speeches/sermons. But even though it may be obvious to you that the age of onset of gray hair is rapidly decreasing, it may not be obvious to many readers of Conservapedia, so providing substantial evidence would be useful to these readers. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 00:41, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::No, but you're not Jesus. You need to provide citations to factual claims when asked. You should do it before being asked really. I know you know this. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:02, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
And now we see the "Hearsay Society" defense (...or, as I call it, the "Go Away, You Bother Me" defense) in action. Look Randall, look Nate: I've been coming to this website since 2007. Here's how it works. As stated above, one of the people who never have to provide evidence for their claims is Jesus Christ Himself. The other is Andy Schlafly. People are going gray earlier. Just roll with it, 'cause you ain't gonna get any more than "It's self-evident" or "One case proves the theory." Just kick back and enjoy the fun. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:05, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Nonsense. Mr. Schlafly uses citations all the time. He just needs to cite it his point. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:11, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::Mr. Schlafly supported a user who created a template expressly designed to do away with the need for citations. Thus the invention of the notion of the "Hearsay Society." Mr. Schlafly just now on this very page is arguing that, like Jesus Christ, his assertions on this matter are obvious and require no corroborating data. Mr. Schlafly re-wrote the Bible when that particular "data-set," if you would, did not correspond to his own beliefs, and has used articles about events that happened billions of years ago in order to advance the cause of a young creation. Mr. Schlafly has what one might call an interesting approach to the idea of how evidence might support an argument. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:16, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::The [[Hearsay Society]] is the ultimate haven for anyone who denies [[logic]] and, in this case, the increasingly premature graying apparent all around in daily life. [[Pharisees]] used the same escape hatch to avoid accepting the compelling parables and indisputable reasoning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:19, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Not it's not apparent at all because none of us is 6000 years old, assuming YEC is why you're saying this it seems to me that arguing without citing authority where necessary is the ultimate escape hatch for anyone who denies logic because arguments are built on supported factual premises. We have no idea how grey people were at age 30 before the invention of photography unless you've got some citations. And you're still not Jesus. This grey hair stuff is not remotely similar to Jesus's sayings and you know it. You're also getting hearsay wrong. It has nothing to do with citing authority. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:38, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
ASchlafly, most people who are asked for a bit of evidence to back up a controversial claim don't retreat to constructing societal models out of whole cloth and then charging their interlocutors with being members of that made-up society. Nor do they compare their own arguments to those of the Lord. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:56, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::Wait a minute here Mr. Schlafly - are you suggesting I'm part of this "hearsay society" and that by asking you for a citation to show that people are prematurely graying I'm "continuing the don't-think-for-yourself tradition started by the Pharisees"? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 12:33, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::That's exactly what he's doing. I'm curious as to why you would find this surprising. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 12:57, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Jesus was infalible. You, Aschlafly, are not. He did not need to provide citations but unless you are now comparing yourself to Jesus you, Aschlafly as a falible human, do. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:56, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Also - but please correct me if I'm wrong - Jesus did not tell the Parable of the Prodigal Son as a true story, but, well, as a parable. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 12:59, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

::Jesus told the [[parable]] as a true story about the good side of human nature. It was not merely fiction. Notice how no one asked Him to provide a citation that human nature was really like this. Instead, listeners of the [[Prodigal Son]] then and now think for themselves, and recognize its truth without resorting to a demand for [[hearsay]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::So you feel yourself to be on a level with Jesus? You feel that because he, the infaliable Son of God, was not asked for a citation then you should not be? Less than 300 years ago you would have been burnt at the stake for making such a claim. You should really reconsider your hubris, and then ask for forgivness for your pride. And then provide a citation - or withdraw your claim. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 13:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::But ASchlafly, you yourself said that [[parable| a parable is "a fictional narrative."]] Is it a true story or fiction? It cannot be both. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 13:34, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Sylvain, do you think the correct answer to a word problem in math is "merely fiction"? I don't think so.

:::::David, I don't think Christians burned anyone at the stake for making observations about premature graying, without citation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:58, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
For those of you who argue that Andy Schlafly is not infalible and needs to supply sources, keep in mind that by your own argument you need to supply sources that Andy is not infalible if you wish to state it. I doubt you can. [[User:JacobJ|JacobJ]] 14:16, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Edit Conflict: No, but they very well might have burned someone who claimed that his pronouncements were as clear and obvious as those of the Lord. And I'm not sure you can equate word problems with empirical statements about the observable world. I could write a word problem about a train taking 20 minutes to go from Baltimore to Chicago, and for the sake of the word problem, that's fine. It's not the same as saying "a train take 20 minutes to go from Baltimore to Chicago, and only a Pharisee would question my word," which is essentially what you are doing here. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]]

::::::::So is the correct answer to a word problem "merely fiction," or not? And, by the way, Christians did not burn people at the stake as much as [[public schools]] might lead people to believe. Opponents of Christianity have been far more violent throughout history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:25, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
Let's leave the questions of public schools and burning at the stake aside for the purposes of this discussion. The issue here is whether or not a constructed word problem is the same as an empirical claim about the world. I could construct a word problem where the correct answer is that the train took 20 minutes to get from Baltimore to Chicago. That says nothing about an actual train. You are making a claim about grey hair and when asked for evidence, your position seems to be "Jesus didn't need to provide evidence for his parables, and neither do I for this claim." This implies, to the casual observer, that you think that your claims have the same authority as those of the Lord. Do you not see how the reader might raise his eyebrows at such a position? [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 14:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:OK, suppose it wasn't Jesus who told the [[Prodigal Son]], but someone else. Would anyone ask for references to confirm how the story illustrates a truth about life?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

::Someone might ask not for references to confirm that the story tells a truth about life, but for references that the events mentioned in the story actually happened. However, whether or not the story happened or not doesn't change the lesson implied in the story. I get that. But you're not simply telling a story to impart a larger lesson. You are making an empirical claim about the world, having to do with the occurrence of gray hairs. The only evidence you seem to give is "Just like Jesus, I don't need any proof." But Jesus wasn't talking about an actual son and an actual father in the parable--he was telling a story. He could have made it all up in order to illustrate the lesson; that doesn't make the lesson any less valid. Story-telling is not making an empirical claim. Surely you can see the difference. Either 1. You do not understand the difference between metaphor and observable reality, or 2. You believe that your word is as unquestionable as that of Jesus Christ Himself. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 15:52, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

===A related issue===
A man making a claim with an appeal to Scripture is one thing. A man making a claim with an appeal to Scripture who led a project to re-write the Bible because parts of it did not conform to his political ideology is quite another. Then the claims of the man become self-fulfilling. Step 1: "Here is a claim about the world." Step 2: "For verification of this claim, please consult the version of the Bible that I wrote that reinforces the vision of the world that I am claiming in Step 1." Step 3: "If you have a problem with that, remember that Jesus--at least the version of him that I describe in my Bible--said things without reference to anything, and I can too. Because, like the claims of Jesus (the one in the Bible I rewrote), my claims are obvious." Does that not strike you as problematic? [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 16:01, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Conservative Bible Project]] has always been dedicated to translating the original meaning of the [[Bible]] more precisely, free of [[liberal bias]] that creeps into other translations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::Which explains why so many noted conservative theologians have given the rewritten Bible that you produced high praises, and why so many conservative churches and denominations are using it instead of those other, more liberal versions, I guess. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 00:07, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

:::I think the first statement would amount to more reliance on [[hearsay]] concerning what "conservative" theologians supposedly said. And, by the way, the [[Conservative Bible Project]] was never a "rewritten Bible."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:51, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

{{nohearsay}}
What is this?
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="border:1px dashed Gainsboro;margin:+.1em;width:20%"
|-
! style="border:1px solid lightgray;margin:+.1em;text-align:center;padding:+.2em" | [[user:Brenden|Brenden]].
|-
| style="padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
*[[Special:Contributions/Brenden|Contribs]]
*[[user talk:Brenden|talk]]
*[[Special:Log&user=Brenden|log]]
|} 15:50, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:It's a template that can be used to answer or pre-empt calls for references on pages where they aren't needed. There's also <nowiki>{{nohearsaysection}}</nowiki> for use on specific sections of pages.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

Andy, let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that there is a scientist, a well-respected man and a well-known conservative (so no liberal bias involved), who has spent his career investigating premature greying in society, collecting data on the current incidence of premature greying and studying historic records on premature greying. Let us further assume - purely hypothetically - that this man has found that premature greying has not increased since, say, the time of Jesus up to now. If we don't know this man personally, should we take his results seriously or should we dismiss them and all reference to them as hearsay? What if we know him personally, maybe even as a close friend, and know him to be an honest, conservative man? Should we trust him and take his results seriously, even if they contradict what we believe to be true? At what point does information obtained from someone else stop being hearsay? You will surely say that he will not find contradicting results, but my question is not about premature greying (incidentally, I'm in my mid-40s and have been completely grey for at least ten years now). What I really want to understand is the concept of hearsay, its limits and the connection to openmindedness. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:36, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Conservapedia proven right

2012-04-29T17:00:00Z

FrederickT3: /* Predicted Increase in Premature Graying */

The two rows about gold seem repetitive. How about combining into only one row?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 20 November 2011 (EST)
:::It is a lot of information plus Conservapedia mentioned gold and precious metals a lot. But at the same time reportedly positively about having a broad commodity strategy if possible. I think it would make a very long single entry. I will look at it though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:18, 20 November 2011 (EST)
::::::I will combine them. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

== Neutrinos and the speed of light ==

The article claims that Conservapedia's prediction about the theory of General Relativity being wrong was proven by Neutrinos travelling faster that the speed of light. It has recently been found that this is in fact false, the accuracy of the measurements was affected by a loose fibre optic cable <ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp</ref>. Shall I remove this claim?

:The issue remains unresolved, rather than the claim by the scientists having been proven false. Feel free to edit accordingly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 29 February 2012 (EST)

::Thanks for the help Andy. Sorry, I'm new so I thought I would ask. Either way, the statement is invalid as there is reasonable concern that the results are inaccurate. I will delete it for now as it will save face for Conservapedia. But if the anomaly is still present (as some physicists believe it will be), then we can always re-insert it.--[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 11:23, 29 February 2012 (EST)

== Cristie and Palin ==

If Conservapedia thought those two weren't likely nominees why is [[Presidential Election 2012|Palin still listed as one]] and [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&diff=938676&oldid=937791 Christie was only removed as a potential nominee only two days ago]?

:The way that mathematical probabilities work, nobody, including Palin, has an absolute zero probability of being nominated. An absolute zero probability for an uncertainty is, by definition, impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:05, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Newt Gingrich ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Newt Gingrich is the most likely to win the Republican nomination for President"
*Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination as per the linked article right now: #1 - Mitt Romney
So Conservapedia is proven right for a prediction it's not making anymore? Oh, let me guess: If Mitt Romney wins the nomination after all, you will again claim that Conservapedia is proven right by linking to the first version where he happened to be at the top?

Make up your mind - either actually promote Newt as your top choice or strike this out. It's not much of a prediction when you're basically playing "Heads, I win! Tails, you lose!" with the wiki revision system. ;) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:41, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:I see that the "most likely" list at least reflects this "prediction" again. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

== Britain, atheism and the World Cup ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Atheistic Britain would embarrass itself in the World Cup"
*Liberal claptrap in response: "Liberal denial shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement"
*Result: "'England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa.'"
Uh... your logic isn't sound. You roughly guessed a soccer result correctly, but that doesn't prove anything about a supposed correlation between atheism and underachievement.

Let's look at the actual statistics and results:
*Both England and the religious USA dropped out in the Top 16 round.
*The Top 3 spots of the World Cup went to Spain, the Netherlands and Germany (in that order).
*[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html This] site lists somewhat recent atheism/agnostic/nonbeliever rates per country:
**Spain: 15 - 24%
**Netherlands: 39 - 44%
**Germany: 41 - 49%
**Britain (as a yardstick for "atheistic country"): 31 - 44%
**USA (as a yardstick for a religious country): 3 - 9%
What was that? Correlation between atheism and underachieving? Citing the World Cup 2010 as an example? Not quite. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:08, 22 November 2011 (EST)

:Obviously nobody said atheism was the ''only'' factor. Of course there are other factors in fielding a successul soccer team, such as the level of interest in the sport.

:Looking at British soccer performance over time isolates the effect of atheism. As atheism has grown in Britain, it's ability to compete in the World Cup has fallen to pathetically weak levels. Atheism causes underachievement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:09, 22 November 2011 (EST)
::England's past World Cup ratings:
::*1950: '''8th'''
::*1954: '''6th'''
::*1958: 11th
::*1962: '''8th'''
::*1966: 1st
::*1970: '''8th'''
::*1974: not qualified
::*1978: not qualified
::*1982: '''6th'''
::*1986: '''8th'''
::*1990: '''4th'''
::*1994: not qualified
::*1998: 9th
::*2002: '''6th'''
::*2006: '''7th'''
::*2010: 13th
::Whenever England qualified for a World Cup, it ended up in the Top 16. And I highlighted (in bold) the times in which England made it at least into the quarterfinals. Fallen to pathetically weak levels? During the last three World Cups, England twice had one of the best eight teams on the planet. Or are you claiming that there was a sudden atheism spike between 2006 and 2010?
::Also, the FIFA World Rankings currently rank England as #7, and the [http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankingtools/compareteams.html#g=m&t1=ENG&t2=ENG&t3=ENG&t4=ENG&dRange=4&fm=8&fy=1993&tm=11&ty=2011 trend there] isn't exactly indicating growing failure.
::So let's do this right. What are your sources for the claim that "atheism has grown in Britain"? How much during what time period? And then we can see how that compares to the the World Cup and the World Ranking.
::And you claim that atheism causes underachievement, but completely fail to address how the atheism in other countries somehow isn't causing underachievement there. You can't make a claim and then only consider a single country with "high" levels of atheism. How do you explain that the best three teams during the last World Cup have high atheism rates? Why aren't highly religious countries doing better?
::Sorry, but I don't see this going anywhere. You considered only a single data point (the performance of a single team during a single World Cup) to make a claim that doesn't seem to fit the moment you expand the scope at all. You called a single team's performance during a single event correctly, but that doesn't make your reasoning right. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:32, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Earthquakes ==

I'm surprised that this is ''still'' doing its rounds: It's wrong.

I don't even have to make a longwinded speech; just look at [[Talk:Main Page/Archive index/102#Severe_earthquakes_double_every_40_years.3F|this]] discussion and also at [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth#Major_earthquakes_are_doubling_every_40_years.3F|this]] one. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:13, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Jon Stewart Curse ==
Since the "prediction" was made, Stewart hasn't actually been in any movies. Hosting the Academy Awards was not movie acting. If you want to count "has appeared in front of a camera" as movie acting, then The Daily Show also counts, and it does [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394561/The-force-Jon-Stewart-Daily-Shows-ratings-higher-FOX-News.html very] well. In addition, this prediction was originally made by somebody who was banned as a vandal. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

==What is the point of this article ?==
It just look like boasting. And I shall remind you that ''"As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil."'' - James 4:16 --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:10, 8 February 2012 (EST)

:''Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.'' - Matthew 5:15. Your move!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:45, 29 February 2012 (EST)
::Admittedly, the title is a bit on the nose. I'm inclined to change it to "Conservapedia prescience" or "Presience of conservative insight." Or simply "Conservative Insight." [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:38, 29 February 2012 (EST)

::(edit conflict) Well put, CPalmer. And if "accountability" had been a term known to the [[King James Version]] translators, then it would be in the English translations of the Bible too. It's very important to circle back and check what was right and what was wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:40, 29 February 2012 (EST)

:::Douglas, I'm [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open-minded about this]], but don't think the alternative titles would be an improvement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:41, 29 February 2012 (EST)

== Gay penguin ==

Isn't it possible (and indeed more likely) that the penguin was never gay in the first place? I can't really picture one penguin (peacefully or otherwise) convincing another penguin to change from his ways. There are no penguin therapy support groups. Either way, Conservapedia is right about the gay animal myth (either he's an ex-homosexual or he never was one in the first place). But I do think that possibility is worth mentioning. I'm not sure how to word it though. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:44, 9 February 2012 (EST)
:::I think the idea of a homosexual animal is wrongheaded and that the homosexual animal notion is a myth. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:12, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

== For the record, my 12 major predictions ==

See: [[Essay: For the record, User: Conservative's 12 major predictions]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:10, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== Stalking Horse ==

Don't we need some evidence of intent before deciding that Santorum was a stalking horse for Romney? Was Nader a stalking horse for Bush in 2000? He certainly did more to hurt Gore than Santorum did to hurt Gingrich --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 20:57, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

:I have an [[open mind]] about whether Santorum was a [[stalking horse]] for Romney. But what other plausible explanation is there for the abrupt pull-out by Santorum at this time, stranding so many [[conservatives]] who had rallied behind him?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:42, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
::Winning less than half as many delegates as Romney. A sick kid at home. Nothing near the financial resources that Romney has. Poll leads in his home state that weren't incredibly solid. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 22:03, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Just speculating, but I'd say the potential loss in Pennsylvania had to play a big part in his timing. It's been clear for a while now that he didn't really have much of a chance of turning things around this time out, but the longer he could stay competitive, the more influence he'd have going forward. A loss in his home state would have cost him a lot of credibility he's gained these last few months. It's also not implausible that Romney made some pseudo-promises behind the scenes that now allow him to cancel what was going to be a huge ad buy in Pennsylvania. At any rate, if you/we/Conservapedia still have an open mind about Santorum's status as a stalking horse, is it really an appropriate time to count this as an example of [[Conservapedia proven right]]?[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 00:40, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::: Yeah, it seems silly to proclaim [[Conservapedia proven right]] about something that isn't even clear is true yet. And if Conservapedia did indeed think Santorum was just a stalking horse for Romney, why has it portrayed Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney for the past few months? Why was this prediction from two years ago not brought up weeks ago? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 01:56, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::Although this will unfortunately make me sound like a jerk, this really isn't the place for those questions. Can we focus on trying to improve this particular article? I do appreciate the pro not-yet-a-stalking-horse sentiment though. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 02:09, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::: I think those questions are relevant. Conservapedia is claiming have been proven right about X when it doesn't appear to have actually believed in X and X hasn't been shown to be true. That's about as far away as 'proven right' as you can be. Hence an improvement of this article would be to remove the entry. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 12:01, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::You're right. Sorry about that and carry on. I guess I was more tired than I thought last night. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 12:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::It was asked "why has it portrayed Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney for the past few months?" - Answer: because, obviously, voters '''''perceived''''' "Santorum as the [[conservative]] alternative to Romney." The strength of the votes for that conservative alternative was significant.

::::::::What Santorum's own intentions have been are, of course, another matter. The sbrupt timing of his pull-out seemed to have been coordinated with the Romney campaign, or at least to help him. Gingrich didn't pull out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:32, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::Exactly. I completely agree. This strongly hints that Santorum might not be as conservative as Romney really is (perhaps the plan was something like this; Romney would appeal to moderates while Santorum distracted the easily amused Liberals as Romney gained support. Now with his "shield" down Liberals have spent all their ammo on Santorum so Romney can advance as the real, true Conservative? When you think about it it's brilliant; the Republicans appear to compromise with the more simpleminded voters when in reality the Conservative train steams ahead with more power than ever! [[User:Insel|Insel]] 00:01, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

== Another case of selective reading.... ==

That's bordering the ridiculous: Aschlafly, have you read your source beyond the headline? Surely you want to differ between man-made quakes and natural ones! And a quote from the article: "''America's Natural Gas Alliance, which represents major energy companies involved in natural gas fracking, said it was difficult to conclude anything based on an unpublished abstract. ''" So perhaps you want to wait for the scientific article until you declare triumph - or will this be another article you quote, but don't read? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:05, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:You seem to be focusing on the [[hearsay]] in the article, which of course would be [[inadmissible]] in court for its lack of reliability. The article is cite here for its admissible factual content, which is that large earthquakes are increasing.

:Please see [[hearsay society]] for an enlightening discussion of the key distinction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:13, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

::I think AugustO's point is that although Conservapedia is technically correct in saying the number of earthquakes is increasing, there is a very real possibility that the increase is due to recent human activity. If this is the case, the increase in earthquakes is not a logical counterexample to an old Earth. Even though the increase in earthquakes has not been conclusively linked to fracking, ignoring this possibility and claiming the counterexample to be definitively true is an example of [[deliberate ignorance]] or [[closed-mindedness]]. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 15:16, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Previously there was denial that earthquakes are increasing. Conservapedia was correct about that, and there's no denying that now, right? As to why, that's a separate issue, but the claim that mankind is causing this is implausible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:21, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

::::To answer your question, yes, you are correct. Whether this item belongs in this article and whether it belongs in [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]] are two seperate issues. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 15:31, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly would be correct if his claim were that ''the number of magnitude 3 and greater earthquakes increases dramatically in an area that includes Arkansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Texas''.
:::::But his claim is ''Large earthquakes are increasing in frequency.'' That's quite a difference!
:::::And calling ''the claim that mankind is causing this'' [...] ''implausible'' seems to be a sign of severe closed-mindedness! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:17, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

== Predicted Increase in Premature Graying ==

Mr. Schlafly, I know from the [[Andy Schlafly|article about you]] that you have a background in law and engineering, two fields that highly value logic, evidence, and truth. So you must understand that one nonspecific example of one case of premature graying at one point in time - or even the few example given in the [[Counterexample to an Old Earth]] page - does not nearly offer rigorous proof that premature graying is increasing. (Not to mention the almost nonexistent relationship between premature graying and the age of the Earth.) --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 23:19, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

:The example is specific, and one case can prove a theory. The solitary example of [[Christ]] rising from the dead does prove several theories in [[Christianity]].

:With young people having gray hair with increasing frequency, this does suggest that the slope of man's developmental path is a much sharper incline (downward) than Old Earth believers claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:46, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::Of course you are correct that there are some theories that can be proven true with a single example. But this is certainly not one of them. To prove your claim is true, you need to present a substantial amount of data from the past as well as from the present. At the risk of being called part of the [[Hearsay society]], I am going to suggest you present some credible references. (Also, I called the example on this page nonspecific because the "Result" column does not give the person's name or a reference.) --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 00:25, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Good point about the need for specificity. The link is on the front page but this entry should identify the person. I've corrected that.

:::Your request for references is unpersuasive, as evidence is abundant in daily life. Would anyone ask [[Jesus]] for a reference after telling the parable of the [[Prodigal Son]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

::::I appreciate your point - I doubt anyone asked Jesus for references during his numerous speeches/sermons. But even though it may be obvious to you that the age of onset of gray hair is rapidly decreasing, it may not be obvious to many readers of Conservapedia, so providing substantial evidence would be useful to these readers. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 00:41, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::No, but you're not Jesus. You need to provide citations to factual claims when asked. You should do it before being asked really. I know you know this. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:02, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
And now we see the "Hearsay Society" defense (...or, as I call it, the "Go Away, You Bother Me" defense) in action. Look Randall, look Nate: I've been coming to this website since 2007. Here's how it works. As stated above, one of the people who never have to provide evidence for their claims is Jesus Christ Himself. The other is Andy Schlafly. People are going gray earlier. Just roll with it, 'cause you ain't gonna get any more than "It's self-evident" or "One case proves the theory." Just kick back and enjoy the fun. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:05, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Nonsense. Mr. Schlafly uses citations all the time. He just needs to cite it his point. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:11, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::Mr. Schlafly supported a user who created a template expressly designed to do away with the need for citations. Thus the invention of the notion of the "Hearsay Society." Mr. Schlafly just now on this very page is arguing that, like Jesus Christ, his assertions on this matter are obvious and require no corroborating data. Mr. Schlafly re-wrote the Bible when that particular "data-set," if you would, did not correspond to his own beliefs, and has used articles about events that happened billions of years ago in order to advance the cause of a young creation. Mr. Schlafly has what one might call an interesting approach to the idea of how evidence might support an argument. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:16, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::The [[Hearsay Society]] is the ultimate haven for anyone who denies [[logic]] and, in this case, the increasingly premature graying apparent all around in daily life. [[Pharisees]] used the same escape hatch to avoid accepting the compelling parables and indisputable reasoning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:19, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Not it's not apparent at all because none of us is 6000 years old, assuming YEC is why you're saying this it seems to me that arguing without citing authority where necessary is the ultimate escape hatch for anyone who denies logic because arguments are built on supported factual premises. We have no idea how grey people were at age 30 before the invention of photography unless you've got some citations. And you're still not Jesus. This grey hair stuff is not remotely similar to Jesus's sayings and you know it. You're also getting hearsay wrong. It has nothing to do with citing authority. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:38, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
ASchlafly, most people who are asked for a bit of evidence to back up a controversial claim don't retreat to constructing societal models out of whole cloth and then charging their interlocutors with being members of that made-up society. Nor do they compare their own arguments to those of the Lord. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:56, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::Wait a minute here Mr. Schlafly - are you suggesting I'm part of this "hearsay society" and that by asking you for a citation to show that people are prematurely graying I'm "continuing the don't-think-for-yourself tradition started by the Pharisees"? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 12:33, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::That's exactly what he's doing. I'm curious as to why you would find this surprising. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 12:57, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Jesus was infalible. You, Aschlafly, are not. He did not need to provide citations but unless you are now comparing yourself to Jesus you, Aschlafly as a falible human, do. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:56, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Also - but please correct me if I'm wrong - Jesus did not tell the Parable of the Prodigal Son as a true story, but, well, as a parable. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 12:59, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Great Flood

2012-04-21T16:28:26Z

FrederickT3: Add missing references tag

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
== General Discussion ==

Sorry, but your edit has created inaccuracies here. We need a REAL biblical scholar to help out.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::Palmd001, if there's anything Christian Religion is founded upon, it is the absolute right of each believer to make his individual decision to become Saved in the Blood of the Lamb. We're not Papists, here, we're Christians, and each of us is endowed by our Creator with the rights and abilities of Biblical Exegesis. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm sorry, are you suggesting that Roman Catholics are ''not'' Christians? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:56, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::::They were once, before they burried the bible underneath centuries of accumulated doctrine, empty ritual, decree and politics. Any church which gives a human the authority to make holy decrees though cannot be truely respecting Christ, the only authority to do so. {{unsigned|BornAgainBrit}}

What I saw was amateurs working on a stub just to continue to make it a stub; there was no professionalism whatsoever. If you want to make edits here, either do the job well or don't do it at all. This page will be locked down until I'm done with it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:.''..was the last great event shared by mankind.'' This inaccuracy/opinion should be deleted. Also, Duns, please don't insult the Catholics in here. It is STRONGLY discouraged to insult others' religions here. SYSOP please make a note of it.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 19:49, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Palmd001, I am a Catholic. I'm Duns Scotus. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 09:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::What is the anti-Catholic slur being passed around? And where is your evidence that states the Flood was not the last event shared by mankind? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Its just above, Duns refers to Papists, a well known slur. As to the second, what is meant by "great event shared by mankind" It's just subjective. Was the Ressurection not a great event shared by mankind?[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:07, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::First, I didn't write the slur. Second, the flood had only eight survivors, Noah and his family, and from them spread the human race, as well as traditions about the flood being in every culture around the globe. That is the evidence. And third, Jesus resurrection was physically witnessed by a few Roman guards who fainted at the site, as well as upwards of 140 individuals with whom Jesus chose to show Himself. The Resurrection was THE greatest event in human history, but on the weekend it happened it didn't exactly make the 11 pm news. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Barnstar for Karajou ==

:::Karajou, your recognition of liberal media bias as early as 33 AD is an important marker for your assidious and often brilliant editing, here. I think you should be awarded a barnstar, or some sort of public marker of your essential rightness. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

=='Scientific' Evidence and its 'Value'==
This article needs more info on the geological evidence for the flood; additional cultural tales, and anything else of interest. This is NOT about Noah's Ark; that is another article in and of itself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:17, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Real evidence or made up stuff? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 23:22, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::The real stuff...not the stuff made up by scientists who can't stand the thought of God! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::By 'scientists who can't stand the thought of God,' do you mean the Christian geologists who first realized that a global flood was contradicted by the evidence? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, he means Satan inspired pagan atheists like Charles Lyell. His [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_modest_proposal Modest proposal] about geology was designed so that he could deny God and continue his baby eating ways. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

And just what exactly is your point for being involved with this article? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps he's interesting in conveying science rather than mythology. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:I can't be involved in the article, its locked and being micromanaged (not macromanaged thats impossible) by an admin. Just like every other article on this site where the facts have a "liberal" bias. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Utility of the 'Scientific' 'Method'==

So am I. Perhaps either one of you can get me proof as to how dinosaur tracks are fossilized, by using the scientific method. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:What are you talking about? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm at a loss as to how dinosaur track fossilisation is relevent. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::It's extremely relevant! Fossilized tracks throughout the geological record are cleary incompatible with flood geology. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, no things can ONLY fossilize in a flood. Duh. I mean the only explanation for things like fossilized termite nests is that a wall of water hit them. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I know that, but I don't get why Karajou is asking me about it, or how it contributes in any way to his claims. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::This is not going to be a debate on what either one of us believe; my purpose is to improve this article, and I'm assuming that is your purpose here too. Therefore, I want evidence to post in this article as to how dinosaur tracks are fossilized, and I want it from an evolutionary point of view. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

In light of your claim that fossilized tracks are completely incompatable with flood geology, you're going to provide proof and sources for this. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'd guese it's got something to do with mud or lava filling in the indentations, or the sand or mud being compressed into rock. It isn't my forte. What I'm wondering is how YEC think it occured when the tracks are found on top of strata they believe was laid down during the flood. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://home.entouch.net/dmd/Tracks.htm Some examples]. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, read through this paper [http://www.cudenver.edu/NR/rdonlyres/eocduwg6h2lbh2t2dodpuddbzjllqbuo2mnlqiu4b4iyfizk2ofo33fxize7onhybfyou7eebjjbacbn7fd67uzddhb/wright.pdf here]. Its a good starting point. Specific questions can be addressed as they arise. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is good; it explains the mainstream scientific view as to how these tracks were cast. It's going to be used here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::the ''schwerpunkt'' of the secularist perspective is what they call 'the geological time scale.' The secularists believe that, given enough time, anything is possible, not realizing that God can work wonders (ie, creating the entire universe) in less than a week. This is the real issue on which we must convince ourselves! If there is ample time, there can be fossilizations, and dinosaurs, and canyons and tectonic plates. If there is Biblical Time, and that means True Time, there can only be what is in God's Holy Word, which is All Truth and All Wisdom, Amen. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::k. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Now that the fossil tracks are done, I want scientific articles as to how dinosaur coprolites are preserved. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If the dinosaurs were eating a largely vegetable diet, they could be passing stools with a high degree of cellulose, which might lend itself to better preservation. I'm not sure if the secularist 'scientists' have addressed dinosaur diet, but vegetarian dinosaurs might have been fed corn-on-the-cobb whilst on the ark. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I could be wrong, but isn't all that fossil stuff... well, worthless? It all boils down to 'X type of fossil can only form in the event of a sudden flood.' But there is nothing unusual about a flood - they happen all the time in many places, more rarely in most, and when considering the climate change in geological time its going to be a very common occurance. So all such arguments are quite usless unless they are able to distinguish between local and global flooding. No, if you were able to show that all of those fossils date to ''exactly the same time''...

:Precisely correct. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I follow the argument... I agree too. Making such easily-falsified arguments does nothing for our credability. Creationists need to stop endlessly repeating long-dismissed claims, a habbit which many seem unable to escape. Even the old themodynamics-disproves-evolution, perhaps the weakest of all, crops up constantly. Because, I think, even creationists are eager to believe anything that matches their existing views without critical thinking. - BornAgainBrit

== On Kant ==

:Anything I provide will be twisted around. Why bother....[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 15:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, it was not twisted around. I knew exactly what scientists have stated for years about this matter, and what they have said has been contradicted by plain observation. You are not at fault. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::*sigh*, okay, do as you see fit, do what you will. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 15:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Dr. John Bell, lived in the 1860s in England; brilliant physician who taught classes on medicine. His primary order of teaching was to make his students observe everything. One of his students was Arthur Conan Doyle, who would use that philosophy when he created Sherlock Holmes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::In order to truly understand Immanual Kant's approach to epistemology one must have a firm understanding of the dynamic between Platonic Ideals and the scholastic approach of the early church. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::I've never read Kant, as I don't believe in Kant. I'd rather believe in Kan! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Its okay, you shared a fact, I wanted to share one too. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You Kant critique pure reason. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Kant was a fallen and imperfect worldly philosopher that secularists cite to concatenate examples of their sinful free will. Truth is not accessible through flawed human reason, only by recourse to the Divine Truth perfectly revealed in the Most Holy Bible. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Totally, half way through Critique of Pure Reason I was so like "oh my gosh this dude is SOOO fallen and imperfect." Then I realized it was the TRANSLATOR that was really the fallen one. I need to learn German I guess. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::You raise an important question, Tmtoulouse, which is that the translators of God's Holy Word (that wasn't written directly in English) were clearly divinely inspired, and their errors were prevented by Divine Providence. Obviously for secularist translations, no such inspiration is possible (or necessary). [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, which brings in this whole "English as a second language" stuff. English only all the way! If its good enough for God its good enough for the world! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
== On Truth ==

There is no Truth that does not stem from The Word, the Lord, and His Holy Writ. Remember John: In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was God. Remember that none can come to the Father except by Him. Remember also to not erect false idols before God, especially your own intellectual vanities. What is a man, except a snail before the void? Without Jesus, we are nothing. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::...um... this is relevant to the article HOW?![[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:26, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

== Black Sea flood? ==

Would it be reasonable to add a bit in the 'evidence' section to the [http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ Black Sea food theory]? This is geological evidence that there ''was'' a flooding event at about 7000 BC that would have been a flood of most of the known world at the time. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'll probably put that in there; I find it intriging myself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:12, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Here's the Greek flood story [http://www.maicar.com/GML/Flood.html] for writing that bit. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:16, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks...and the article could use additional flood stories [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::If you dig around, you'll see that prior to Ballard's theory the Russians had similar theories. However, the lack of translated papers and scientific exchange didn't get these theories to the west. Ballard did come up with his theory independently. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I'm using Ballard's because it's most familiar to readers today. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Fossilization process==
I read years ago a book by Roy Chapman Andrews when I was a kid, titled "All ABout Strange Beasts of the Past" (I'm threatening the wife on getting the book via EBay!), and Andrews stated the time to become a fossil is about 5000 years. I looked on the web for citations from academia on the subject but cannot find any as of yet. Any other sources? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, the time to fossilization is not all that relevant, as fossils are directly dated, as is the material they are found with, and unless God is just pulling our legs with physics, carbon dating is very accurate. Of course, God could take the role of the deceiver, or possible Satan could, and arrange strata and the laws of nature precisely to lead us to false conclusions.

Or not.

[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

At one point C-14 testing done on a live mollusk "proved" it had been dead for over 4000 years. I'd love to use that tidbit of info, but I have to have better sources than just someone's word...I want to know when it happened, where it happened, by whom, and what papers are available, otherwise it's little more than word-of-mouth. Same rule applies with the fossilization time. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:46, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html Something] a very quick Google search turned up:
{{QuoteBox|The notable exception involves certain mollusks, which get much of their carbon from dissolved limestone. Since limestone is very old it contains very little carbon-14. Thus, in getting some of their carbon from limestone, these mollusks "inherit" some of the limestone's old age! That is, the limestone carbon skews the normal ratio between C-12 and C-14 found in living things. No problem! If one dates such mollusks, one must be extra careful in interpreting the data. Not every mollusk shell presents such problems, and the dating of other material might yield a cross-check. Further study might even allow correction tables. The discovery has strengthened the carbon-14 method, not weakened it! By the way, shouldn't the creationist be worried over the old, carbon-14 age of the limestone? Why is it that limestone has so little C-14 in it?}}
:I'm not arguing for or against anything, but this attack on the C-14 dating method appears to be fairly weak. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:05, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:This is apparently based on [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/141/3581/634 this report]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:16, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I believe that many people who support the Creation via science have, in their zeal, skewed the facts on certain subjects, such as the C-14 cited above. Which explains why I want basic, solid, irrefutable facts here. No bullpuckey from either side of the fence. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:28, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::In addition to the point raised there, it should be noted that carbon dating is only supposed to be used on ''dead'' matter. A living organism exchanges carbon with the atmosphere; it is when the organism dies that the clock starts.

::No dating method is perfect. There are always assumptions involved, and limitations on the method. Whenever a creationist presents an anomalous result, the first thing to do is to check how and when the method is supposed to be applied, and make sure that it was applied correctly. It won't be. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:13, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's an argument of assumption that all creationists do that. It's got no place here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:49, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Certainly not something I'd add to the article, no. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

The comment that C14 dating is only supposed to be used on dead matter shows a misunderstanding of how it works. The C12:C14 ratio is supposed to be constant while an organism is alive and exchanging C with the environment, but changes once the organism dies because it is no longer exchanging C. Thus any "age" measurement of a living organism should show that it's been dead for no time. Furthermore, any measurement of a living thing that shows its been dead for longer than no time (as for the mollusk) shows that there is something wrong with the principle I've just explained above. With the mollusk, there ''was'' something wrong with the principle, but if that circumstance can be isolated, the principle stands in other cases.

So the Talk.Origins answer is probably valid. The problem comes, mainly with other dating methods, when these sorts of explanations get invoked on an ad hoc basis when the results are not what the evolutionists expect. But that's another argument.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:14, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:What? How does an explanation of ''why'' C14 dating only works on dead matter show that stating that C14 dating only works on dead matter is a misunderstanding? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:43, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:::That was ''not'' an explanation of why it only works on dead matter. The point is that it should work on living matter also, except because it is used to determine the ''time since death'', it should return a zero result. If it returns a non-zero result, that indicates (sans other explanations), that there is a problem with the method. To simply dismiss a problem by asserting that it is not applicable to living things is not an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Phil, excuse my ignorance, but to me, your statement above makes no sense. Could you restate it please? You CAN "carbon date" living matter, but the answer will always be zero. Dead matter is the only matter that gives a non-zero number.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 09:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Your restatement (everything in your paragraph above after "Could you restate it please?") is exactly what I was saying. Perhaps I've misunderstood what people were saying on this page, but to summarise the line of argument (the relevant bits for this):
:::* Karajou mentioned that a ''living'' mollusk had been dated as being dead for 4,000 years, implying that the method was therefore unreliable.
:::* Tsumetai replied that the method should only be used on ''dead'' material, implying that the mollusk result is irrelevant.
:::* I replied that Tsumetai's reasoning was incorrect, as it ''can'' be used on living material, but ''should'' give a zero result, and that a non-zero result (e.g. the mollusk) ''does'' demonstrate that the method is unreliable (sans other explanations, such as the Talk.Origins one that Sid 3050 posted).
:::Is that clearer now?
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Thank you, that is much clearer, and I see your point. And if enough evidence against carbon dating's reliability accumulates, it will become invalidated. I do not think your particular incident mentioned falls into the "deadly evidence" category, however. While living organisms should give a zero answer, it is not valid to measure living organisms, and also the error bar in carbon dating is already known to be about 5000 years, so it is not meant to be more accurate than that. Learning from carbon dating that something is about half a million years old, give or take 5000 years is still helpful. With that error potential, a living organism could read 5000 years older or younger than it really is, without invalidating the method. It is not meant to be more exact than that. Your point is well taken though, and well made. If carbon dating were meant to be more accurate, then the results you gave would be "disturbing".[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 10:03, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I agree that it does not fall into the "deadly evidence" category. However, I think you must be getting carbon dating confused with something else. I'm not sure what the accuracy of carbon dating is, but it has to be much better than 5000 years, as it is routinely used to date things much younger than that. And you will never learn from carbon dating that something is about half a million years old, as the upper limit of its capability (after which there will be essentially no C14 left) is around 60,000 years (although I think I've also read 100,000 years somewhere). So the problem with the mollusks is ''not'' they they fall within the minimum resolution, but that it's carbon ratio was never in synch with the atmospheric ratio in the first place (assuming the Talk.Origins explanation is correct). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Point taken, Phil, Ill look up the particulars. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 13:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::OK, with carbon dating in particular (not more modern methods) the limit is about 60000 years because the half life of c-14 is about 6000 years, so, aftern that many years, too little is left in the sample to accurately measure. So, what we need now is more data on the case you mentioned, alternative explanations, and further examples.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 13:31, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::In the past, creationists have used this case of a live mollusk being subjected to a C-14 test and "proven" dead for 4000 years as a case against evolution and the anti-creation crowd. The only way I will allow this episode in the article is 1) I want the facts of this incident as stated above, and 2) I want to see evidence that scientists elsewhere have replicated this test, as scientists are supposed to do whenever they verify the results of any experiment to prove its validity. We have to be as authoritative as possible, and in doing so be fair to the reader as well. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:50, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I'd actually leave it out. It might be a nice side story for a dedicated C-14 dating article (Do we have one? I think we do, but I can't remember the name) to show the limits of the technique and how the environment has to be taken into account. It's not pro or contra the "Did it happen?" debate in my eyes and has little to nothing to do with the Great Flood. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:12, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I agree with that; this article is not the place for it, and I doubt that a Flood Geology article that I proposed below is either. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== This article will be replaced ==

Independently of Karajou and others working on this article, I had been working on an article for this page, off-line. Karajou has given me the okay to ''replace'' the current article with mine (which is well advanced but not ready to post yet), so I recommend that people don't waste their time and effort editing this article in the meantime.

Of course it may ''not'' be a waste of time, because people may not like my version and the page may be reverted to what is currently there, but we'll have to wait and see on that.

However, I think that there should be a separate article on [[Flood Geology]], so any ideas that people have on things such as fossilisation processes could be put in a Flood Geology article rather than this article.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:When that happens, let's all read it carefully and weigh in on it here before any changes are made. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Done ===
Okay, I've "finished" my version and replaced the existing article with it.

As Karajou says, let's decided whether we want this new version or [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Great_Flood&oldid=63651 the version it replaced] before making alterations to it.

Although I have tried to write a "complete" article, I'm not for one moment suggesting that nothing more needs doing to it. I haven't included any pictures, and there's probably no reason the picture in the old one couldn't go in. Some sections could do with some further expansion, and a few more references could be included, as well as linking the Genesis references to an on-line Bible.

I have deliberately left out anything that would be better off in a [[Flood Geology]] article, other than a summary of the history of flood geology and what it's about. So there's nothing about fossils except a reference that Flood Geology believes that the flood caused most of the fossils.

The sections under [[Great Flood#Common themes of the Flood accounts]] are ''not'' meant to be comprehensive. ''Many'' more examples could be added, but would only serve to bulk out the article. In most cases, I have included references to three different flood accounts, and this could possibly be increased to four, but much more would be overdoing it, in my opinion. One or two more themes could be added, perhaps.

What do you all think? Yeah, I know the bibliosceptics won't like it, but you can't please everybody, can you? :-)

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==I like it...but==
Ok, first, I'm not going to change it, except to put the picture back. I like the picture. The concept and structure of the whole is sound, so there is no need to change it as it stands. But there are two criticisms, and they are minor:
*Each subheading could benefit from additional detail, and I don't mean everyone should just write in a blurb. By expanding the detail I mean also that the quality of writing must be good, like we're submitting this for a grade at the university.
*I'd like to see the differences between the Genesis account and the other stories. It's the difference between who is in control and who is not.
And the pic. I want the pic! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:28, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Modern explanations could also be expanded; I know there are some here who disagree with the Bible, and they want to include evidence against it. I am for that, provided several things are observed:
*It has to be in a separate subheading, and the information written in must be clear, concise, and well-sourced. It also can't be opinionated, i.e. "well I think that's wrong", lines like that.
*Such information has to be the most common ones, the ones most familiar to scientists and readers.
*It also has to be understood that such information may have a rebuttal attached. Rebuttals must not change the layout of that they are rebutting, due to a desire for clarity on both sides. And likewise, these rebuttals must be clear, concise, and well-sourced.
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:I expected that the picture would go back. The ''only'' objection I have to that picture is that I don't want it to mislead anybody that the ark was like depicted in that picture. But as a renaissance depiction of the flood, it's fine.
:"Modern Explanations" is one of the sections that I alluded to that should be expanded. However, it should be expanded with other explanations for the flood ''stories'', not with other explanations for flood geology evidence, because this is not that article. For example, there was a TV show that postulated that the flood story originated as a flood in the Tigris and Euphrates valleys, and that Noah was a beer trader who plied those rivers in his boat (or something like that). That could go in (if it's considered worthy enough). The bibliosceptics' reasons for considering the various flood stories to be unrelated local stories could be expanded a bit too.
:I'm not clear on what you mean by "differences between the Genesis account and the other stories". I think that the differences that are listed (e.g. Zeus being the cause in the Greek story) are clear enough already. Beyond that, the differences are not the point. The article takes the line that the non-Genesis stories (including the Gilgamish Epic) are actual histories of Noah's flood (accurately recorded in Genesis), but which have been corrupted over time, particularly with oral transmission. Highlighting the differences therefore amounts to highlighting the corruption, and I don't think that really needs any more emphasis than it already has. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding exactly what you are getting at.
:Anyway, once we are settled that the new version will remain (are others going to comment?), you can start adding in bits and we can then see what you are getting at more clearly.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I like the structure and layout you provided here, and I believe it can be expanded on. Other subheadings can be added at the bottom, such as what I cited above, without interfering with your's.

A small example of the differences can be had by comparing the Genesis account to the Gilgamesh account, as in God of the Bible is in control, versus the gods of Gilgamesh, who hide themselves from the violence of the flood. Something overall, perhaps a separate subheading, but after the remaining part of the details are put in. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmmm, Aschlafly has already altered the layout so that it now goes against what I was trying to do, although perhaps it doesn't matter too much; I'll have to think a bit more about it.
:The point you make about who's in control in each case is already mentioned, but I do think it could be useful to go into this more to illustrate the corruption that's occurred. What we need to avoid, I believe, is something that's "preachy", as this is an encyclopedia, not a Sunday School lesson.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think the question as to why God did it in the first place can be added, without being preachy; apart from that, relevant facts can be added in as needed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== 3000 BC? ==

There's been an ongoing argument, with one side repeatedly positing a lack of archaeological evidence before 3000 BC; unfortunately, that simply isn't true.

The first few Egyptian pharaohs reigned before 3100 BC, and we have a great deal of evidence of the beginnings of urbanisation of Mesopotamia around that time. The potter's wheel first starts to show up in that period, along with increasing use of bronze alongside copper.

Heck, the earliest parts of Stonehenge were already in place by 3000 BC.

That's not even getting into the uninterrupted tree-ring records stretching back about ten thousand years, none of which show any kind of indication of a global flood. --[[User:M|M]] 10:19, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Not to mention living plants over 11,000 years old. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:23, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Remember the strength of faith.[[User:Saved|Saved]] 10:25, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::These dates you cite are often secularist, and often compromised for many (and amply enumerated elsewhere) reasons. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 10:28, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::How can a date '''often''' be secularist? You mean on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Fridays Stonehenge was built on a secular day whereas the rest of the time it was built on religious days? That really doesn't make sense. Also, if the dates are so easily compromised please either link me to said reasons, as I am obviously just ignorant of how time before 3000BC can just have dissapeared. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 10:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::MatteeNeutra, these dates, and supposed identification of plants '11,000' years old, and whatever, are based on improper Carbon14 Dating, which is even called into question by secularist authorities. [[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;308/5728/1551]] There's a very thorough walk-through, here, at Answers In Creation that explains why relying on these date ''estimates'' can be so problematic. [[http://www.answersincreation.org/carbondating.htm]] It isn't that this time, as you say, could have ''disappeared,'' it is that this time never was, because it only existed in the false measurements of secularist scientists. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 11:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Answers in Creation is an '''OEC''' site. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:02, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I can't get to your first link as you appear to need a subscription. Also, I have just spent about 3 or 4 minutes reading the answers in creation website and it seems to suggest that actually radiocarbon dating is pretty good:
::::"Radiocarbon dates are certainly not precise to within a year or two, but they are generally precise to within a few hundred years or better."<ref>http://www.answersincreation.org/carbondating.htm</ref>.
:::Can you possibly find another "secular authority" source for the apparent lack of faith in Carbon dating, for the benefit of people such as me who are not subscribed to that particular scientific site? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 13:30, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

For anyone not knowing dendrochronology: it is an unrelated discipline to chemical dating, though it can sometimes be used in conjunction with that or archaeological records. The principle is that trees will add one well-defined 'ring' of growth for every growing season; the size of this ring varies with environmental conditions, and tends to vary in the same manner for all trees of the same type in a given area (since they all were exposed to the same weather conditions). Using this knowledge, the rings of a dead tree can be compared and matched with those of a tree still living to date the various events recorded by the dead tree's rings. The rings of the dead tree can then be compared and matched where they overlap with another, older dead tree, and so on; there are uninterrupted chains of such records stretching back to around 9,000 BC. None of these records show the effects that a global, extended flood would cause. --[[User:M|M]] 19:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is an excellent contribution to the debate here. Is there any way [[dendrochronology]] can be part of the current article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, I forgot to answer the matter of tree-ring dating. As another editor has raised it again (below), see my response there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll respond to a couple of posts, but first, I wasn't happy with the sentence that was there, which claimed that there was no evidence dated prior to 3000 B.C. There ''are'' claims of dates older than that (although young-Earth creationists do reject the older dates).

'''M''' wrote: ''The first few Egyptian pharaohs reigned before 3100 BC''. This is according to Egyptian chronologies which a number of archaeologists have questioned, suggesting that the Egyptian chronologies should be shortened. As for the other things you mentioned (potter's wheel, etc.), these things are likely dated by methods that are not totally reliable also (for example, many dates for the middle east are tied to the questionable Egyptian chronology).

'''Tsumetai''' wrote: ''Not to mention living plants over 11,000 years old.'' The oldest single living thing is the Bristlecone Pine, which, according to Wikipedia, is nearly 5,000 years old (i.e. dating to about 3000 B.C.!).

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:05, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shows what you get for trusting Wikipedia :P

:There's a Creosote bush that goes by the name of 'King Clone' which has those beat by a good stretch. Perhaps there's some quirk in the definition of 'single living thing?' [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:20, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::I used Wikipedia to find the actual age, but I already knew that the Bristlecone Pines were the oldest living things. Wikipedia has this to say about the Creosote bush and similar things:
:::The oldest single living organisms known are bristlecone pines, though some plants such as creosote bush or aspen, form clonal colonies that may be many times older. The existing growth in clonal colonies sprang as shoots from older growth so there is an unbroken chain of life that sometimes dates back several tens of thousands of years.
::You will note from this that the age of the organisms are not actually known; just that they are likely to be much older because of their nature. And although them being "several tens of thousands of years" old is stated as a fact, it is clear that this is not something measured or directly known. Therefore, they are not evidence against the date of the flood.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:01, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No, it's a measurement [http://www.nps.gov/jotr/naturescience/creosote.htm based on C14 dating and extrapolation of growth rates]. Presumably the two measures are used as a cross-check; I'll see if I can find out more later.

:::Are you familiar with King's Holly, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:18, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::That's not exactly what the link says. First, an extrapolation of [current] growth rates is ''not'' a "measurement". Second, the link actually says that the age is an ''estimate'' based partly on C14 dating. So what did the C14 test actually measure if they were only able to use it as input to an estimate? I indicated earlier that there ''are'' items claimed to be older than 5,000 years, but that the dates of older items can be rather tenuous. I think this is an example. Bristlecone pines are ''measured'' by counting their tree rings (although even this may not be accurate), but the creosote bush is an ''estimate'' based partly on an ''extrapolation'' and partly on some unknown C14 test.
::::I've never seen King's Holly, but I know that it's a plant in Tassie, and like the creosote bush, it's age was not directly measured, but based (in this case) on a nearby fossil.
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:35, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Tree ring records still haven't been discussed. This is solid scientific evidence that there has not been a world flood. [http://waynesword.palomar.edu/treedate.htm Here is a link](scroll down), but it is only meant to introduce the idea. In reality, it is not just one section of the tree that will match, but several in succession, and there is virtually no chance of them matching by coincidince. I couldn't imagine a way to refute it. It goes back 8,000 years and relies on no carbon dating (though other tests WITH carbon dating have expanded the study. different story.) So, yeah. Probably not a global flood. Not without a coverup.[[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 02:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:First, I don't believe that this article is the place to discuss tree-ring dating. This is an article about the Flood, not about dating, and tree-ring dating is merely one dating method that is used by bibliosceptics to argue against the flood. While there may be some value in including a mention that uniformitarian dating methods conflict with the Biblical record, going much beyond that in trying to refute the Flood is going against the purpose of this article.
:Second, your inability to imagine a way to refute tree-ring dating results may say more about your imagination than anything else. [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441 Here] is just such a refutation.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry to sound so closed-minded, but the whole carbon-dating conversation makes me upset. Just "saying" that something isn't reliable in science is just as bad as "saying" that the Bible can't be trusted. And that's all it is is talk by people who know so little about science, or by ONE OR TWO scientists(Chritian scientists) vs. millions, discrediting cinvincing evidence. And, unfortunately, it's the same vice-versa most of the time.

I know that this specific talk page probably isn't the best place, but it's already been brought up. If you want to believe in a global flood, go for it. Just stop pretending that the scientific evidence supports it. It doesn't and never will. Plus, with a divine, interveneing God, why do you even NEED scientific evidence? Just believe in it or dont, and stop speaking from misinformation.[[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 20:17, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::Creationists don't just "say" that dating methods are not reliable; they back it up with evidence, often from non-creationists (which refutes the negatively-exaggerated "one or two"). I'm not "pretending" that the scientific evidence supports it, and I'd thank you to not impugn my motives like that. I ''believe'' that the scientific evidence is consistent with a global flood. You clearly don't, and that's your right, but please don't insult others who see things differently to you.
::Creationists "need" scientific evidence because our faith is not, despite atheistic propaganda, a blind faith, but a faith based on evidence. And you have accused us of misinformation without providing any evidence of that.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Isn't it fairly settled that Egypt goes waaaay before 3000 BCE? Also, you argue that "genealogies" can be compressed or expanded and are susceptible to error, making it ''certain'' that Egyptologists (who know a lot more than you, Phil!) are wrong. I'm sure that we can cross-apply this argument to analysis of Biblical genealogies. Biblical ''"scientists"'' say that the genealogies must go back only 6,000 years ago. But using your argument, I'm sure that that's susceptible to stretching, when it reaches an absurd result :-P
: Also, Ur goes back way before 3,000 BCE too. Are you a historian, Phil? What '''''are''''' you? I thoroughly read ancient primary sources and secondary interpretations, and there is not a single archaeologist, or historian, who is actually credible, who will say that Egyptian culture (or Etruscan culture, or proto-Greek culture) goes back only to 3,000 BCE. Even linguists agree that proto-Indo European has a greater vintage than that! Be serious here, for the love of God. When you realize the facts don't line up with your beliefs, then just take your beliefs ''on faith'', which is all they require, and stop insisting that science and history conform to your outmoded view of the way the world actually works. It is simply disgusting and an embarrassment to all that human understanding has struggled to achieve.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:31, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::I'm not an expert on Egyptian history (as you note), but no, the Egyptian history is ''not'' settled. There are a number of archaeologists who question if not reject the conventional Egyptian chronology.
::And note that I was talking about a compression of chronology, not genealogies. The Egyptian chronology is nothing like as clear-cut as the biblical chronogenealogies, so being able to compress one does not mean that the other is capable of being compressed.
::Please define "credible" in your reference to archaeologists and historians, because if I produce an archaeologist who does accept a shorter chronology, I don't want him automatically rejected as not credible because he believes that.
::As I've just said to Muchodelcrazy, Christian faith is not a blind faith, but a faith based on evidence. And your final sentences amount to saying that "your beliefs don't fit with my beliefs, which I label "facts", so your belief must be wrong".
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Why shouldn't Christianity be blind faith? Is it because it has a negative connotation? Why not just kick it old school and "believe?"

Here's some sources for research: [http://www.religioustolerance.org/c14dats.htm][http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html]

I think that some people have a serious misconception about how radiometric dating. Scientists don't just do a test, go "this is what I found," and make an answer. If you read the articles, you'll notice that there's over 20 different radiometric tests with different elements. In a single sample, many of these tests (with much larger half-lives than C-14) are used. One test says a number. Another says a similar number. And so on and so on. Then this is done over and over again with similar items, such as two different dinosaur bones found right next to each other. The results come out very similar. Let's say that they find one test that says the dinosaur bones were 5000 years old. Does that refute the other 40 tests? ONE disagreement that, for all we know, could have been done by the guy who's new to the job?

In order to say that this method is wrong, you have to outweigh it, or at least to scientifically say it's wrong. It would be necessary to show that 40 coinciding data points were a.)a similar, phenominally rare, mistake or b.)random coincidince, which is even more phenominally rare (but, admittedly, possible. That's why they keep testing).

At the end of the day(actually, decades), it proves reliable. If you don't want to believe that, then just don't. This is my last post on the topic. Im gonna go read the Bible. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 03:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:What do you mean, "''Why shouldn't Christianity be blind faith?''"? If you are a male, that's a bit like asking why you shouldn't be a female. It seems to be a pointless question, at least in this context. The point is not why it shouldn't be, but what it is. It is a faith based on evidence, not a blind faith.
:You've offered no evidence that there really are "40 coinciding data points". Creationists can point to ''many'' anomalous dates from radiometric dating. That doesn't prove that the methods are worthless, but it does cast doubt over their reliability. And at the end of the day, it proves less than reliable. If you don't want to believe that, then just don't. Enjoy reading the Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:50, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Just a random thought, but... all those awkwardly old trees and plants that seem to date back to before the flood? It occurs to me that after the flood, the land would be quite empty, and a real mess, and the growth of the ecosystem would have been much slower than the growth of the human population. So perhaps God somehow spend things up, a lot - I dont know how, but God would find a way - to just get the ecosystem in place so once humans started to repopulate they would have suitable places to live, hunt and farm. This would account for what appear to be very old plants - they are six thousand years old, but for the first hundred ran in fast-motion. - BornAgainBrit

:::Observed rates of growth even in pristine environments are quite sufficient to allow for the growth since the flood without invoking miracles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:21, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
== Pando ==
''(Continuation of previous section)''
::::Actually, (and this is a ''major'' surprise to me as well), the oldest living organism appears to be at least 80,000 years old. That's eighty ''thousand.'' Here's the relevant quote from http://www.nps.gov/brca/naturescience/quakingaspen.htm :

<blockquote>
Asexual or vegetative reproduction from root systems offers many benefits including phenomenal longevity. Aspen "clones," as the individual root systems are called, can live to be thousands of years old. The oldest known clone in existence is called "Pando" and is located in the Fish Lake National Forest in central Utah. It has been aged at 80,000 years! Although 5-10,000 year-old clones are much more common, even these youngsters are much older than Sequoias and even Bristlecone Pines. Current research on fungal mats in Oregon and Creosote Bushes in the Desert Southwest may dethrone aspen from the title of "Longest Living Thing."
</blockquote>
:There is no information on how this age was derived, or even whether it was measured or estimated. And are they talking about the age of the individual plant or its clonal ancestor? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::Looks like clonal ancestor to me - they're treating the entire colony as a single organism, since they share the same root system. ::Basically, each new 'tree' is an offshoot of the one before, and it remains linked to it - like one colossal set of conjoined siblings. Incidentally, this comment's getting rather long...perhaps we should split discussion of ''Pando'' off into a new one?--[[User:M|M]] 09:28, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:::So if it's the clonal ancestor, are talking here about an extrapolation (i.e. not a measurement) back to something that no longer exists? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:10, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I may be mistaken, but I don't believe so; if I read it correctly, the actual root system itself ''is'' eighty thousand years old. All of the offshoots share the same root system, which is why it's referred to as a single (though clonal) organism.--[[User:M|M]] 18:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Just Curious - how many were killed? ==

How many people were killed during the great flood? Did they all deserve it? Given the fixation that the Christian right has about sex, we must assume that many of those who received this death setence from the Almighty had indulged in some pre, extra, or even marital sex that resulted in preganncy. Is there an estimate then of how many pregnant women were killed by God through the flood? {{unsigned|Trajsmith}}

:Please, learn to use a spell-check function.--[[User:M|M]] 17:32, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:The population prior to the flood was not recorded. We have all rejected God (although some have repented of that and accepted Him), so we ''all'' deserve the death sentence. Even Noah and his family. But God chose to not give Noah and his family what they deserved (choosing them because Noah was, humanly speaking, "righteous"), and didn't impose the deserved death penalty on Noah and his family. He even had Noah preach to the people, in order to save them from their destruction, but to no avail. So instead of (implicitly) criticising God for giving the people what they deserved, we should be thanking Him for saving the ones willing to be saved. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:26, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::WAIT a minute - the penalty for rejecting God, something that we apparently do by virtue of being born, is death? That seems a little screwed up. Most of the world doesn't even ''have'' the death penalty anymore.--[[User:M|M]] 23:03, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::God gave us life, so if we reject Him, we are rejecting the life that he gave us. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:02, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::That just doesn't parse...parents give their children life, but no civilised society gives parents the right of life or death over their offspring. Parents are responsible ''to'' and ''for'' their children. (Unless you really believe that it would be a good idea to let parents kill disobedient kids?)--[[User:M|M]] 09:31, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Parents are the instruments by which God gives the children life. They have the responsibility of raising those children for God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:41, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::I'm sorry to say this, but...that just doesn't sound sane. I respect my parents for raising me; I share their genes, and many of their personality traits. If I had to choose between God and my parents, it would be an easy decision in favor of the ones who actually participated in my life. --[[User:M|M]] 14:42, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::That's because you don't appreciate how much involvement God has/had "behind the scenes". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:32, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Racial" differences since the flood ==

The Article states "One of the strongest evidences for the global flood which annihilated all people on Earth except for Noah and his family". One would then assume only the descendents of Noah and his family would be able to pass on the story of the flood.

The flood legends in the folklore of people from around the world can only be referring to the same event if all these people are related no Noah and his family? According to [[Flood Geology]] the flood occured around 2350 B.C some 4357 years ago. When and how did Hawains and Australian Aboriginies, for example, become ''racially'' different to Noah and his family? I think the article should explain how various human poupulations descended from Noah and his family came to look so different to one another.

{{unsigned|Auld Nick}}

:That is something that should be explained, but not in this article, I think. This is about the historical records of the Flood, and just like Flood Geology is in a separate article, this aspect should be too, although I'm not sure at the moment which article it should be in. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps in the article [[Homo sapiens]]. I'm not too hot on science, you seem to know a lot about these things. Perhaps you could add the stuff to the appropriate article. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:41, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, Homo sapiens might be appropriate. Now to find the time, after all the other things on my to-do list. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Evolution and a Worldwide Flood: Not mutually exclusive? ==

So, I'm just thinking out loud here, but I think that the idea of a worldwide flood would be invalid without accepting evolution in a way similar to how it is presented in schools and books and the internet today.

Here's the deal. Fish live in many different habitats, their survival dependent on several factors including water pH, temperature, and the most important to my idea, salinity. While there are some fish with astoundingly large salt tolerancies, there are others who cannot live except for in a very stable, specific environment, including two well known staples of many American's diets, the catfish and the tuna. These fish would die if they were in an environment with a salinity that was very much different than they are used to, so my point is this. During a worldwide flood, water salinity would be decreased from what it normally is in various parts of the oceans, and it would be increased from that of any freshwater environment. Assuming that what I just said is true, and that evolution is false, we should not have freshwater fish, saltwater fish with low tolerncy for the salinity of their environment being changed.

This clearly isn't true, though, as none of the fish from this particular site (http://fins.actwin.com/species/index.php?t=3&f=1) would exist if not for evolutionary mechanics, presuming, that is, that you should find the idea of a worldwide flood indisputable. Basically, if you believe in the worldwide flood, evolution would kind of go hand in hand.
--[[User:Stereophile|Stereophile]] 17:51, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:Part of the problem is that what you call "evolution" is not what creationists object to. That is, creationists disagree with claims that there are mechanisms to add new genetic information to creatures, which is required for [[types of evolution|goo-to-you evolution]]. Some adaptations that you call "evolution" are not such mechanisms. With that brief explanation in mind, have a read of [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter14.pdf this]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

When do we get to discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 15:24, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
:Not before you explain how that is relevant to this article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:18, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

Wasn't the flood caused by the melting of the polar icecap, similar to what is happening now? Soon we'll all be under water.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 17:48, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:No. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:35, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

==Ubiquity of the flood story==
"Cultures around the world record a world-destroying flood in their oral or written histories." Really? I'd like to see some sources on that. Normally I'd just add a cite on the article, but that's sure to be reverted. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:32, 6 March 2008 (EST)
: It would have been reverted in this case, because that is an introductory and general statement. The support for it is provided, with references, in the body of the article. The article does not say that the stories are "ubiquitous". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 7 March 2008 (EST)

== Why don't we have an article on the word "flood" in general? ==

I got to this article when I put in the word "flood", and expected an article about floods in general. Why is it that we don't have an article like that?

This is exactly the kind of thing that liberals make fun of us for. We claim to be a viable alternative to wikipedia, yet we are missing articles on so many different things.

Who here is in favor of making an article on floods in general?

We are an educational website, after all.

{{unsigned|JackSmith}}
:Good point. I'll do that.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 15:34, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

: Simple: We're only about 18 months old, <s>and nobody's written one yet</s>. Thanks Tom. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:43, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Actually one was done, so I don't know the answer. Anyway, thanks to Tom we have one again. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:45, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

==Acceptance section==

It would be grammatically correct to change the word "true" to "truth". However, the article is locked and I cannot do this. --[[User:Trevor|Trevor]]
:Done. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:47, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== A blocked user questions habitat ==

Blocked [[User:Georgecross]] added this to the end of the "Criticisms" section on the main page. As this in itself wasn't the reason for his block, nor was it inappropriate content, but it didn't fit into the article as it stood, I decided it'd be better to add it here. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 09:45, 7 January 2010 (EST)

:Noah would have had to have sailed around the world to drop off animals in the correct locations, such as Polar bears in the South Pole Penguins in the north pole, however the habbitats that these animals live in would probably have been destroyed. Noah also had to stop the starving caniverous creatures from eating all the other animals, presumably by feeding them road potatoes. However the real problems for Noah would have started when he finally go to home then he would of had to have planted crops and repatriate the earth.

== Opening Statement ==
"Virtually nothing historical, from writings to civilization to long-living organisms like trees, has survived from before about 3000 B.C., an approximate date given to the Great Flood"

This is a bit misleading to say the least. The evidence of cuneiforms were found around this time and five thousand years before that a vast amount of evidence of a 'token currency' society existed around the cradle of civilization. See this for a basic summary: http://heritage-key.com/world/cuneiform-birth-writing

Historical artefacts from before 3000 BC do exist and are genuine. The phrase should be reworded as such to acknowledge their validity. This is an archaeological criticism.
--[[User:Composer|Composer]] 09:47, 15 February 2010 (EST)
:Do you know what virtually means? If you're interested in learning more about the history of writing, look at [[History of Writing|the page I wrote on it]]. The fact that you cite a "token currency" dating to five thousand years before 3000 BC, ie, 8000 BC, speaks volumes about your worldview. Take a look at some of our ancient history articles with an open mind. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 09:50, 15 February 2010 (EST)

::In addition to Jacob's point, there is no independent verification of any writings or civilizations before about 3000 B.C. Your cite is to musings by an "English Literature graduate, who currently works as a writer and journalist in London. He enjoys ancient history, theatre and sport." British journalists are typically very [[liberal]], which can obviously interfere with their objectivity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:57, 15 February 2010 (EST)

:::The section on proto-script lacks exact dates which we do know of. I will not get into here. I'm just suggesting the phrase could be better worded. Also mentioning trees is another problem as Prometheus, a famous tree in Nevada, has been estimated at 5,000 years old. Virtually is a bit too strong a word. Virtually is suggesting 'almost entirely'. It should be more along the lines of 'limited' or 'moderate' when interpreting the amount of data available. --[[User:Composer|Composer]] 10:08, 15 February 2010 (EST)

::::Estimated by who? What assumptions did they make in producing this estimate? I encourage you to think critically about what you've been told. A majority of Americans have accepted the Bible literally. Maybe you should stop thinking we all suffer from some kind of mass delusion, and instead examine your own belief systems. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 10:10, 15 February 2010 (EST)

:::::This is not an attack on a belief system or suggesting anyone is delusional. This is just a discussion on the phrasing and if it should be changed. There are many 'oldest trees' in America that a lot of parks are proud of and a lot of museums with historical data that can be researched and double checked if one takes the time. This is not anti-conservative, merely pro-knowledge of the things we do know. If there is a fake or a fraud in the given claims of ancient civilizations, and I'm sure there are plenty, it can be addressed. But suggesting the scholarly world had no evidence and knew nothing about civilization before 3,000 BC is simply too misleading and frankly, dishonest.--[[User:Composer|Composer]] 10:20, 15 February 2010 (EST)

I can't speak for any other editors, but I personally am not going to debate you anymore on this. Contribute constructively, or leave. Don't come here to pick fights. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 10:24, 15 February 2010 (EST)

Well it's just a suggestion. I think it is only courteous to discuss changing the opening statement, before going ahead and editing it. I didn't expect it to be a topic of dispute. I'm not making any changes to it.
--[[User:Composer|Composer]] 10:40, 15 February 2010 (EST)

:Jacob, I thought it was only 40% of Americans who took the Bible literally. Where'd you get a majority? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:07, 16 February 2010 (EST)

==Technical Question==

If the flood was global, and Noah only saved animals, how did all of the plants, fungi, protists, bacteria, and fungi survive? What did the first generations of herbivores eat while waiting for the plants to repopulate themselves? --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:27, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

== Date of the flood ==

I think this article lacks a section discussing the date of the flood. AiG has an excellent article that demonstrates that the date was 2348 BC http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/03/09/feedback-timeline-for-the-flood [[User:AmicusLutheri|AmicusLutheri]] 11:43, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

<references/>

Talk:Mitt Romney

2012-04-19T20:27:55Z

FrederickT3: /* Changes in his platform */ add missing references tag

"The irony that the Mormon has been married the least times of all the candidates was pointed out by Romney's wife, Ann, who said the difference between her husband and the other candidates is that "he's had only one wife."[1]"

This entire sentence is awkward and irrelevant. 'the irony that the Mormon' just doesn't sound right. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 03:10, 10 March 2007 (EST)
:Agreed. I was just thinking of a way to rewrite it. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 18:28, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

"Although Romney now identifies himself as pro-life and anti-same sex marriage, he claimed to be pro choice and supported same-sex rights as late as 2002."

There is a difference between same-sex marriage and same-sex rights, so this isn't really a flip-flop.
:Also, let's face it, he said those things so he could get elected Governor of MA. To an extent I see that as stealthily putting one over on the MA voters, since I suspect his abortion and gay marriage views have always been what he claims them to be now. In MA it wouldn't matter, since neither issue would come up in a way that he could affect. Does saying them count as deceit in this case, or just, well, political expediency? You're not going to find anyone old enough to run for President who has been involved in politics who hasn't compromised themselves to some extent like this. Just my opinion, I guess. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:03, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

==Mcpannier's edits==

Missing and apostrophe in the word "States" in paragraph 3 of the Abortion section. It should be "State's."
The paragraph on Mitt's stem cell research stance is confusing. What are embryos creaded during fertility treatments? The link for that sentence doesn't work.
The poll for March is out of date. Here's the link to a late September poll: <http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm>. Romney had 10% in this poll.
Please fix these edits because the page is locked so I can't fix them myself.--[[User:Mcpannier|Mcpannier]] 08:10, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks for your constructive suggestions Mcpannier. The changes have been made (except the stem cell paragraph wording). Submit your suggested changes here. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:14, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

==Changes in his platform==

*Romney's critics attack his inconsistent track record on issues such as [[abortion]] and [[Homosexuality|gay marriage]] to the point where he has gotten the nickname "Multiple Choice Mitt." A man dressed as a dolphin calling himself Flipper has appeared at some recent conservative gatherings to bring attention to Romney's inconsistent stands on abortion and gay marriage. Although Romney now identifies himself as pro-life and anti-same sex marriage, he claimed to be pro choice and supported same-sex rights as late as 2002. These swaps coupled with his [[Mormon]] affiliation puts him at odds with much of the Evangelical right, but a PollingReport.com chart from September 2007 indicates that Mitt was still polling at approximately 10% within the GOP primary forecasts. <ref>http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm</ref>

*Mitt Romney also changed his positions on [[gun control]]. He was originally for it, but recently joined the [[NRA|National Rifle Association]], an organization opposed to it.

*Following the split of the first three major elections in the 2008 primaries, Ron Kaufman, a top adviser to Romney, stated that the battle between the top three candidates "is going to be like the Bataan Death March." <ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080116/ap_on_el_pr/republicans_analysis;_ylt=Agy5R06oAxPw90acSddkhiSs0NUE</ref>
The Bataan Death March resulted in the death of approximately 9,000 prisoners of war during World War II, and has been labeled as a war crime.

Rather than pass on these criticisms as if we endoresed them, let's just describe the changes in his platform.

In case anyone criticized him for '''making the changes''', we can say '''who''' made this criticism and '''on what grounds'''.

For example, Joe Beaverhead said Romney is a horse's ass for softening his stance on abortion. [insert real example and ref here] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:10, 17 January 2008 (EST)
<references/>

== Political tone ==

I am very enthusiastic about this article because it began in very good shape and there was plenty of media attention on his campaign to bring valuable references. However, I am very concerned about the pro-Romney tone to this article. The lead paragraph makes him seem like a hero for bringing conservative change to liberal Massachusetts, but without any follow-up on his career. There is also a scarcity of business info and well-referenced support for many of his beliefs.

The article also emphasizes his Political beliefs with separate sections. I see this is a persistent happening on conservapedia, (see the McCain and Obama articles.) I recommend speaking about his career and his campaign as a chronological summary so that people can read this as an encyclopedia entry and not a political endorsement.--[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 22:20, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
==additions==
::{{template|Part of this article was copied from [[Citizendium]] but the copied text was originally written by me, RJJensen (under the name Richard Jensen) and does not include alterations made by others on that site.||category=Copied Articles}} [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:27, 29 November 2008 (EST)

== First Line ==
Should read "former" governor--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 18:43, 19 July 2009 (EDT)

== Update please ==

I tried to update this page to reflect today's announcement that he's running again for the 2012 election, but the page is locked. Since it's a front page link, it really ought to be up to date. Could someone do so? [[User:JanW|JanW]] 16:11, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

== Are we prepared to accept him as the nominee? ==

Right now, watching the numbers rolling in for Super Tuesday, I think there is a very real possibility of him being the Republican nominee against Obama. If this is the case, will we be able to support him? Obviously, there's no question that he's better than the President. But low enthusiasm for Romney may create low turnout, which will favor Obama and his Obamabots. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 23:49, 6 March 2012 (EST)

Talk:Theory of relativity

2012-04-13T22:30:25Z

FrederickT3: /* Newtonian explanation of Mercury's precession */

Chandra

2012-04-13T16:08:37Z

FrederickT3: added category

The '''Chandra X-ray Observatory'''<ref>[http://chandra.harvard.edu/index.html Chandra homepage]</ref> is one of [[NASA]]'s Great Observatories. It is an [[X-ray]] telescope designed to perform astronomy from low Earth orbit. It was launched on July 23, 1999. The project was known as Advanced X-Ray Astrophysics Facility (AXAF) until its launch, when it was renamed in honor of the astrophysicist [[Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar]].

<references/>

[[category:astronomy]]

Chandra

2012-04-13T16:07:31Z

FrederickT3: clarification of new name

AXAF

2012-04-13T16:05:51Z

FrederickT3: AXAF has been called Chandra for nearly 13 years.

#REDIRECT [[Chandra]]

Chandra

2012-04-13T16:04:43Z

FrederickT3: new

The '''Chandra X-ray Observatory'''<ref>[http://chandra.harvard.edu/index.html Chandra homepage]</ref> is one of [[NASA]]'s Great Observatories. It is an [[X-ray]] telescope designed to perform astronomy from low Earth orbit. It was launched on July 23, 1999. Until its launch, the project was known as Advanced X-Ray Astrophysics Facility (AXAF).

<references/>

Pathfinder

2012-04-13T15:58:09Z

FrederickT3: clarification

'''Pathfinder''' was an [[American]] [[Outer space|space]] probe that landed on [[Mars]] in 1997 and transmitted photos back to engineers and scientists on [[Earth]].

[[category:astronomy]]

Talk:Theory of relativity

2012-04-13T15:56:12Z

FrederickT3: /* Why are adjustments needed to GPS? */

Talk:E=mc²

2012-04-11T21:19:34Z

FrederickT3: /* Answer to the above */

==I'm Finding This a Little Hard to Understand==
First off, E = mc2 describing a relationship between energy and matter is only one corollary. It is also part of a well known problem in chemistry... Or is isotopic mass not less than the sum of it's parts? The equation itself HAS been derived from the Theory of Relativity, and is a direct consequence of the energy momentum four vector for an object with 0-momentum. The quote you provide from the paper states that the theory is not enough for a rigorous PROOF, but it never tries to deny the derivability of the equation. Derivation and proof are two entirely different things.

==This Article Could Use Sources or Better Explanation==
Wow. Classic Andy. Unsourced statements supposedly contradicting well-established theories of physics. No real proof other than "the Bible says it's not true," even though this is an extremely uncommon interpretation Genesis. --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 01:06, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:It's a start for now, and will expand over time. That's how wikis work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:18, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::Doesn't it relate energy to mass? The speed of light is just a constant here. [[User:IanR|IanR]] 02:22, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

== Humbug ==

The phrase ''meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement '' (as used in the article) fits the first paragraph to a t.

Aschlafly, please try to refute the explanation of the experiments of John Cockroft and Ernest Walton, which is accepted generally under physicists. And try to give some sources - or if not, some of your own calculations!

If not, just erase the first section.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:23, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

== Nobel Lecture ==

I took out the link to the Nobel lecture, it can be found in the short summary. But be aware that John Cockroft is using the dreaded formula with ease (but without stating so explicitly - why should he, it's already generally accepted!) An astute reader, who not only searches for the formula finds e.g., the formulation:

:'''This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass units.'''

Indeed, these are the ≈ 17MeV!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:51, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

==Irrelevant claims==
Are these claims of so called "experimental verification" valid or useful? If you look at enough so-called science you can find people claiming anything. --[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 12:59, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:''you can find people claiming anything'' Indeed - and that's why there is a difference between the unsubstantiated claims in the first section, and the actual experiments in the following paragraphs. If you have a good explanation of the outcome of these experiments (some math would be nice), feel free to add your personal ''claim''.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:03, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::Why do you feel that I need to do that? I understand that you may wish to believe relativity is true, but that is no reason to impose your personal beliefs on others.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 13:40, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::Thinking that all claims have the same validity seems not a very conservative position. I don't expect you to accept my personal beliefs, but there is a tendency in physics that the claims which are backed up by those willing to do the experiments and the maths have a greater following than random insights. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:47, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::I don't understand why your personal beliefs are even included in the article.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 13:58, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::*Because they are bolstered by experiments...
:::::*...and they aren't just my beliefs - in fact it will be very hard to find a physicist who doesn't share them. And that's something which shouldn't be easy to ignore in an article on a physical subject.
:::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::If science is your religion then you will find scientists who share your views. I still don't see why they should be hosted here. The introduction makes the Biblical position clear.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 14:07, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Religion is my religion, science is my hobby. And just because there is one single interpretation of a few verses of Genesis out there which you think to contradict the experiments of the physicists doesn't shatter my religious beliefs nor my trust in physics. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::::Then why do you insist with this anti-religious pseudoscience?--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 14:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
← Now you have intrigued me: what's your definition of pseudoscience? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:45, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

Pssst! DavidEdwards! You're trying waaaaay too hard. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 21:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:Too hard about what?
:As far as the pseudoscience question is concerned - "science" which is used to promote a worldview which has no basis in moral reality is pseudoscience. Science which is designed to suggest that morality is relative clearly falls into this category.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 18:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

==Question==
This snipet of sentence appears in the introduction: "...''a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory.''" Let's compare that to the entire sentence it was lifted from: "'''''Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally,''' a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory.''" One can't help but notice that the part of the sentence that states that the theory has been observed to be valid in real world experimentation, has been surgically removed. Why is this? Is it because it stands in contradiction to the claim the lead author of this article is trying to promulgate? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 20:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:Peer-reviewed journals won't publish a criticism of relativity. That's obvious. Although I don't have a copy of the full paper, I doubt it attempts to fully support the [[hearsay]] that was excluded, and I would not be surprised if it was included simply to safeguard against complaints for what followed. It adds nothing to the basic point that follows and is quoted here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::Why won't a peer-reviewed journal publish a criticism of SR or GR? Liberal conspiracy? Also, do you not accept that mass and energy are interchangeable or is it a problem with this specific equation? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 21:24, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::JoshuaB, do you accept the possibility that the [[Theory of Relativity]] may be false, and would you approve a well-written paper that criticized it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Yes. We already know the Theory of Relativity is an incomplete model of our universe. So yes, the theory may be "false", but the one that takes it's place will most likely have many of the same properties. Secondly, would I approve of a "well-written paper that criticized it"? I don't know what that means. I'm not a physicist, so I don't see what difference my "approval" of said paper would make. Now that I've been so kind as to answer your questions, would you return the courtesy and answer the ones I posted above? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 22:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::The qualifications on your answer render it almost meaningless. I'm not asking whether your approval of a paper would make a difference, or your opinion about whether you think the replacement of the [[Theory of Relativity]] will "most likely" be another theory of relativity. The question was simple and straightforward, referring to a paper critical of the theory of relativity without any appeasement to those who insist on believing in it. An unqualified answer is requested.

:::::Also, did you ever answer my simple question on [[Talk:Main Page]] about how much time you've spent reading the [[Bible]] this month?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::Come off it Schlafly. This article is not about my Bible reading, is it? No. Does my opinion of the publishing criteria of physics academia have any bearing on the assertions you are trying make? No. Again: Do you not accept that mass and energy are interchangeable or is it a problem with this specific equation? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 23:11, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::Andy, do you accept the possibility that the Theory of Relativity may be correct, and would you approve a well-written paper or book that supported it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:28, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Some points ==

*''Misplaced claims of experimental verification'': if you want to put on the disclaimer ''misplaced'', please explain the results of the experiments in another way.
*''Why won't a peer-reviewed journal publish a criticism of SR or GR?'' But they do: remember the neutrino thing? Or the papers of H. Ives? In fact the first event has shown that especially the publication of experiments (seemingly) violating currently accepted theories gets attention!
*Taking only the second half of ''"Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."'' makes you looking deceptive. Take the whole sentence and try to explain the motivation of the first half. Otherwise anyone who looks the quote up will suspect an ulterior motive!
*The whole first section is a train wreck.
*''[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of [[gravity]].'' Only when you accept the general theory of relativity it is, otherwise inertial mass and gravitational mass are quite different animals.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:46, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::I have attempted to clarify the last point on the [[Mass]] page, and also removed the fact template from the first paragraph, since the explanation is given later on. As it stood, the "citation needed" banners following important points tended to undercut the authority of the article.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:29, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::The problem is not a confusion of weight and mass, but the conflation of gravitational and inertial mass. In the classical theory, there is no reason why both should be the same, it's just an experimental fact.
::So, I'm sorry, your new entry didn't help.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::But they always are the same, aren't they? I don't see why knowing or not knowing the reason (yet) has any bearing on the question.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:43, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly writes: ''Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of gravity. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity.''
::::E=mc² isn't about gravity, to invoke it here is a deflection. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:49, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::::: OK. But bear in mind that this page clearly exists to provide a counterweight to certain liberal views. To do that, clarity of message is needed, and a "citation needed" banner has a deflating effect on the strength of that clarity. So perhaps you could suggest a wording that might be acceptable without the "citation needed" bit?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:03, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

No, I can't. Frankly, I don't see the clarity in this piece: at the moment, it is still sadly missing. So I hope, that Aschlafly taking care of the fact-tags (other then trimming them away) will add to this clarity! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:13, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman ==

Try to explain a complicated formula in 1-2min, then have a single sentence of this soundbit taken out. You can bet that this may sound meaningless. That's no fault of the formula. I'll change the title back. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:58, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:The quotes (and others that could be added) illustrate how meaningless the formula is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::The quotes illustrate how difficult it is to explain the concept to a layman. Take a look [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/expe-text.html here], where you can find the quotes in context. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:16, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::The quotes were solicited to describe the meaning of the equation to laymen, not to illustrate how difficult that is. The difficulty arises from the meaningless nature of the equation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::Actually the meaning of the equation is very clear: the total energy contained in matter is its mass multiplied by the speed of light in a vaccum squared. Experiment after experiment, and nuclear reactor after nuclear reactor, has clearly demonstrated that the total energy released by a reaction is the lost mass multiplied by c2. Therefore whether the theories of relativity are true or not, E=mc2 is true. Equally, even if classical Newtonian mechanics was false, the kinetic energy of a moving mass would still be accurately described by Ek=1/2mv2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:34, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::::Indeed. Internet quotes are really not very useful. A skilled researcher can always find someone saying something to justify their position however bizarre or immoral. This is a typical weakness (and response!) of those who have no real moral or religious basis for their convictions. --[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 19:04, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::These quotes are absolutely meaningless. It looks like you took random sentences from the PBS article and then inserted them into the article as if they had any real significance. This is made even more moot when you consider the fact that the article claims that "Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc²" and then you go on to quote three. Not to mention, most of the quotes aren't actually explaining what the equation means - a basic understanding of algebra and what the symbols mean is sufficient to understand its basic meaning - but rather what it entails, its implications. Tim Halpin-Healy's quote I think is better than taking some random sentences and then implying that they mean that physicists don't know what E=mc² means. --[[User:Tyg13|Tyg13]] 15:58, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::The problem is that '''E=m2does not meaning anythimg that makes sense. Anyone is welcome to try to explain it here. Eating a pound of cake does not cause one's energy to increase by the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:06, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::No, it doesn't. It causes your energy to increase by a number of foot-pounds equal to '''one pound''' times the speed of light squared. I've explained this to you already and it isn't difficult. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:23, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::The equation is essentially just a conversion ratio, its not difficult to understand that units of energy (Whether it is Joules, pound-foot, or erg) look essentially like a velocity squared times a mass (in SI units - kg m^2/s^2) this is not relativity or theory dependent, its the definition of Energy. The Special Relativistic analysis that results in the basic equation just determines that the conversion ratio is precisely that universal constant '''c''' in whatever units are convenient. There is no blindingly obvious or intuitive reason why this SHOULD be the case (conceivably the conversion ratio could have any number of complicated dimensionless constants in front), but basic mathematical logic allows us to derive this simple relationship from the postulates of Special Relativity. That being said, its a rather useless equation on everyday scales. In reality, after consuming a pound of cake your body begins to break down the chemical bonds in the sugars/fats/proteins to extract usable energy, about 1500 food calories worth of it. If you had a precise enough scale and could somehow keep a human in a hermetically sealed bag that prevents the escape of any moisture/gas etc. you would be able to measure that after consuming and digesting the cake your bodyweight would not be +1 lb, but about 70 pg (picograms - 10^-12 grams) less, so if you weighed 150.0lb and ate a pound of cake (total of 151lb), after digestion you would actually weigh 70pg less than 151lb. It is important to note that this "mass" isn't "lost" it is merely the "weight" of the energy stored in the chemical bonds, in other words in a pound of cake there is (1lb - 70pg) of stuff and 70pg worth of "chemical energy" with a conversion ratio of c^2. If you had some magic machine that could convert mass to energy at 100% efficiency the detonation of a body sized bomb would release 20 times more energy than the largest nuclear weapon detonated by man kind, however due to the nature of nuclear transitions/processes such a 100% conversion rate is not possibe . On the scale of nuclear bonds (order of MeV) this difference becomes conceivably measurable, but even so, in the detonation of a hiroshima sized nuclear weapon, the loss of mass due to the nuclear fission is approximately 500mg, the rest of the nuclear material is dispersed as fallout, considering that there was ~60kg of nuclear material in the weapon, this corresponds to an energy "efficiency" ~1%, which is typical of fission devices. In a 100MT nuclear bomb this is conceivably larger at nearly 5kg, and the fusion type weapon that can achieve this high yields has considerably higher mass-energy conversion efficiency at around ~20% [[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 16:53, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::: Another way of thinking about is this. Consider your typical AA batery, it is not a difficult stretch of the mind to understand that this battery stores electrical energy, approximately 2Ampere-hours at 1.5v which is approximately 5000J worth of STORED electical energy. Now, CONSUMING this battery does not cause your kinetic energy to increase by 5000J the same way that consuming a pound of cake does not cause your kinetic energy to increase by 1lb*c^2, you are still limited by your ability to convert between different energy sources. So A RC car would be able to use that battery to move around for several hours, YOU on the other hand will most likely just pass the battery through your body and the basic chemicals that are storing this electric energy will come out unaltered. The same way that a pound of cake can sustain you for a day, but try stuffing it into the battery compartment of your RC car and it won't move an inch. "Mass-energy" works much the same way, sure consuming a pound of cake increases your "rest energy" or by an enormous amount, but in reality there is no way to convert mass directly to energy so its much the same as swallowing a battery or stuffing cake into the RC car. [[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 17:05, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:At any rate, eating a pound of cake, is not nuclear physics, it is chemistry, where your cells digest and utilize the sugars within. Protiens are also converted into sugar.[[User:JonM|JonM]] 18:28, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

== Aschlafly, could you give us... ==

... your interpretation of the results of the experiment by Cockroft and Walton? Cockroft describes in his Nobel Lecture how the kinetic energy of the alpha-particles could be provided by ''diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass
units.'' (p. 170). Please take into account that this isn't about energy in form of electromagnetic waves!

If you don't address the results of the actual experiments, all your claims are just meaningless verbiage.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:39, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:Cockcroft (please spell his name correctly) does not even cite E=mc2 in his Nobel lecture.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::You don't think that it is ''implied'' by the quote that AugustO provided? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::No, I don't. E=mc2 is supposedly a general truth of universal applicability. The case for it, if true, needs to be far stronger than what is quoted above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:15, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

From the lecture: ''It was obvious then that lithium was being disintegrated into two α-particles with a total energy release of 17.2 million volts. This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass
units.''

Aschlafly, your ignorance is showing:
17.2 MeV /c² = 1.602*10-19kg m²/s² *17.2 *109/(3*108 m/s)² = 3.0616 * 10-29kg = 0.0184 amu

In fact as this is such a ''general truth of universal applicability'', J. Cockroft could take it for granted that his scientifically literate audience would be able to make this calculation.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:26, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::One question, though: We have four protons and four neutrons on the left hand side of the equation, and four protons and four neutrons on the right hand side. So why the difference in mass?
:::Also, forgive my ignorance, but why is the 'energy' measured in volts? Volts are not a measure of energy.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

*Bainbridge measured the mass of 7Li directly, using mass spectrometry.
*Indeed, three protons and four neutrons weight less than a 7Li - kernel
*Energy is measured in this cases in [[Electron-Volts]]. One electron volt is the energy of an electron which passed through a potential of 1 Volt.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:54, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:AugustO, please contribute something substantive instead of talking up a storm. Thanks.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 11:56, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::James Wilson, please don't interfere in interesting and substantive discussions. Thank you! [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 12:12, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::"Baobab", please state what substance is coming out of this conversation. You have had a history of engaging in hefty talk. Please start contributing. I have had some great insights contributing in a few articles today and will continue to do so. Many thanks for your future contributions.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 12:47, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::"James Wilson", AugustO is clarifying things and giving us some great insights, as CPalmer's latest reply shows. Discussions will often lead to better articles, which is why your interference was totally uncalled for. I guess your only motive was to defend Mr. Schlafly, but he can take care of himself and really doesn't need your help. Regards, [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 13:30, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::Thanks, AugustO. Relativity or no relativity, I am learning a lot from this discussion.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:00, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::You are posing excellent questions! Indeed it should be of interest for Aschlafly, too:
:::'''Aschlafly, two protons (1.0073amu) and two neutrons (1.0087amu) have a combined mass of 4.0320 amu. An alpha-particle - existing from two protons and two neutrons - has a mass of 4.0015 amu. How do you explain this diminution of mass?
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:42, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::What real evidence do you have that these particles even exist? No doubt you've read it in a book or some "qualified person" has said it is true. In reality you accept these things on the word of somebody else - in other words your belief in the existence of these particles is a matter of scientific faith in something which you have no personal knowledge. There is obviously no problem with believing things on faith, but please don't pretend it's "true because science says it's true". Christians get their real truth from a higher authority.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 18:49, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::I find Mr O's position to be rather odd. He insists that Mr Schlafly - and only Mr Schlafly answers his questions. Yet at the same time Mr O steadfastly ignores comments specifically directed at him.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 16:11, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::If you're referring to your question about how he knows that protons and neutrons really exist, I suspect he thought it wasn't worth answering. I tend to agree. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:15, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

@DavidEdwards: Sorry, [[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]], I didn't want to ignore you. I hadn't caught up after the databank mishap, I'm afraid.
So, to answer your questions: At school, we performed a couple experiments -there were teltron tubes, the Millikan the photo-electric effect, the Millikan Oil Drop experiment, de Broglie's electron diffraction experiments, etc. These experiments confirmed my persuasion that the electrons, protons and neutrons are physically real entities. The proposed theories explained these effects - and sitting in front of a computer, I'm surprised that you aren't willing to accept the theories behind semi-conductors. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:25, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
@SamCoulter: There is some truth in your statement, too: it's like asking a priest: ''let's talk about your religion without mentioning Jesus''... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:28, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

== Restoration ==

I could restore this page to the last version which I had edited. I don't know whether there were more entries. This should help to restore the article: perhaps one positive effect could be that Aschlafly marvels about the questions in the previous section for a while and rethinks his position! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:36, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Instead of the source - tag ==

*''E=mc² is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate all matter to light.''
It relates matter to energy, the square of the speed of light is just the conversation factor
*''In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism).''
It isn't about gravitational mass, but about inertial mass. To identify both means to invoke the General Theory of Relativity
* ''Simply put, E=mc² is liberal claptrap. ''
How so? It works!
* ''Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis.''
So, physicists should just give up looking for it? I dare to say that there are many Christian physicists - they may just not follow your special interpretation of Genesis!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:29, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

== A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockroft and Walton ==

I'd appreciate an answer by Aschlafly (and him alone) to the following questions:

'''1.''' Do you accept that the mass of the Lithium-kernel (7Li), of alpha-particles (4He) and of protons (1H) can be measured fairly accurately, as these are charged particles?

'''2.''' Do you accept the measurements for the mass of the particles as used by Cockroft and Walton, i.e.
:::{|
!particle
!mass
|-
|1H||1.0072 amu
|-
|4He||4.0011 amu
|-
|7Li||7.0130 amu
|}
If not, which values do you think to be right?

'''3.''' Do you agree that before the reaction the mass of the particles involved was 8.0202 amu?

'''4.''' Do you agree that after the reaction the mass of the particles involved is 8.00220 amu?

'''5.''' Do you agree that there is a mass decrease of 0.0180 amu?

'''6.''' Before the experiment, the Li was at rest and the proton had a kinetic energy of less than 1MeV. Do you accept these values?

'''7.''' After the experiment, a pair of alpha-particles was observed, both having an kinetic energy of 8.6MeV. Do you think that this value is correct?

'''8.''' Can you tell me where the mass went? Can you tell me where the energy came from?

'''9.''' If your answer to question 8. is ''no'' in both accounts, than my answer is that there is a theory which explains the conversion of mass to energy, even if you don't like it!

As this theory works for this experiment, and for all the other fissions and fusions, it isn't liberal claptrap, but a meaningful theory. And you can't blame physicists for using it! Of course, you can blame journalist to abuse the formula - but this isn't the result of ''liberal physics'', but of ''bad reporting'', as an abuse of the dictum ''1+1=2'' doesn't reflect badly on number-theorists, but only on the person misattributing it.

Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:04, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:AugustO, chemical reactions can release energy, typically based not on the size of their mass but on the electrostatic energy prior to the reaction. Cockcroft's own paper accepting the Nobel Prize does not claim that his work proved that '''''E=mc2'''''. Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula, or else we'd have seen far more claims of experimental verification of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:20, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly, you haven't answered any of the questions above! Instead you are talking about something completely different:
*We are not talking about a ''chemical'' reaction! You should know the difference.
*Cockroft claims that the energy comes from the loss of mass - and he calculates it according to ''E=mc²''. Please read (and understand!) his lecture.
*Please give a list of a few (or at least a single) experiment which contradicts the formula. This should be easy, as you stated that ''Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula''. Oh, wait, you made that up...
*Please answer the questions 1 to 9: all the question are covered in Cockroft's lecture, so I'd be interested in your explanation!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:32, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
:AugustO, if you cannot even spell Cockcroft's name properly, how can Andy take anything you say seriously? --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 22:03, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

== Move ==

Could you please move this article to [[Essay:E=mc²]]? Then I could ignore all the misleading and outright wrong statements in the first section! Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:57, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

== Experimental Facts ==

Aschlafly, on the one hand side, you state that ''no experiment distinguishes between "gravitational" and "inertial" mass'' - and that seems good enough for you. On the other hand side, you have a problem with the statement that E=mc² ''continues to be affirmed experimentally''. Do you spot the inconsistency? Indeed, I could write: ''the equivalence between inertial mass and gravitational mass has never been mathematically derived from first principles in classical mechanics, indeed, a rigorous proof of this equivalence is probably beyond the purview of classical theory.''

BTW, omitting the first part of the sentence ''"Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally..."'' makes you look very disingenuous (even if you have good motives) to anyone who looks up the link to the abstract!

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:07, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:It's hair-splitting jargon of doubtful significance. 99% of people know what mass is, and it's directly related to weight, not electrostatic energy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:38, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::And the remaining percent are the physicists which draw such distinctions with good reason! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]]
:::Even more confusing is that the article states mass is a measure of inertia. Inertia is resistance to acceleration, and that has nothing to do with gravity at all. The article as it stands is simply inaccurate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:51, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly: ''....may not even have any justification in the paper''
::::Aschlafly, havn't you read the paper? Here is a part of the conclusion:
:::::''Einstein produced about 18 virtuoso derivations and demonstrations all aimed at establishing the mass-energy principle. We have shown that although each of them gave evidence for the applicability of E0 = mc² to a particular set of circumstances, no one derivation, or collection of them taken together, succeeded in providing a definitive proof of its complete generality. That should not be surprising because the same situation occurs, for example, with F = ma, which is a different kind of relation than E0 = mc². Even so, 300 years of successful theoretical work have not proven the correctness of F = ma. Indeed, relativity showed that this expression, one of the bedrocks of classical mechanics, holds only approximately.
::::Here is another excerpt, on mass, electromagnetism etc:
:::::''In the 19th century, a number of European physicists, including the leading theoretician of the time, Hendrik Lorentz, were working to establish that mass was, in whole or in part, electromagnetic. There were primarily two competing theories, one by Lorentz, the other by Max Abraham. Both agreed that depending on the relative direction of its velocity and acceleration, an “electron” a generic charged particle moving through the aether could manifest both transverse and longitudinal speed-dependent mass components. There was even experimental evidence that seemed to confirm as much. Electromagnetic theory was then at the center of physics.''
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:56, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::(May I add that I think one shouldn't make such fundamental statements as ''E=mc² has no meaning'', if one only skims a few abstracts! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]])

Aschlafly, maybe you have not the time (or the access) to read the actual papers - as you should when drawing conclusions. But perhaps you can take a look at [http://www.lbl.gov/abc/Basic.html Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's ABC of Nuclear Science] to refresh the basics?Even there, they use ''Einstein's famous equation...''... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:44, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== ...purports to relate all matter to light ==

When I write that for iron I get:
::V [cm³] * 7.874 g/cm³ = M [g]
I don't relate the mass to 7.8474, but to the volume. So, similarly Einstein's equations says that mass is proportional to energy, not light. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:38, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:But the constant applied in this case is the (square of the) speed of light! Are you saying that that is a coincidence? If so, why not just say "E=mc"?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:57, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
::no, of course not, but we could write, e.g., Eε0 = m/μ0: the relationship is given between mass and energy... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:04, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:::But the relationship itself is somehow connected to light. Or maybe, the relationship is connected with some third factor that also determines the speed of light.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:58, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
::::yes, but the c² is a constant. Does the equation E/c²=m relate all energy to light? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:18, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::Yes - the equation in any form relates mass, energy, and the speed of light. I think the article doesn't emphasise the light-energy relationship because it's the mass-energy relationship that appears absurd once the theory of relativity is discounted.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:22, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Even if you discount the theory of relativity, the experimental facts remain: in experiments where mass is deleted or created, this happens with the release or absorption of energy. And this energy is given by ≈8.99*1016m²/s² times the mass... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:31, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== Misleading footnote ==

::(Your footnote about the units is bogus. SI units are not arbitrary, since eg Joules can be derived from other SI units including kilograms, metres and seconds. Therefore, the relationship to light ''is'' (purported to be) a natural one.)--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:00, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Which footnote about units? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:04, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Ah, I see, no, not ''my'' footnote. The text was inserted by [[User:GregG/RSS_6#Mon.2C_26_Mar_2012_18:05:11_GMT_.28edit_by_MihailD.29_2|MihailD]], and obviously the equation holds in other systems, too. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:10, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

I took out the main part of the footnote: it should be obvious that in a physical equation only compatible physical units can be used, and that otherwise conversion factors have to be introduced. But there is no problem, if we have c in feet/h, m in pounds, and E in pound*feet²/h²
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:30, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

:I see - my apologies. I thought you had added the footnote in order to try and make the point above. I agree that in any sensible unit system the equation will work (assuming the theory is right of course).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:32, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

:Looks like [[User:MihailD|MihailD]] received a lifetime block for this and related edits, so he'll be unable to explain or justify his comments. --[[User:JasperK|JasperK]] 08:58, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::That's a pity! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:38, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== We will, we will, we will ==

Generally I enjoy the great contribution of SamHB. My only rub: the ''royal we'' - ''we will dispel'', ''we will show'', ''we don't do''. I don't think that this is the best way to phrase an encyclopedic article, and I'd like to see alternatives. For the moments, I just commented out some of the occurrences which in my opinion spoiled the fun of reading the article....

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:38, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:It is a bit chatty. The first one could be rephrased "This article sets out to...". I have reworded two of the others, and the rest might possibly be omitted entirely.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:44, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== I don't understand... ==

Why you guys destroyed a wonderful original piece of work by Mr. Schlafly. There are hundreds of books and web sites that explain relativity, why did you feel the need to reproduce that content here? --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:18, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
:Perhaps because they are right and he is wrong? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, you still haven't answered my [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|reasonable questions abouts this subject]]. To be ignorant on a subject isn't that big a deal, but to willfully stay ignorant while lecturing about it, that is! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:32, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

BTW, the ''wonderful original piece of work'' was not destroyed - you find it embedded in the text. A blanket reversion of the work of a couple of editors should be a no-no, please give reasons for reverting at least for each paragraph! And answer the [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|questions!]] [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:42, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== Protection of the Article ==

Stated reason: ''(with reluctance, and repeated reversions; for now, post specific suggestions for edits on the talk page)''

Aschlafly, this must be one of these definitions of irony, as I asked for specific reasons for your deletions of material. Isn't that censorship? BTW, you still haven't replied to the [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|sections above]], and frankly I'm starting to call your knowledge on this matter in question! Ignorance is not always bliss!

And if you are not willing to address the points made above by various contributors, are you at least willing to read and answer to ''specific suggestions for edits on the talk page''? Or is this a sham to force-feed your view to the readers?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:The lead focus of the entry was converted into a parade of [[hearsay]] rather than logical analysis. Simply put, the entry had denigrated into the ''antithesis'' of the truth-seeking integrity expected of ''Conservapedia''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:41, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
::And what about the current entry? The fact is that E=mc2 is a perfectly valid equation demonstrating the equivalence of matter and energy and it has been thoroughly verified; the energy a piece of matter contains DOES equal its mass times ''c'' squared. This has been repeatedly demonstrated by experiments, which consistently show that the energy released by a reaction is equal within measuring limits to the overall mass lost. It's perfectly reasonable to reject any claim that this demonstrates the truth of moral relativism, atheism or anything else, but to criticise the equation itself as "meaningless" or "liberal claptrap" demonstrates no truth-seeking or integrity. E=mc2 is no more liberal than d=vt or 1+1=2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:53, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::The entry explains how nonsensical the formula is as a general principle -- and how it has never been derived as a matter of logic or demonstrated in any general, meaningful manner. Reliance on [[hearsay]] is not a serious alternative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::But it ''isn't'' a general principle. It's a mathematical expression of matter-energy equivalence and it's perfectly valid. Whether or not it's ever been derived as a matter of logic or not is irrelevant because it's been repeatedly demonstrated to be true in the most meaningful manner possible: if you turn matter into energy the amount of energy that comes out is always equal to the lost mass times ''c'' squared. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:59, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::You restate the claim as though its repetition would make it true. It doesn't. If someone gains one pound in weight, then it is preposterous for anyone to claim that his energy has thereby increased in proportion to the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::Yes, it would be absolutely preposterous. In fact his energy would have increased by a number of foot-pounds equal to one pound times ''c''2 in feet per second. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:11, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::::To explain that further, his energy would have increased in proportion to his '''weight''', not to the speed of light. If a person who weighed 150lb gained 1lb the energy contained in their mass would increase from 1.4467x1017 ft lb to 1.4564x1017 ft lb. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::::The formula '''E=mc2''' does assert that his energy for a fixed gain in weight would increase in proportion to the speed of light squared and, as you say, that is preposterous.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::No, his energy for a fixed gain in weight will increase in proportion to his '''weight'''. In my example of a 150lb man gaining 1lb, his new energy content will be 0.6667% higher, '''as will his weight'''. ''c''2 is just a constant. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:52, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::::::Andy seems to imagine that this energy should be immediately available for sports or doing work around the house, and that we should all be superheroes after having eaten a bar of chocolate. This is, of course, not so. The energy is still locked up in the mass, and it would require nuclear or particle reactions to convert even small parts of it into useful forms of energy. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:28, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
''The lead focus of the entry was converted into a parade of [[hearsay]] rather than logical analysis''. Then let's get factual: just answer a [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|few questions]]. Shouldn't be difficult, as you are so insightful. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:26, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

Of course this is hearsay - and so it should be. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia - a collection of established information cited from other sources. Hearsay may be inappropriate in court, but it is the lifeblood of an encyclopedia. Anything that is not 'hearsay' is personal opinion or original research, and should be reserved for articles prefixed 'Essay:'. --[[User:JasperK|JasperK]] 08:23, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:Then again, heresy tends to be more reputable when it comes from a professional who has studied the issue for years, instead of a man who doesn't understand how food works. [[User:JackFerner|JackFerner]] 12:23, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Bare links ==

I noticed that [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&diff=971455&oldid=971446 this edit] removed publication information about the references. Personally, I think this information is useful for two reasons: it helps Conservapedia editors locate the references from other sources if (and when) the links go dead, and it helps who print out Conservapedia articles and wish to look up the references offline. (Of course, I'm not suggesting that the URLs be removed, but this could be in addition to the publication information). Of course, there may be perfectly good reasons for removing the publication information of which I am not aware, but I otherwise think that the publication information should be included again (and I plan to do this once the protection expires). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:17, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:Great point. I retrieved and added many of the citations back. If I missed any then I'd be happy to add them also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== Niels Bohr ==
Andy, for how often you rail against the Nobel Prize I'm surprised that you would try and use a former winner as an authority to support your misguided assertion. [[User:DennisR|DennisR]] 21:48, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:Even a broken clock (like the Nobel Prize) gets it right every once in a while!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:07, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

::''. As a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light, it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, including Niels Bohr. '' Who were these physicists? And what said Niels Bohr? I couldn't find anything. In the famous ''Gedankenexperiment'' at Solvay, he accepted ''E=mc²! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:14, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

:::And of course it ''isn't'' a "general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light." It's a statement of equivalence between energy and matter. Andy seems to be obsessed with the idea that light is involved somehow, and that conflicts with his rather odd idea that the Bible forbids a unified theory. I can only wonder what he'll do if science comes up with a unified theory. Probably deny that too. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:16, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly, according to the information I found (Einstein and Bohr at the Solvay-conference), Niels Bohr accepted ''E=mc²''. So, a fact-tag was the only alternative to downright deleting the sentence: it allows you to bring up your sources! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:31, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
:I'd have been amazed if he hadn't. Bohr was on the British team for the Manhattan Project, and he wouldn't have been much use at nuclear weapon design if he didn't accept E=mc2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:41, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, you have a tendency to make up claims (''As a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light, it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, including Niels Bohr. '', ''Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula'', and, yes, '' "suddenly" or "at that time" is a nuance of the Greek ἰδού''). And when your bluff is called, you are miffed! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:00, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
::''Protected "E=mc²": insertion of a fact tag instead of finding and adding a reference.'' That is ridiculous: there is no way of ''finding and adding a reference'' for this made-up "''fact''"!
::It is, however, not very difficult to show that the ''fact'' was invented: just take a look into ''"Foundations of Quantum Physics I''", a book written by Niels Bohr and Jorgen Kalckar. Here Bohr uses what he calls ''Einstein's relation'' without any trepidation! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:00, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Presumably, then, the relevant text should be changed to something like "it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, although Niels Bohr later accepted it." and then add the citation. Or you could clarify with something like "the liberal Nobel Prizewinner Niels Bohr".--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:18, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
::::*There is no reason to think that there was a time at which Niels Bohr didn't accept it!
::::*Is there any source which shows that it was ''widely rejected at the time''? Of course, there was the [[Deutsche Physik]], but does this count?
::::*That said: the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag was absolutely appropriate.
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:44, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::You make some valid points as the online evidence is remarkably scant, even though the disagreement between Bohr and Einstein is well-known. This may be a (rare) example where the internet is less adequate than books. I did add an explanatory footnote and the protection to the page should be expiring soon, if not already.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

*Einstein disagreed with Bohr regarding quantum mechanics. Could you provide a source that Bohr disagreed with Einstein on the theory of relativity? I can't find one!
*As I said, the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag was absolutely appropriate, and I'll reinsert it, as I don't think that there are any sources to back-up your claim.
*Furthermore, I have difficulties to believe that Lord Rutherford had problems with ''E=mc²'', he seemed to appreciate the liquid-drop-model of Gamov, Bohr, et al.
*''a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light'': no one claims that the '''three''' are equivalent!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:22, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== First sentence ==

I've changed the introduction to something a bit more encyclopaedic. Please don't revert without discussing it first. Thanks. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:28, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Political Pressure ==

''Political pressure has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of this nonsensical equation''

More likely the fact that similar experiments as the one Cockcroft and Walton are performed by undergraduates in each department teaching physics around the world! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:30, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

:No, that would not explain why it "is impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of" E=mc2. Even if you think the formula is somehow true, surely you do not deny the political pressure in academia against anyone who might consider questioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:37, 3 April 2012 (EDT)
::It's entirely possible for someone who questions the validity of E=mc2 to pursue a career in science; scientists are encouraged to question the validity ''everything''. However if they ''deny'' the validity of E=mc2 then a scientific career is indeed off-limits to them, for the same reason as it's off-limits to someone who denies that 1+1=2. The fact is, E=mc2. It's been verified time and time again. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 18:44, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

To talk about political pressure in this context is ridiculous. The conversion of Mass to Energy and vice versa and the validity of E=mc2 has been demonstrated experimentally so often(an early example is given in the main page) that to deny that the equation describes observed nature flies in the face of observation and is thus unscientific. To question its validity without hard experimental evidence or a sound theoretical argument (neither of which has been demonstrated) would simply be a matter of scientific (in)competance.[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:16, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

:*Aschlafly, if you argue against ''E=mc²'' out of a position of (willful) ignorance, you won't be taken seriously. Unfortunately this is what you are doing, as your (non-) answer [[Talk:E=mc²#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockroft and Walton|above]] is showing.
:*Criticism of ''E=mc²'' on ideological grounds just doesn't work, as the adherents of the [[Deutsche Physik]] found out in the early 1940s.
:*But obviously, the theory is under constant discussion, as is the concept of energy or mass.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:34, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

== Matter-light relationship ==

Mr. Schafly, I think you are misunderstanding the nature of the <math>E=mc^2</math> relationship. To illustrate, I will give an example.

Suppose we have a map where 1 inch of distance on the map corresponds to 5 miles actual distance. If points A and B are located 2.5 inches apart on the map, we can compute the actual distance between them as follows:
:<math>2.5 \textrm{ map\,in} \cdot \frac{5 \textrm{ mi}}{\textrm{map\,in}} = 12.5 \textrm{ mi}</math>
In general, if the map distance between two points is <math>d</math> and the actual distance between the points is <math>D</math>, then the following formula is satisfied:
:<math>D = dc</math>
where <math>c</math> is the conversion factor <math>\frac{5 \textrm{ mi}}{\textrm{map\,in}}</math>. The equation above does not relate distance to five or map distance to quintessence. Rather, it posits a direct relationship (or equivalence) between the map distance and the actual distance, related by a conversion factor.

Likewise, <math>E=mc^2</math> posits a direct relationship between mass and energy. It does not relate mass to the speed of light (or light itself), nor does the equation related light to energy. Rather, <math>c^2</math> is a conversion factor, just like the <math>c</math> was in our equation for computing actual distances from map distances. I hope this helps explain why some editors have concern with your statement of the relationship posited by <math>E=mc^2</math>. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:19, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:But Energy and mass have known meanings in other contexts, unlike the distances (in inches) on the map page in your example. If Energy or mass were being redefined by E=mc2, then I think your analogy would work. But people are not defending E=mc2 by saying it entails a redefinition of Energy or mass.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
::The equation postulates how mass and energy can be interchanged while conserving the total amount of mass energy. For example, according to the equation, a nuclear reaction that causes 1.0 kg of mass to be lost will produce 9.0 x 1016 J energy. The amount of energy produced ''by the loss of mass'' is proportional to the mass lost. It is the same sort of equivalence between the number of pounds you get at a currency exchange and the number of dollars you pay (which, come to think of it, is probably an even better analogy). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:13, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:::(inserted reply here) E=mc2 claims more than the relation between mass and energy is linear (which is itself implausible). It also claims that the proportional factor is precisely equal to the speed of light squared. Restating the meaning of the equation in plain terms demonstrates how implausible it is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:41, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Energy and mass have known meanings in THIS context! The equation tells us how much energy will be liberated by losing a set amount of mass, or how much energy (for example hard gamma rays) is required to create a set amount of mass. It is a valid equation. It doesn't matter ''what'' objections anyone has to it based on principle or logic; it's been tested and it's correct. This is getting pretty frustrating. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 01:56, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

Perhaps we should have two articles [[E=mc² (science)]] and [[E=mc² (new age)]]: every sentence Aschlafly writes on this subjects shows that he knows so very little about the science involved - and has no interest to get informed any further. Instead his methods reminds me of homeopaths and other quacks advertising their craft by misrepresenting sources, cherry-picking evidence and generally repeating false statements over and over again despite of better knowledge. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:05, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

===A question===

Mr Schlafly, you've said that this equation "purports" to describe the equivalence of matter and energy. The fact is, it's been repeatedly tested and it ''does'' describe the equivalence of matter and energy. However I get the feeling that there's some misunderstanding here. What, exactly, is your objection to E=mc2? Do you think it's incorrect - in which case go check the experimental data - or do you think it's being used to advance some sort of political agenda? I think we've reached a deadlock here and to make any progress on improving the article it would be helpful to know what you think is wrong with the equation. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:02, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
:The problem is that it is a self-sustaining myth presented as "fact" by the same self-serving scientific establishment who have built an tautological edifice on nothing. It is designed to subtly indoctrinate children into the world of moral, social and scientific relativity by suggesting that "everything is relative".--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 17:03, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:The equation is nonsensical. Mass has nothing to do with the speed of light, and cannot be equated to energy simply by multiplying it twice by the speed of light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
::Andy, how do you explain the result of the Cockcroft- Walton experiment? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 01:42, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:::A very good question! Aschlafly, you could try to answer it by responding to [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|this section above]]! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:01, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

== Bohr disagreed with Einstein's 1905 paper ==

Aschlafly, do you have any source for this claim? It seems to be factual incorrect. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:27, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

I looked into it and for me it is an ''ad-hoc'' fabrication to make a point - even the time-line doesn't work out: a '''''trustworthy''''' encyclopedia shouldn't work this way! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:58, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

== Some questions ==

I still don't understand why (a) Andy Schlafly doesn't know the difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass and (b) he seems obsessed over the speed of light in the equation. The m in the equation is inertial mass! As others have stated, when talking about gravitational mass, you need to consider general relativity.What E=mc^2 says is that mass is just a form of energy. It says nothing about the unification of electromagnetism and gravity (it doesn't even say anything about gravity!). Moreover, do you, Andy Schlafly, understand that electromagnetism is not the only theory that has c as a special value? All massless particles travel at the speed of light. In GR, gravity travels at the speed of light.

If you deny it, how do you account for changes in mass in nuclear reactions? How do you account for electron-positron annihilation as well as dozens of other examples of reactions that don't conserve mass in particle physics?

And by the way, as has been pointed out, if you deny special relativity, you have to reject Maxwell's equations. Are they a liberal conspiracy as well? --[[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:"Usually when we speak of an object's mass we do not distinguish whether we are referring to its inertial mass or its gravitational mass. This is because the quantity of matter present in an object, i.e., its mass, does not depend on the method by which it is measured." [http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=Dynamics_InertialGravitationalMass%2525252Exml] Indeed, no measurement has ever detected a difference between the two.

:As to your second point, chemical reactions can cause energy to be released, and the remaining mass to be reduced. This is hardly astounding and certainly does not imply that E=mc2.

:Your third point is often repeated by Relativists but overlooks that Maxwell's equations were developed and demonstrated decades before the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Maxwell's equations survived just fine for years without anyone claiming that somehow E=mc2. Indeed, an assertion that people "have to reject Maxwell's equations" based on relativity suggests a mathematical approach to physics, rather than an observational one. Are you aware of how Eddington claimed that a physical constant "must" have a certain value due to some mathematical rationale? (He was wrong, of course.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:06, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

::Your first point: It's good that we all agree that inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same thing. (This is the fundamental hypothesis of general relativity, by the way.) But the term "mass" always means "inertial mass". Gravity never appears anywhere in special relativity. Even if Newton's constant of universal gravitation ("G") were zero, that is, we lived in a hypothetical universe in which there is no gravity, special relativity, the Lorentz transform, and E=mc^2 would still be true. There should be no mention of gravity anywhere in the article. But the second sentence of the article refers to "mass (i.e., gravity)". Please take that out. I would do it myself, but I'd get it wrong, since I don't know what point you were trying to make.

::Your second point: That chemical reactions that cause energy to be released result in a reduction of the final mass most certainly '''''is''''' astounding. No one had ever seen this, or suspected it, before E=mc^2, and it is doubtful that anyone has seen it to this day, since the effect is so small for chemical reactions. The phenomenon is known only because we know that E=mc^2 is true.

::Your third point: Yes, Maxwell's equations were developed decades before relativity, and survived just fine before anyone suspected that E=mc^2. Your claimed "assertion that people 'have to reject Maxwell's equations' based on relativity" is not made by anyone. It's the ''denial'' of relativity that would necessitate a denial of Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations imply relativity, though Maxwell didn't realize it. In fact, it was an analysis of Maxwell's equations, not the Michelson-Morley experiment, that led to relativity. If we lived in a hypothetical universe in which there were no electric or magnetic forces, relativity would still be true.

::[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 23:36, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:::You didn't respond to my point about [[Arthur Eddington]], who was the biggest promoter of the [[Theory of Relativity]] in the English world.
::::The reason is that has nothing to do with E=mc^2. Your point about Eddington was presumably referring to the alpha=1/137 business, right? I am aware of that. It was in the late 1930's. Would you like me to write an article about it? I'd be glad to do so. Eddington's promotion of relativity in England was in the 1920's, after the eclipse (his book was in 1923), and was about ''general'' relativity. E=mc^2 is in ''special'' relativity, and was widely accepted by then. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 17:59, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Simply put, the [[Theory of Relativity]] is a mathematical theory (which, by the way, is taught in math departments in some universities); this mathematical theory has never been based on meaningful physical observations. Any statement that someone must reject Maxwell's equations if he rejects the [[Theory of Relativity]] shows how the mathematical cart can be incorrectly placed before the physical horse.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:21, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Of course it's been based on meaningful physical observations. To be more precise, it's based on repeated experiments where the relation between the observed mass loss and the observed energy release is E=mc2. I really don't know what your problem is, but to challenge the validity of something as thoroughly confirmed as E=mc2 is not going to get you anywhere. The equation is valid. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 03:17, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::My comments were aimed at people who accept that both mathematical theory and experimental observations have a role to play, and that they complement each other. There is no cart and no horse. Relativity, like Newtonian mechanics, involves both elegant mathematics and observation, and the observations buttress the theory very well. It's possible for people to get carried away with the mathematics, as Eddington did with the 137 business, but that hasn't happened with relativity. And yes, if you don't accept relativity, you can't make Maxwell's equations work correctly, though Maxwell didn't realize that at the time. It was only later that Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein fixed that. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 17:59, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

''As to your second point, chemical reactions can cause energy to be released, and the remaining mass to be reduced. This is hardly astounding and certainly does not imply that E=mc². ''
Aschlafy, it may not come as a surprise, but you are wrong again:
*The mass of the products of a chemical reaction is nearly equal to the mass of the reagents, because the energy which is involved is so much less than that of a nuclear fusion or fission.
*A kilogram of [[TNT]] will release 4.484 MJ of energy, if you break this down for a single molecule, you see that less than 10 eV are released per molecule in the explosion. Compare this with the 17,200,000 eV per nucleus in the experiment of Corckcroft and Walton!
*In fact, if you let the products of the explosion cool down, the equivalent of this energy will be missing - but it is such a small amount that it is hard to detect it. But nevertheless, E=mc² could be observed.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:40, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

===Answer to the above===

Cockcroft's experiments were not performed until 1932 [http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-speech.html], and recognition for his work did not occur from the Nobel Prize committee until 1951. I could find nothing in the Prize, Cockcroft's acceptance speech, or anything else contemporaneous that suggests that Cockcroft proved that E=mc2.

One comment above suggests that E=me2 was accepted long before 1932. Based on what, mere politics? This formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically even to this day, and the first (dubious) proof for it was not observed until 1932. Folks, E=mc2 seems to be based on politics rather than physics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:02, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:"This formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically"--It is more correct to say that the formula cannot be mathematically derived from first principles (in the way that Kepler's laws can be derived from Newton's law of universal gravitation) rather than that the formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically. Indeed, experimental observation reveals that the added energy is proportional to the mass lost in a linear fashion, with <math>c^2</math> as the slope. These are the same sorts of phyiscal observations that allow you to deduce laws like <math>F = ma</math> (apply varying amounts of force to a mass and see what the resulting acceleration is). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 18:38, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::The formula cannot be derived ''in any sensible way'', not merely a rigorous way. Numerous attempts to derive it have been failures. Moreover, the first claimed experimental observation for the formual was not dates from 1932, long after the formula was declared to be unquestionable dogma.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:20, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Could you please give us some references to these failed attempts? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 19:22, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::::This took only one search on the internet: [http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/01-einstein.s-23-biggest-mistakes 7 failed attempts to prove E=mc2].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:27, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::Aschlafly, your reading of Cockcroft lecture is insufficient. He writes: ''It was obvious then that lithium was being disintegrated into two α-particles with a total energy release of 17.2 million volts. This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass units, '' so he thinks that energy can be provided by decreasing the mass of an object. And if you do a little math, you can see for yourself that he uses Einstein's formula to calculate the amount.
:::::As for the ''seven failed attempts'': Even if there were mathematical errors in the papers as your ''"source"'' suggests, it is not clear that they render the calculations invalid!
:::::I'm impressed which sources you are willing to ignore, and which seem to be absolutely acceptable,,,
:::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:29, 9 April 2012 (EDT)
::::I assume you've read the book and not just that chronology, Andy? Looks like an interesting read, even though the [http://einsteinsmistakes.com/the_author_5.html author] is a [[Professor values|professor]] in liberal [[Vermont]] and has written a [http://www.amazon.com/Special-Relativity-A-Modern-Introduction/dp/0971313415/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333999210&sr=8-1 textbook] on special relativity. Incidentally, amazon.com gives access to a few pages of "Einstein's mistakes". Let me quote from page 330: "His (Einstein's) first derivations of this equation, although flawed, convinced physicists that the energy-mass relation ought to be of general validity. In 1905, Einstein did not have available the mathematical tensor techniques needed for a correct derivation of this formula, but he instigated the theoretical investigations that later led von Laue and Klein to the correct derivation." Could you explain in more detail why you think the attempts failed? Von Laue and Klein's attempts would be particularly interesting, because your reference claims they were correct. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:28, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::A recent peer-reviewed scientific paper, which has been cited in this entry, also confirms that E=mc2 cannot be mathematically derived.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:53, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::Aschlafly, have you read the paper? I doubt it, as your statement isn't entirely correct. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:06, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::You mean the paper by Hecht (2011)? That's also interesting. Let me quote from the Conclusions (I happen to have access to the paper): "Einstein produced about 18 virtuoso derivations and demonstrations all aimed at establishing the mass-energy principle. We have shown that although each of them gave evidence for the applicability of E=mc^2 to a particular set of circumstances, no one derivation, or collection of them taken together, succeeded in providing a definitive proof of its complete generality. That should not be surprising because the same situation occurs, for example, with F=ma, which is a different kind of relation than E0=mc2. Even so, 300 years of successful theoretical work have not proven the correctness of F=ma." ... "That aside, countless experiments from Cockcroft and Walton63 to Rainville et al.64 have, with increasing accuracy, confirmed that E0=mc2 is one of the greatest insights of the 20th century." But maybe that's not the paper you mean? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 17:18, 11 April 2012 (EDT)