Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Geocentric theory

2007-05-28T14:20:41Z

OfficerDibble: Another attempt

I have added a paragraph about the scientific and biblical evidence for the Geocentric theory. I think there's a lot more that could be said here but I don't have time write it now. I'll probably add some more next week. - Mmeelliissssaa

: Your entry was kooky -- was it intended as a joke? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:25, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

No it wasn't. I appreciate that views like mine are not popular or wide spread, but aleast the bible verses and scientific evidence should be stated so that people can think about it. A admit that what I wrote wasn't brilliantly written, I'll rewrite it now that I have a bit more time. Please do some reasurch on the Michelson-Morley experiment rather than just deleting my stuff. Basicly scientists tried for ages to measure the motion of the earth through space, but the couldn't do it. The Michelson-Morley experiment was the first time they admited that they couldn't do it. Relatativity is illogical, people believe it because they are confused by it and they take scientists at their word. Why do people have so much faith in scientists instead of having faith in God when he says that the earth is "Fixed fast"? -Mmeelliissssaa [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 11:51, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Relativity is true, you're just gonna have to get used to it, and once you have, please remove the pseudo science from this article.

Here's the proof:

[http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment| Hafele-Keating experiment]

[http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html| GPS and relativity]

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: Relativity is not illogical. Please don't put this junk in, unless you can show the logical error in relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:30, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Did you read the Link I included? What do you say to that? I'm not interested in what Scientists say about Cesium clocks abd GPS, and you second link was broken. Heres my link again, this guy seems to know what he's talking about:
[http://www.thefinaltheory.com thefinaltheory.com]
I'll post a load more links when I have more time.
I'm just asking for my beliefs to mentioned so that people will be aware of them, thats all. Its fair that the article should mentioned evidence for AND against the Geocentric model. At least put the bible verses back in. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 05:42, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: The link is nonsense. Please do not put it back in. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:43, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

"The link is nonsense" thats not much of an argument is it? The guy is a genious and is currently making thousands / millions because he points out where science is going wrong and none of the experts can give an answer to him. Can't you even answer one of his points? Arn't you even going to try? I think that proves my point. The first chapter of his book is avalible online for free [http://www.thefinaltheory.com/viewchapter.html here]. He points out that the current theortical framework is full of contradictions and paradoxes, for instance on Page 17 of the book (page 23 of the PDF file) he explains that Newtons law of gravity is incompatable with the law of conservation of energy, on page 20 (26 of pdf) he shows that the work function is a flawed concept. On page 30 / 36 he start to put forward his alturnative theorys which include a purley geometric explanation of gravity.
The Science flaws section of his website highligts even more flaws in modern science [http://www.thefinaltheory.com/scienceflaws.html here] and he was links to articles in which scienctists admit that the don't have a clue how the world works [http://www.thefinaltheory.com/sciencearticles.html here]. Expalin that if you can [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:19, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Geocentric theory may be a minority view but I am not the only one. There are others who think the same way as me, there is evidence to support our beliefs and so our views should be mentioned here. Here are a list of websites suppoerting geocentric theory: 1) [http://www.geocentricity.com/ geocentricity.com] 2) [http://www.fixedearth.com/ fixedearth.com] 3) [http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/scicreed.htm Three] 4) [http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html Four]
[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:38, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

: The guy is a kook. No one should take the book seriously. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Could you please explain why you think he is "a kook". His ideas seem very logical to me. Thanks [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:10, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I've made some extensive changes. The article now gives some neutral information on geocentric theory with out promoting it or agreeing with it.
I apologise if my previous posts here have annoyed you, I just want my beliefs to be mentioned and I become somewhat defensive when my beliefs are so casually dismissed and ridiculed, that happens to me rather a lot. I hope you will agree that the article is now neutral and informative. I would welcome any constructive criticism or constructive edits to my work but please don't just delete it again, I have put work into it. Thank you. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:08, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

: No, your edits were not neutral or factual. They misstate Michelson-Morley, relativity, and geocentrism. Your beliefs are ridiculous, if you really believe that nonsense. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:25, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:: That is a dangerous precedent to claim. It might be applied to other articles. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:32, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I hope so. Nonsense like this should be removed from all the articles. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:04, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

You still haven't explained why you think the final theory book is "kooky", you don't discuss or argue your views at all, all you do here is insult me, insult my views, work and beliefs and vandalise the page. How did I misstate the Michelsom-Morley experiment? I accurately stated that most people took it as evidence of relativity rather than Geocentric theory, but minority views should be mentioned too, there is a huge a article on evolution for instance. How did I "misstate" relativity? I barely even mentioned it, except to say that most scientists believed in it, largely due to the M-M experiment. Stop vandalising the article. If you want to contribute to the article feel free, I think a section on evidence against Geocentric Theory could be beneficial to the article to give both sides of the argument. But if you do want to contribute you should stop vandalising the article and start discussing changes on the talk page instead of insulting me. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 09:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I've added a section for evidence against Geocentric Theory, I don't have time to put much in it at the mo, I'll do that another day, unless someone else would like to contribute for a change instead of deleting stuff.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 09:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

: You said the MM experiment was an "attempt to detect the absolute motion of the Earth through space". No, it was an attempt to measure motion of Earth relative to the aether. You said relativity postulates that space and time are distorted to make the Earth appear stationary. No, that's not right either. If you think that you have a valid view, then show me an example of one person who understands freshman physics and agrees with you. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:40, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:The aether was believed to be an absolution frame of reference therefor "Motion relative to aether" = "absolute motion through space". The two statments mean exactly the same thing. We can use your phrasing if you like, the meaning of the paragraph will remain unchanged.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::Many people have tried to create a [[Theory of everything]]. It's not for a trustworthy encyclopedia like ours to present cutting-edge research like that. [[Paradigm shift]]s in science can take decades. Let's just write up what we already know. Then later, if there's time, we can describe recent (possible) breakthroughs. Fair enough? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:43, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree that an encylopedia shouldn't endorse such cutting edge research yes, though I think it would be worth mentioning it. [[String theory]] has an entire article dedicated to it. Alturnative (To relativity) science is quite inportant to the Geocentric earth movement. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I've been advised to make smaller edits at a time, and to discuss them here before making them as well as afterwards so here goes. There are a number of Bible verses that describe the position and motion of the earth in space, and since that is what this article discusses I propose that they be added here. I propose that they be put in their own section at the end of the article. If known one has any objections I plan to make this change tomorrow. If anyone knows of some relevant verses please add / suggest them, I only know for off the top of my head but I know there are several others. Thank you [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, I object. You position has no significant support from either science or theology. You cannot meet the most minimal standards for a good edit. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:29, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::I do not object. I don't have any problem with stating what some people believe, or claim that the [[Bible]] says. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 12:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==Vandalism==
I have reverted edits* made by RSchlafly, as I consider them to be tantamount to vandalism. The material was well-sourced, relevant to the article as it stood, and fitted in well. There was no reason given for its removal. If this behavour persists, I shall report the user to a Sysop and request that he or she be banned from conservapedia.
* (*) Actually, it's not quite true that I have simply reverted the edits. I have actually incorporated the amterial into the article. '''OfficerDibble'''.

:: I have now reverted two uncommented upon edits by RSchlafly. I shall report this behaviour to a Sysop.

: Let me know if any sysops express the opinion that my version is vandalism.
: Your stuff is junk. Your sources are just obscure and incoherent opinions pieces. Do you have some disagreement with the text that you removed? If so, what? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Exactly in what way is my stuff junk? I have used Galieleo's OWN WORDS and I have used a reference to a interpreation of the Galileo repudiation of Heliocentrism by by a Catholic Scholar. EXACTLY WHY IS THAT JUNK?? You offend me by saying that. I have cited my sources which is more than the rest of the article is doing. Would it not have been best to engage in dialogue before you remove stuff? On what grounds are you the arbiter of what, or should not be in this article? AFIK, I did not remove any of your material. If I did, I apologise. What I did was to rearrange the article to include the stuff you had removed.[[OfficerDibble]]

:: In any case, Modern Geocentricism is alive and kicking. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism. You may not agree with it, but that does not mean that you are entield to remove amterial concerning it without discussion.

: You say "this view is apparently based ...". Is it or isn't it? Does anyone know? You quote someone saying, "One could probably derive it nowadays". Probably? Can it be done or not? Is it an unknown question? Then he says "Maybe physicists would be forced", so I guess he doesn't know. Why not quote someone who does know? This is an old subject, and it is not that complicated. You text continue in this confusing and contradictory manner. Later you go on to Galileo and other topics that are better dealt with elsewhere.
: To answer your Galileo question, your quote is not really his own words. He was forced to say that.
: If you wanted to engage in dialog, then you'd explain why you removed the text that you removed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::: I asked you to tell me what text I removed. You say that Galileo was forced to say it, but say it he did, and The quote I used origianlly from Deutsch clearly demonstrates that this is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. If you want me to find a clearer referecne I will, as it is absolutley true that the universal vieew could be reformulated as a Geocentric one, Galitleo's own theory of relativity states that all frames are rquivalent. It's just that it provides a convoluted motion of the planets, and by Occam#]s Razor we normmally go with Heliocentriscm. There is a debate here, and you should NOT just remove good material without discussion. I am LIVID.[[OfficerDibble]]

: Calm down. Go ahead and express your views here. What is the point of quoting Galileo? Galileo also expressed opposing views. Why not quote them? Why even bother with Galileo? His dispute with the Pope is well-known, but he wasn't otherwise so important in the history of geocentric theory. What point are you trying to make? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:18, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==Conservapedia Protocol==

I am under the impression that edits should not be summarily removed unless they are clearly vandalism or worthless. Floccinaucinihilipilification should not be undertaken lightly, as the author has probably gone to a lot of trouble wrting it and finding sources. Even if you disagree with the views, and thisnk tha arguments are nonsense, someone doesn't and (especially as in this case), there are people who hold these views as part of their religious beliefs. Conservapedia was set up to giv voices to those who felt they were being persecuted and diesnfranchised by Wikipedia. The edits to this article are tantamount to the same thing. I think this issue needs to be debated much more widely. [[OfficerDibble]]

: So you think that my edits are vandalism and I think that your edits are worthless. We have a difference of opinion. Go ahead debate CP policies elsewhere if you wish. I would rather discuss the subject matter of this article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Suggested Changes ==

I think we should mention Genisis in the Scripture section. Genisis says that the Earth was made on day one, and the sun, moon and stars were made on day four. By the end of day three there was an Earth, complete with plants, but no sun or moon. I think that cleary indicates that the earth is central and the other celestial objects periferal. Clearly the Heleocentric theory cannot explain how the earth and its plants could exist four 24hours with out a sun.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:14, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I also think we should add some links to Pro-Geocentric sites, Here are a few that I know of:1) [http://www.geocentricity.com/ geocentricity.com] 2) [http://www.fixedearth.com/ fixedearth.com] 3) [http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/scicreed.htm Three] 4) [http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html Four] 5)[http://www.galileowaswrong.com/ galileowaswrong.com]. I've heard somebody suggest that fixedearth.com may be a parody site, I think its real, it isn't really funny or trying to be funny like a parrody would. Sure in a few places the author presents his views in a slightly light hearted way but I don't see anything wrong with that.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 14:01, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

: So how do you explain plants living without sunlight? Maybe the answer could go in an article on Genesis.
: Do any of those sites say that mainstream physics is wrong is some testable way? Has anyone done the tests? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

There is no direct way to test wether or not the earth is moving, it all comes down to interpreting indirect evidence. There is more than one valid interpretation of that evidence. I have tried to discuss the scientific evidence here before (Above) and given links my views. My varguments and links were dismissed as rubbish without any counter arguments being put forward. I don't plan repeat the whole dissussion but I would appreciated it if the links could be included 1) to give people the opportunity to read further and assess the evidence for themselves 2) To make people aware of the views of people like myself. Thankyou [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 08:49, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

It says in Gensis that god created the earth, the light and the plants before he created the sun. The plants therefor had all the light they needed, despite the fact that there was no sun at that point, and the earht cannot have been moving / orbiting. The sun was created in day four.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 08:52, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

: You say "There is no direct way to test whether or not the earth is moving", and the article says something similar. You cite the Bible, and the article has Bible quotes. What's the problem? The problem with your links is that they have too much crackpot stuff in them, and are not good sources on the subject. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:16, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== Important elements to include in the Article ==

I am trying to make five points in this article, which are NOT currently sufficiently clear as it stands:
# The use of a Geocentric or Heliocentric frame of reference is a matter of choice, and not a matter of scientific proof. Both Galileo and Einstein have relativistic principles which allow celestial mechanics to be viewed from virtually whatever location you like. Bartosz Milewski (2006) states in reference to the Geocentric Theory: "Looking at the predictions it made of planetary movements, it is pretty good. One could probably derive it nowadays from the heliocentric theory by changing the system of coordinates (since the system attached to the Earth is not inertial, one would have to use Einstein's general relativity to do that correctly). Maybe physicists would be forced to introduce more cycles upon cycles to account for all the anomalies—maybe infinitely many. So even though the two theories differ in complexity, they are presumably equivalent in their predictive power." <ref> http://www.relisoft.com/Science/Physics/MicroAnt.html </ref> This is not a unique view: "If one treats the motions in the heavens as relative motions (whether Galilean relativity, Einstein's General Relativity, or other types), one can create a model of the cosmos which is consistent with observations from many (if not any) reference points.<ref>"http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html </ref> I can supply a hundred other sources which say the same thing. This is not in doubt, it is a fact and needs to be made clear.
# Secondly, I am pointing out that the preferred view by most scientists, is on the basis of a philosphical, rather than a scientific position. For example, in 'The Fabric of Reality', by David Deutsch (1997), Deutsch states the following criterion for reality: we should "... regard as real those complex entities which, if we did not regard them as real, would complicate explanations". This appears to be no more than a simple restatement of [[Occam's Razor]]. Deutsch's argument is that we choose to accept as real the Heliocentric argument simply because it 'makes more sense' and offers more readily understood explanations. In fact Deutsch spends a good deal of the book discussing the two positions. His view is that if we accept the Heliocentric reasoning through parsimony and explanatory power, we should also accept the view that the Universe is in fact a quantum [[multiverse]] by the same reasoning. All of this makes it clear that Heliocentrism is a ''philosophical'' position, not a scientific one, as we have no clear ''scientific'' basis of choosing between these explanations.
# Thirdly, it is clear that there are valid scientific arguments as to why the Geocentric Theory might be correct. For example : '''Gamma ray burst''' observations reported in "The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts" (ISBN 0-19-514570-4), by Jonathan I. Katz, professor of physics at Washington University: "The uniform distribution of burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center (some other extremely contrived and implausible distributions are also possible)." Another line of evidence referred to by modern geocentrists is related to '''quantized redshift'''. If the universe violates predictions from the FRW metric derived from General Relativity, it is not expanding but has a redshift-distance relation, and the redshifts of particular types of astronomical objects only take on certain values, that would suggest that the objects are located on shells concentric around the Earth, that is, that the location of the Earth is special.
# Fourthly as it is established that the acceptance of Heliocentrism is philosphical, and that there are scientific objections, it is therefore a matter of what we choose to believe, rather than what is an established fact, despite the fact that Heliocentricism is the established orthodoxy. Biblical arguments can be seen to be valid in this context, and therefore should be shown prominently (in fact they are, but they need to be explored further).
# Finally, since this debate is based on belief, we should foreground the matter of the Inquisition, and the debates which were prevalent at the time, as following the time of Galileo, science underwent a [[paradigm shift]] in belief away from Geocentricism towards Heliocentricism. What Galileo said or did not say during this debate then becomes crucial to understanding why Geocentricsm was subsequently sidelined, why it refused to go away, and why there has been a recent resurgence of interest in it.

What [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] and I are saying is therefore absolutely crucial to the article, and I totally object to the removal of it on specious grounds, and without discussion --[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 03:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

: Points 1, 2, and 4 are contained in the 3rd paragraph in the article. Yes, the frame is a matter of choice, and the article says so.
: Point 3 contradicts those points. If geocentrism is somehow more correct, then it is not just a philosophical choice. If Katz says that new cosmological evidence shows that the frame is not a matter of choice, then that would be worth considering. He does not.
: As for Point 5, there is another article on [[Galileo]] addressing the matter, and I suggest checking that out. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]
:: There are now no links to Galileo. Should we add "[[Copernicus]] and [[Galileo]] were the main proponents of the Heliocentric view." or somethink short like that containing links to these important men in history of this theory. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 18:50, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::: No. The article is on the Geocentric theory. There is a separate article on the Heliocentric view. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:20, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Robert, so there is a double standard? TOE article for example is full of opposing views, most are creationist views. So why allow that on the TOE page and not on this page?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:55, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::::By the way, I do not think you (Robert) are wrong in this view, personaly I believe that the POVs should not be in the articles, when the articles are discriptions of ideas.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:56, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: I don't think that there is any significant dispute about what the Geocentric theory is. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:19, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: I would agree as there is little dispute of what TOE is either. The dispute is not the point, the injecting the views are.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 14:27, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::: If I were editing [[Theory of evolution]], it would be a lot different. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:39, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Lol, perhaps you should... The consistancy of a lot of the articles seem to be in question when you look at the TOE article and compare it to others on the site. Perhaps some form or standard should be provided. I mentioned to Andy about the Astronomy article containing 22% information on Astronomy, 64% YEC views and 14% counters to YEC views. Seems to not provide a clear definition of what the topic is.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 14:44, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::: You are right, the [[Astronomy]] article is garbage. It doesn't even describe the views of the YEC folks very well, and instead has silly cheap shots. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:43, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: Do you have any comments on the direction the articles are headed along with suggestions on how to get them on the 'right track'? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:45, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== Another attempt ==

I have put a copy of the first paragraph [[Geocentric Theory/Revision|here]], with some comments, problems and some additions. I would like to collaborate with anyone who can work towards an improved version, which addresses the concerns I have raised about this article previously.--[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 10:20, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Gay disease

2007-05-28T13:59:03Z

OfficerDibble:

Where in the reference does it say '''anything''' about people being unsure as to homosexuals standing in terms of the AIDS epidemic? Fantomas 09:43, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>
"Through media attention to AIDS and homosexual groups which have taken a stand both for their rights and against AIDS, homosexual practices and lifestyles have become more accepted. '''Many people, however, remain unsure whether to blame gays for AIDS or to view them as unfortunate victims in a public health nightmare.''' Media coverage has also caused many homosexuals to question their personal and social acceptance, and ultimately grow scared about their future. The author notes the gulf between religious and moral conservatives who condemn gay sex and homosexuality on the one hand, and Bacchanalian proponents who defend their freedom to have consensual sex with anyone and as often as they please."
</blockquote>"
You may not agree with it, but it is there.
--[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 09:59, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Michelson-Morley experiment

2007-05-16T20:59:13Z

OfficerDibble: /* Objections to the current view */ typo

The Michelson-Morley experiment was an important physics experiment performed in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley. The experiment attempted to measure the motion of the earth through the aether and failed to do so. This unexpected failure threw physics into chaos, and lead to the [[Theory of relativity]].

== Historical Background ==

The experiment was performed in the days when technology had just become sufficiently advanced to accurately measure the speed of light. At that time it was known that light behaved like a wave. Scientists believed that light waves (consisting of photons) traveled through a medium referred to as the aether (Sometimes spelt ether). The aether was believed to be fixed in space and so was regarded as an absolute frame of reference, relative to which the velocity of any object could (in theory), be measured. The concept of the eather was in some ways similar to the modern concept of "space-time" though some differences exist.
Thus the idea was that absolute movement existed.

Scientists at the time believed that if they could accurately measure the relative velocity between the earth and light waves, they would get different results for the speed of the light waves moving in different directions. They believed this would happen because the earth was constantly moving, and the aether was fixed. They believed that by examining the results they could measure the relative velocity between the earth and the aether, and hence determine the absolute velocity of the earth through space. The Michelson-Morley experiment was an attempt to do that.

== Results of the Experiment ==

The experiment gave unexpected results. The speed of light was found to be the same regardless of the direction the light was traveling in. At first it was assumed that the result was due to poor equipment or some other anomaly, but further work ruled that possibility out.

== Consequences of the results ==

Scientists then faced the dilemma. They believed the earth was moving through space, but the Michelson-Morley experiment and similar experiments indicated that the earth was somehow stationery relative to the aether at all times.

A number of theories were proposed to explain the paradox, including the idea that the aether might in some way be "dragged along" by the earth. In the end the theory of special relativity (See [[Theory of relativity]]) became the accepted explanation, and the concept of the aether was subsequently rejected, as experimental evidence accumulated in support of the theory of Relativity. Modern concepts such as a foldable (by gravitation) space-time (a concept vital to [[General Relativity]]), or the [[Higgs Field]] (a proposed hypothetical concept in particle physics to explain the gravitational force) have been misinterpreted by laymen to be the aether of pre-Einsteinian physics.

==Objections to the current view==

However, a small number of people feel that the scientific community took a wrong turn when they rejected the concept of the aether, and recently some cosmologists have been toying with the idea of 're-inventing' the aether as a way of understanding the creation event: "Could spacetime literally be a kind of fluid, like the ether of pre-Einsteinian physics?" <ref> See, for example a recent article in Scientific American, where the aether is interpreted as a quantum foam of black holes - December 2005 issue of Scientific American: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000ADA62-D854-137C-962A83414B7F0000&sc=I100322</ref>.

Others argue that [[Geocentric theory]] is an alternative explanation of the result {{fact}}. If the earth is in-fact stationary relative to the aether then the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is easy to understand. This interpretation makes the Earth "special" compared to other celestial objects, supporting the view that Humanity (and the Earth) is the pinnacle of creation (and thus central).

==References==

<references/>

[[category:physics]]

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-05-07T09:27:44Z

OfficerDibble: /* Current Alerts */

'''This is where you can report abuse of editing privileges. Please make notes short and concise. Unsigned posts will be removed.'''
__TOC__
Sysops, please move notes down to 'old alerts' once the incident is closed.

Archives:
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive1|1]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive2|2]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive3|3]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive4|4]]

Other links:
*[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]]
*[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]]
*[[Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion|Articles for Deletion]]
*[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Articles for Speedy Deletion]]
*[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]]

==Current Alerts==
* Please investigate [[User:RSchlafly]]'s edits to [[Geocentric theory]]. They are simply cutting out well-justified and relevant material, and there is no rationale given for the decision. This is tantamount to vandalism. [[User:OfficerDibble]]
:* I second that. [[User:RSchlafly]] hs been deleting and reverting a lot of my stuff and instead of debating the changes on the talk page he made statments like "Your beliefs are ridiculous". He has now protected the page so I can't make any changes.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:22, 6 May 2007 (EDT) This user is a sock of Icewedge and has been blocked.
:::I oppose this alert, at the risk of POV-pushing, geocentrism is risible IMO. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:39, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::This is not the place for insults. Please see my detailed account on [[Talk:Geocentric theory]] before you make such judgements. --[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 04:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
*Insults? Where? Please don't make random accusatory posts, OfficerDibble, okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:01, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::"I oppose this alert, at the risk of POV-pushing, geocentrism is '''risible'''" I take "Risible" to be insulting, since I have worked long and hard to make the points I have on the article. --[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 05:27, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|YouGuysSuck}}, replaced Theory of Relativity with insults.
:Blocked infinitely Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Commodore Morgan}}, replacing user talk pages with "Icewedge has pwned Bronzefinger", in my case. [[User:Bronzefinger|Bronzefinger]] 13:04, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked infinitely Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Muschifresser}}, user name needs explanation. No apparent justification for blocking, but "Fresser" means "to eat like an animal," and "Muschi" is, uh, blocked by Google's Safe Search filtering. I'm about to leave a note on his Talk page. watch for his reply. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:50, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Swordofdestiny}} using specious reasoning to defend a troublemaker. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:11, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked by ed poor Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Boris Johnson, MP}} obscenity [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 15:45, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|The Black Angel of Death}} [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 15:40, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Czolgolz}} - Karajou says he lied about sources. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor#Zugstein] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:User made a mistake Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Tennis Sweatshirt}} I think he might be icewedge and he also posted "This place is pretty worthless so I would leave Tennis Sweatshirt 12:29, 29 April 2007 (EDT)." So I am not sure if you can trust any of his edits as being of any worth. --'''[[User:AdrianP|Adrian]][[User talk:AdrianP|P]] 20:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Pokeisthemon}} mostly hunch, but I'm sure it's a sock of Icewedge. Should be watched closely, if not pre-emptively blocked. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Inconclusive on checkuser Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 16:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::Cool. My apologies to Poke. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:33, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|JoshuaZ}} Misleading edit summary + removed valid information from [[Noah]] article. Last 3 edits are questionable. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:11, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** I reviewed his unproductive edits and a short block is appropriate. Please proceed as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Fred]] -- questionable edits intended to embarass CP. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Censorship&diff=prev&oldid=46203][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Separation_of_church_and_state&diff=prev&oldid=41507] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|GeorgeJ.W.}} keeps to add seemingly parodic, biased nonsense to articles, often attacking free software for being "communist". --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 19:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
: Silly edits by GeorgeJ.W., I agree. Not quite enough to block him, but he's getting there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
::They're parodic, Andy, not silly, unless he's an utterly ignorant moron. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 07:47, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|Scorpion}}, vote fraud via sockpuppets. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 21:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|Hacker}} Review of Hacker's edits: slightly less than 500 edits, of which only about 6 are new entries and only about 10 are substantive edits of existing entries. One of the new entries was "Geek". Unless this improves quickly, I propose blocking this account because this violates the 90/10 rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::That seems disingenuous. Yes, he has only a few new pages, but he has made a number of templates. And, maybe I read the "total" incorrectly, but it said 307 edits? At the risk of sounding tautological, this user is quite useful, IMHO. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

===Dealt with===
*{{user|CaptainCAVEMAN}} ought to be blocked. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked.
*{{user|Pussyfooter}} check out edits to [[Pudding]] [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|JeffersonDarcy}} He put "this user doesn't have a problem with calling a person a faggot" on my user page. He also deleted my post putting his name on the current alerts. --[[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 14:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked for 1 week. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Auld Nick}} User name means Satan ("Old Nick"). Uploaded picture of a man in a skirt and frilly blouse, mislabeled as "traditional attire". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*:- Ed, a kilt (pleated male skirt) and (on formal occasions) dress shirt with ruffles ''is'' traditional Scottish dress. [[User:Unthank|Unthank]] 07:26, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#You are both on probation. Let's see your writing plans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*Terreista and LambChop -blocked, socks of each other --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Alfa Papa}} causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 17:18, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's a sock of Icewedge. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::'''Blocked''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:39, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Aydindrill}} Causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 22:09, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
**'''Blocked''' by Aschlafly as a sock of icewedge. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 12:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Staple]] -- vandalism and other questionable content. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
** Feel free to make my one-month block permanent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** Staple has many counterproductive edits, and potentially offensive ones by labeling users with categories. I lengthened his block to 1 month. I don't know anything about a "swastika" but feel free to make his block permanent if that is what it sounds like.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
***He had a swastika on his userpage[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
****The [[:Category:Liberal Users]] he created as a subcat of [[:Category:Communists]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Liberal_Users]; he & I were the only [[:Category:Conservative Users]] in that cat after he put a swastika on his User page.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Staple&diff=prev&oldid=132099] At a minimum this is incivility and trolling, and has little to do with his own use of his User page. A permanent block is warranted. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 02:04, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** Swastika alone justifies it. Good block.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:33, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[user:MontyZuma]], for instances of minor vandalism, and the creation of a profane page which involved moving an article into and changing the content. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm going to unblock him; this particular article he wrote is actually a dish, as I just found out. My apologies. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-05-07T08:19:17Z

OfficerDibble: /* Current Alerts */

'''This is where you can report abuse of editing privileges. Please make notes short and concise. Unsigned posts will be removed.'''
__TOC__
Sysops, please move notes down to 'old alerts' once the incident is closed.

Archives:
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive1|1]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive2|2]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive3|3]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive4|4]]

Other links:
*[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]]
*[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]]
*[[Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion|Articles for Deletion]]
*[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Articles for Speedy Deletion]]
*[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]]

==Current Alerts==
* Please investigate [[User:RSchlafly]]'s edits to [[Geocentric theory]]. They are simply cutting out well-justified and relevant material, and there is no rationale given for the decision. This is tantamount to vandalism. [[User:OfficerDibble]]
:* I second that. [[User:RSchlafly]] hs been deleting and reverting a lot of my stuff and instead of debating the changes on the talk page he made statments like "Your beliefs are ridiculous". He has now protected the page so I can't make any changes.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:22, 6 May 2007 (EDT) This user is a sock of Icewedge
:::I oppose this alert, at the risk of POV-pushing, geocentrism is risible IMO. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:39, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::This is not the place for insults. Please see my detailed account on [[Talk:Geocentric theory]] before you make such judgements. --[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 04:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|YouGuysSuck}}, replaced Theory of Relativity with insults.
:Blocked infinitely Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Commodore Morgan}}, replacing user talk pages with "Icewedge has pwned Bronzefinger", in my case. [[User:Bronzefinger|Bronzefinger]] 13:04, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked infinitely Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Muschifresser}}, user name needs explanation. No apparent justification for blocking, but "Fresser" means "to eat like an animal," and "Muschi" is, uh, blocked by Google's Safe Search filtering. I'm about to leave a note on his Talk page. watch for his reply. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:50, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Swordofdestiny}} using specious reasoning to defend a troublemaker. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:11, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked by ed poor Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Boris Johnson, MP}} obscenity [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 15:45, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|The Black Angel of Death}} [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 15:40, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Czolgolz}} - Karajou says he lied about sources. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor#Zugstein] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:User made a mistake Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Tennis Sweatshirt}} I think he might be icewedge and he also posted "This place is pretty worthless so I would leave Tennis Sweatshirt 12:29, 29 April 2007 (EDT)." So I am not sure if you can trust any of his edits as being of any worth. --'''[[User:AdrianP|Adrian]][[User talk:AdrianP|P]] 20:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Pokeisthemon}} mostly hunch, but I'm sure it's a sock of Icewedge. Should be watched closely, if not pre-emptively blocked. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Inconclusive on checkuser Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 16:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::Cool. My apologies to Poke. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:33, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|JoshuaZ}} Misleading edit summary + removed valid information from [[Noah]] article. Last 3 edits are questionable. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:11, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** I reviewed his unproductive edits and a short block is appropriate. Please proceed as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Fred]] -- questionable edits intended to embarass CP. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Censorship&diff=prev&oldid=46203][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Separation_of_church_and_state&diff=prev&oldid=41507] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|GeorgeJ.W.}} keeps to add seemingly parodic, biased nonsense to articles, often attacking free software for being "communist". --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 19:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
: Silly edits by GeorgeJ.W., I agree. Not quite enough to block him, but he's getting there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
::They're parodic, Andy, not silly, unless he's an utterly ignorant moron. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 07:47, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|Scorpion}}, vote fraud via sockpuppets. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 21:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|Hacker}} Review of Hacker's edits: slightly less than 500 edits, of which only about 6 are new entries and only about 10 are substantive edits of existing entries. One of the new entries was "Geek". Unless this improves quickly, I propose blocking this account because this violates the 90/10 rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::That seems disingenuous. Yes, he has only a few new pages, but he has made a number of templates. And, maybe I read the "total" incorrectly, but it said 307 edits? At the risk of sounding tautological, this user is quite useful, IMHO. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

===Dealt with===
*{{user|CaptainCAVEMAN}} ought to be blocked. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked.
*{{user|Pussyfooter}} check out edits to [[Pudding]] [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|JeffersonDarcy}} He put "this user doesn't have a problem with calling a person a faggot" on my user page. He also deleted my post putting his name on the current alerts. --[[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 14:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked for 1 week. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Auld Nick}} User name means Satan ("Old Nick"). Uploaded picture of a man in a skirt and frilly blouse, mislabeled as "traditional attire". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*:- Ed, a kilt (pleated male skirt) and (on formal occasions) dress shirt with ruffles ''is'' traditional Scottish dress. [[User:Unthank|Unthank]] 07:26, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#You are both on probation. Let's see your writing plans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*Terreista and LambChop -blocked, socks of each other --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Alfa Papa}} causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 17:18, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's a sock of Icewedge. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::'''Blocked''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:39, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Aydindrill}} Causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 22:09, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
**'''Blocked''' by Aschlafly as a sock of icewedge. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 12:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Staple]] -- vandalism and other questionable content. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
** Feel free to make my one-month block permanent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** Staple has many counterproductive edits, and potentially offensive ones by labeling users with categories. I lengthened his block to 1 month. I don't know anything about a "swastika" but feel free to make his block permanent if that is what it sounds like.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
***He had a swastika on his userpage[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
****The [[:Category:Liberal Users]] he created as a subcat of [[:Category:Communists]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Liberal_Users]; he & I were the only [[:Category:Conservative Users]] in that cat after he put a swastika on his User page.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Staple&diff=prev&oldid=132099] At a minimum this is incivility and trolling, and has little to do with his own use of his User page. A permanent block is warranted. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 02:04, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** Swastika alone justifies it. Good block.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:33, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[user:MontyZuma]], for instances of minor vandalism, and the creation of a profane page which involved moving an article into and changing the content. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm going to unblock him; this particular article he wrote is actually a dish, as I just found out. My apologies. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Geocentric theory

2007-05-07T08:07:35Z

OfficerDibble: /* Important elements to include in the Article */

I have added a paragraph about the scientific and biblical evidence for the Geocentric theory. I think there's a lot more that could be said here but I don't have time write it now. I'll probably add some more next week. - Mmeelliissssaa

: Your entry was kooky -- was it intended as a joke? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:25, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

No it wasn't. I appreciate that views like mine are not popular or wide spread, but aleast the bible verses and scientific evidence should be stated so that people can think about it. A admit that what I wrote wasn't brilliantly written, I'll rewrite it now that I have a bit more time. Please do some reasurch on the Michelson-Morley experiment rather than just deleting my stuff. Basicly scientists tried for ages to measure the motion of the earth through space, but the couldn't do it. The Michelson-Morley experiment was the first time they admited that they couldn't do it. Relatativity is illogical, people believe it because they are confused by it and they take scientists at their word. Why do people have so much faith in scientists instead of having faith in God when he says that the earth is "Fixed fast"? -Mmeelliissssaa [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 11:51, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Relativity is true, you're just gonna have to get used to it, and once you have, please remove the pseudo science from this article.

Here's the proof:

[http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment| Hafele-Keating experiment]

[http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html| GPS and relativity]

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: Relativity is not illogical. Please don't put this junk in, unless you can show the logical error in relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:30, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Did you read the Link I included? What do you say to that? I'm not interested in what Scientists say about Cesium clocks abd GPS, and you second link was broken. Heres my link again, this guy seems to know what he's talking about:
[http://www.thefinaltheory.com thefinaltheory.com]
I'll post a load more links when I have more time.
I'm just asking for my beliefs to mentioned so that people will be aware of them, thats all. Its fair that the article should mentioned evidence for AND against the Geocentric model. At least put the bible verses back in. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 05:42, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: The link is nonsense. Please do not put it back in. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:43, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

"The link is nonsense" thats not much of an argument is it? The guy is a genious and is currently making thousands / millions because he points out where science is going wrong and none of the experts can give an answer to him. Can't you even answer one of his points? Arn't you even going to try? I think that proves my point. The first chapter of his book is avalible online for free [http://www.thefinaltheory.com/viewchapter.html here]. He points out that the current theortical framework is full of contradictions and paradoxes, for instance on Page 17 of the book (page 23 of the PDF file) he explains that Newtons law of gravity is incompatable with the law of conservation of energy, on page 20 (26 of pdf) he shows that the work function is a flawed concept. On page 30 / 36 he start to put forward his alturnative theorys which include a purley geometric explanation of gravity.
The Science flaws section of his website highligts even more flaws in modern science [http://www.thefinaltheory.com/scienceflaws.html here] and he was links to articles in which scienctists admit that the don't have a clue how the world works [http://www.thefinaltheory.com/sciencearticles.html here]. Expalin that if you can [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:19, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Geocentric theory may be a minority view but I am not the only one. There are others who think the same way as me, there is evidence to support our beliefs and so our views should be mentioned here. Here are a list of websites suppoerting geocentric theory: 1) [http://www.geocentricity.com/ geocentricity.com] 2) [http://www.fixedearth.com/ fixedearth.com] 3) [http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/scicreed.htm Three] 4) [http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html Four]
[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:38, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

: The guy is a kook. No one should take the book seriously. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Could you please explain why you think he is "a kook". His ideas seem very logical to me. Thanks [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:10, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I've made some extensive changes. The article now gives some neutral information on geocentric theory with out promoting it or agreeing with it.
I apologise if my previous posts here have annoyed you, I just want my beliefs to be mentioned and I become somewhat defensive when my beliefs are so casually dismissed and ridiculed, that happens to me rather a lot. I hope you will agree that the article is now neutral and informative. I would welcome any constructive criticism or constructive edits to my work but please don't just delete it again, I have put work into it. Thank you. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:08, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

: No, your edits were not neutral or factual. They misstate Michelson-Morley, relativity, and geocentrism. Your beliefs are ridiculous, if you really believe that nonsense. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:25, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:: That is a dangerous precedent to claim. It might be applied to other articles. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:32, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I hope so. Nonsense like this should be removed from all the articles. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:04, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

You still haven't explained why you think the final theory book is "kooky", you don't discuss or argue your views at all, all you do here is insult me, insult my views, work and beliefs and vandalise the page. How did I misstate the Michelsom-Morley experiment? I accurately stated that most people took it as evidence of relativity rather than Geocentric theory, but minority views should be mentioned too, there is a huge a article on evolution for instance. How did I "misstate" relativity? I barely even mentioned it, except to say that most scientists believed in it, largely due to the M-M experiment. Stop vandalising the article. If you want to contribute to the article feel free, I think a section on evidence against Geocentric Theory could be beneficial to the article to give both sides of the argument. But if you do want to contribute you should stop vandalising the article and start discussing changes on the talk page instead of insulting me. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 09:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I've added a section for evidence against Geocentric Theory, I don't have time to put much in it at the mo, I'll do that another day, unless someone else would like to contribute for a change instead of deleting stuff.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 09:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

: You said the MM experiment was an "attempt to detect the absolute motion of the Earth through space". No, it was an attempt to measure motion of Earth relative to the aether. You said relativity postulates that space and time are distorted to make the Earth appear stationary. No, that's not right either. If you think that you have a valid view, then show me an example of one person who understands freshman physics and agrees with you. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:40, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:The aether was believed to be an absolution frame of reference therefor "Motion relative to aether" = "absolute motion through space". The two statments mean exactly the same thing. We can use your phrasing if you like, the meaning of the paragraph will remain unchanged.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::Many people have tried to create a [[Theory of everything]]. It's not for a trustworthy encyclopedia like ours to present cutting-edge research like that. [[Paradigm shift]]s in science can take decades. Let's just write up what we already know. Then later, if there's time, we can describe recent (possible) breakthroughs. Fair enough? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:43, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree that an encylopedia shouldn't endorse such cutting edge research yes, though I think it would be worth mentioning it. [[String theory]] has an entire article dedicated to it. Alturnative (To relativity) science is quite inportant to the Geocentric earth movement. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I've been advised to make smaller edits at a time, and to discuss them here before making them as well as afterwards so here goes. There are a number of Bible verses that describe the position and motion of the earth in space, and since that is what this article discusses I propose that they be added here. I propose that they be put in their own section at the end of the article. If known one has any objections I plan to make this change tomorrow. If anyone knows of some relevant verses please add / suggest them, I only know for off the top of my head but I know there are several others. Thank you [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, I object. You position has no significant support from either science or theology. You cannot meet the most minimal standards for a good edit. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:29, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::I do not object. I don't have any problem with stating what some people believe, or claim that the [[Bible]] says. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 12:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==Vandalism==
I have reverted edits* made by RSchlafly, as I consider them to be tantamount to vandalism. The material was well-sourced, relevant to the article as it stood, and fitted in well. There was no reason given for its removal. If this behavour persists, I shall report the user to a Sysop and request that he or she be banned from conservapedia.
* (*) Actually, it's not quite true that I have simply reverted the edits. I have actually incorporated the amterial into the article. '''OfficerDibble'''.

:: I have now reverted two uncommented upon edits by RSchlafly. I shall report this behaviour to a Sysop.

: Let me know if any sysops express the opinion that my version is vandalism.
: Your stuff is junk. Your sources are just obscure and incoherent opinions pieces. Do you have some disagreement with the text that you removed? If so, what? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Exactly in what way is my stuff junk? I have used Galieleo's OWN WORDS and I have used a reference to a interpreation of the Galileo repudiation of Heliocentrism by by a Catholic Scholar. EXACTLY WHY IS THAT JUNK?? You offend me by saying that. I have cited my sources which is more than the rest of the article is doing. Would it not have been best to engage in dialogue before you remove stuff? On what grounds are you the arbiter of what, or should not be in this article? AFIK, I did not remove any of your material. If I did, I apologise. What I did was to rearrange the article to include the stuff you had removed.[[OfficerDibble]]

:: In any case, Modern Geocentricism is alive and kicking. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism. You may not agree with it, but that does not mean that you are entield to remove amterial concerning it without discussion.

: You say "this view is apparently based ...". Is it or isn't it? Does anyone know? You quote someone saying, "One could probably derive it nowadays". Probably? Can it be done or not? Is it an unknown question? Then he says "Maybe physicists would be forced", so I guess he doesn't know. Why not quote someone who does know? This is an old subject, and it is not that complicated. You text continue in this confusing and contradictory manner. Later you go on to Galileo and other topics that are better dealt with elsewhere.
: To answer your Galileo question, your quote is not really his own words. He was forced to say that.
: If you wanted to engage in dialog, then you'd explain why you removed the text that you removed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::: I asked you to tell me what text I removed. You say that Galileo was forced to say it, but say it he did, and The quote I used origianlly from Deutsch clearly demonstrates that this is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. If you want me to find a clearer referecne I will, as it is absolutley true that the universal vieew could be reformulated as a Geocentric one, Galitleo's own theory of relativity states that all frames are rquivalent. It's just that it provides a convoluted motion of the planets, and by Occam#]s Razor we normmally go with Heliocentriscm. There is a debate here, and you should NOT just remove good material without discussion. I am LIVID.[[OfficerDibble]]

: Calm down. Go ahead and express your views here. What is the point of quoting Galileo? Galileo also expressed opposing views. Why not quote them? Why even bother with Galileo? His dispute with the Pope is well-known, but he wasn't otherwise so important in the history of geocentric theory. What point are you trying to make? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:18, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==Conservapedia Protocol==

I am under the impression that edits should not be summarily removed unless they are clearly vandalism or worthless. Floccinaucinihilipilification should not be undertaken lightly, as the author has probably gone to a lot of trouble wrting it and finding sources. Even if you disagree with the views, and thisnk tha arguments are nonsense, someone doesn't and (especially as in this case), there are people who hold these views as part of their religious beliefs. Conservapedia was set up to giv voices to those who felt they were being persecuted and diesnfranchised by Wikipedia. The edits to this article are tantamount to the same thing. I think this issue needs to be debated much more widely. [[OfficerDibble]]

: So you think that my edits are vandalism and I think that your edits are worthless. We have a difference of opinion. Go ahead debate CP policies elsewhere if you wish. I would rather discuss the subject matter of this article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Suggested Changes ==

I think we should mention Genisis in the Scripture section. Genisis says that the Earth was made on day one, and the sun, moon and stars were made on day four. By the end of day three there was an Earth, complete with plants, but no sun or moon. I think that cleary indicates that the earth is central and the other celestial objects periferal. Clearly the Heleocentric theory cannot explain how the earth and its plants could exist four 24hours with out a sun.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:14, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I also think we should add some links to Pro-Geocentric sites, Here are a few that I know of:1) [http://www.geocentricity.com/ geocentricity.com] 2) [http://www.fixedearth.com/ fixedearth.com] 3) [http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/scicreed.htm Three] 4) [http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html Four] 5)[http://www.galileowaswrong.com/ galileowaswrong.com]. I've heard somebody suggest that fixedearth.com may be a parody site, I think its real, it isn't really funny or trying to be funny like a parrody would. Sure in a few places the author presents his views in a slightly light hearted way but I don't see anything wrong with that.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 14:01, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

: So how do you explain plants living without sunlight? Maybe the answer could go in an article on Genesis.
: Do any of those sites say that mainstream physics is wrong is some testable way? Has anyone done the tests? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Important elements to include in the Article ==

I am trying to make five points in this article, which are NOT currently sufficiently clear as it stands:
# The use of a Geocentric or Heliocentric frame of reference is a matter of choice, and not a matter of scientific proof. Both Galileo and Einstein have relativistic principles which allow celestial mechanics to be viewed from virtually whatever location you like. Bartosz Milewski (2006) states in reference to the Geocentric Theory: "Looking at the predictions it made of planetary movements, it is pretty good. One could probably derive it nowadays from the heliocentric theory by changing the system of coordinates (since the system attached to the Earth is not inertial, one would have to use Einstein's general relativity to do that correctly). Maybe physicists would be forced to introduce more cycles upon cycles to account for all the anomalies—maybe infinitely many. So even though the two theories differ in complexity, they are presumably equivalent in their predictive power." <ref> http://www.relisoft.com/Science/Physics/MicroAnt.html </ref> This is not a unique view: "If one treats the motions in the heavens as relative motions (whether Galilean relativity, Einstein's General Relativity, or other types), one can create a model of the cosmos which is consistent with observations from many (if not any) reference points.<ref>"http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html </ref> I can supply a hundred other sources which say the same thing. This is not in doubt, it is a fact and needs to be made clear.
# Secondly, I am pointing out that the preferred view by most scientists, is on the basis of a philosphical, rather than a scientific position. For example, in 'The Fabric of Reality', by David Deutsch (1997), Deutsch states the following criterion for reality: we should "... regard as real those complex entities which, if we did not regard them as real, would complicate explanations". This appears to be no more than a simple restatement of [[Occam's Razor]]. Deutsch's argument is that we choose to accept as real the Heliocentric argument simply because it 'makes more sense' and offers more readily understood explanations. In fact Deutsch spends a good deal of the book discussing the two positions. His view is that if we accept the Heliocentric reasoning through parsimony and explanatory power, we should also accept the view that the Universe is in fact a quantum [[multiverse]] by the same reasoning. All of this makes it clear that Heliocentrism is a ''philosophical'' position, not a scientific one, as we have no clear ''scientific'' basis of choosing between these explanations.
# Thirdly, it is clear that there are valid scientific arguments as to why the Geocentric Theory might be correct. For example : '''Gamma ray burst''' observations reported in "The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts" (ISBN 0-19-514570-4), by Jonathan I. Katz, professor of physics at Washington University: "The uniform distribution of burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center (some other extremely contrived and implausible distributions are also possible)." Another line of evidence referred to by modern geocentrists is related to '''quantized redshift'''. If the universe violates predictions from the FRW metric derived from General Relativity, it is not expanding but has a redshift-distance relation, and the redshifts of particular types of astronomical objects only take on certain values, that would suggest that the objects are located on shells concentric around the Earth, that is, that the location of the Earth is special.
# Fourthly as it is established that the acceptance of Heliocentrism is philosphical, and that there are scientific objections, it is therefore a matter of what we choose to believe, rather than what is an established fact, despite the fact that Heliocentricism is the established orthodoxy. Biblical arguments can be seen to be valid in this context, and therefore should be shown prominently (in fact they are, but they need to be explored further).
# Finally, since this debate is based on belief, we should foreground the matter of the Inquisition, and the debates which were prevalent at the time, as following the time of Galileo, science underwent a [[paradigm shift]] in belief away from Geocentricism towards Heliocentricism. What Galileo said or did not say during this debate then becomes crucial to understanding why Geocentricsm was subsequently sidelined, why it refused to go away, and why there has been a recent resurgence of interest in it.

What [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] and I are saying is therefore absolutely crucial to the article, and I totally object to the removal of it on specious grounds, and without discussion --[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 03:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

Talk:Geocentric theory

2007-05-07T08:05:48Z

OfficerDibble: /* Important elements to include in the Article */

I have added a paragraph about the scientific and biblical evidence for the Geocentric theory. I think there's a lot more that could be said here but I don't have time write it now. I'll probably add some more next week. - Mmeelliissssaa

: Your entry was kooky -- was it intended as a joke? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:25, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

No it wasn't. I appreciate that views like mine are not popular or wide spread, but aleast the bible verses and scientific evidence should be stated so that people can think about it. A admit that what I wrote wasn't brilliantly written, I'll rewrite it now that I have a bit more time. Please do some reasurch on the Michelson-Morley experiment rather than just deleting my stuff. Basicly scientists tried for ages to measure the motion of the earth through space, but the couldn't do it. The Michelson-Morley experiment was the first time they admited that they couldn't do it. Relatativity is illogical, people believe it because they are confused by it and they take scientists at their word. Why do people have so much faith in scientists instead of having faith in God when he says that the earth is "Fixed fast"? -Mmeelliissssaa [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 11:51, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Relativity is true, you're just gonna have to get used to it, and once you have, please remove the pseudo science from this article.

Here's the proof:

[http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment| Hafele-Keating experiment]

[http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html| GPS and relativity]

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: Relativity is not illogical. Please don't put this junk in, unless you can show the logical error in relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:30, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Did you read the Link I included? What do you say to that? I'm not interested in what Scientists say about Cesium clocks abd GPS, and you second link was broken. Heres my link again, this guy seems to know what he's talking about:
[http://www.thefinaltheory.com thefinaltheory.com]
I'll post a load more links when I have more time.
I'm just asking for my beliefs to mentioned so that people will be aware of them, thats all. Its fair that the article should mentioned evidence for AND against the Geocentric model. At least put the bible verses back in. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 05:42, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: The link is nonsense. Please do not put it back in. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:43, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

"The link is nonsense" thats not much of an argument is it? The guy is a genious and is currently making thousands / millions because he points out where science is going wrong and none of the experts can give an answer to him. Can't you even answer one of his points? Arn't you even going to try? I think that proves my point. The first chapter of his book is avalible online for free [http://www.thefinaltheory.com/viewchapter.html here]. He points out that the current theortical framework is full of contradictions and paradoxes, for instance on Page 17 of the book (page 23 of the PDF file) he explains that Newtons law of gravity is incompatable with the law of conservation of energy, on page 20 (26 of pdf) he shows that the work function is a flawed concept. On page 30 / 36 he start to put forward his alturnative theorys which include a purley geometric explanation of gravity.
The Science flaws section of his website highligts even more flaws in modern science [http://www.thefinaltheory.com/scienceflaws.html here] and he was links to articles in which scienctists admit that the don't have a clue how the world works [http://www.thefinaltheory.com/sciencearticles.html here]. Expalin that if you can [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:19, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Geocentric theory may be a minority view but I am not the only one. There are others who think the same way as me, there is evidence to support our beliefs and so our views should be mentioned here. Here are a list of websites suppoerting geocentric theory: 1) [http://www.geocentricity.com/ geocentricity.com] 2) [http://www.fixedearth.com/ fixedearth.com] 3) [http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/scicreed.htm Three] 4) [http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html Four]
[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:38, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

: The guy is a kook. No one should take the book seriously. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Could you please explain why you think he is "a kook". His ideas seem very logical to me. Thanks [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:10, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I've made some extensive changes. The article now gives some neutral information on geocentric theory with out promoting it or agreeing with it.
I apologise if my previous posts here have annoyed you, I just want my beliefs to be mentioned and I become somewhat defensive when my beliefs are so casually dismissed and ridiculed, that happens to me rather a lot. I hope you will agree that the article is now neutral and informative. I would welcome any constructive criticism or constructive edits to my work but please don't just delete it again, I have put work into it. Thank you. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:08, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

: No, your edits were not neutral or factual. They misstate Michelson-Morley, relativity, and geocentrism. Your beliefs are ridiculous, if you really believe that nonsense. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:25, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:: That is a dangerous precedent to claim. It might be applied to other articles. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:32, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I hope so. Nonsense like this should be removed from all the articles. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:04, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

You still haven't explained why you think the final theory book is "kooky", you don't discuss or argue your views at all, all you do here is insult me, insult my views, work and beliefs and vandalise the page. How did I misstate the Michelsom-Morley experiment? I accurately stated that most people took it as evidence of relativity rather than Geocentric theory, but minority views should be mentioned too, there is a huge a article on evolution for instance. How did I "misstate" relativity? I barely even mentioned it, except to say that most scientists believed in it, largely due to the M-M experiment. Stop vandalising the article. If you want to contribute to the article feel free, I think a section on evidence against Geocentric Theory could be beneficial to the article to give both sides of the argument. But if you do want to contribute you should stop vandalising the article and start discussing changes on the talk page instead of insulting me. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 09:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I've added a section for evidence against Geocentric Theory, I don't have time to put much in it at the mo, I'll do that another day, unless someone else would like to contribute for a change instead of deleting stuff.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 09:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

: You said the MM experiment was an "attempt to detect the absolute motion of the Earth through space". No, it was an attempt to measure motion of Earth relative to the aether. You said relativity postulates that space and time are distorted to make the Earth appear stationary. No, that's not right either. If you think that you have a valid view, then show me an example of one person who understands freshman physics and agrees with you. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:40, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:The aether was believed to be an absolution frame of reference therefor "Motion relative to aether" = "absolute motion through space". The two statments mean exactly the same thing. We can use your phrasing if you like, the meaning of the paragraph will remain unchanged.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::Many people have tried to create a [[Theory of everything]]. It's not for a trustworthy encyclopedia like ours to present cutting-edge research like that. [[Paradigm shift]]s in science can take decades. Let's just write up what we already know. Then later, if there's time, we can describe recent (possible) breakthroughs. Fair enough? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:43, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree that an encylopedia shouldn't endorse such cutting edge research yes, though I think it would be worth mentioning it. [[String theory]] has an entire article dedicated to it. Alturnative (To relativity) science is quite inportant to the Geocentric earth movement. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I've been advised to make smaller edits at a time, and to discuss them here before making them as well as afterwards so here goes. There are a number of Bible verses that describe the position and motion of the earth in space, and since that is what this article discusses I propose that they be added here. I propose that they be put in their own section at the end of the article. If known one has any objections I plan to make this change tomorrow. If anyone knows of some relevant verses please add / suggest them, I only know for off the top of my head but I know there are several others. Thank you [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, I object. You position has no significant support from either science or theology. You cannot meet the most minimal standards for a good edit. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:29, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::I do not object. I don't have any problem with stating what some people believe, or claim that the [[Bible]] says. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 12:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==Vandalism==
I have reverted edits* made by RSchlafly, as I consider them to be tantamount to vandalism. The material was well-sourced, relevant to the article as it stood, and fitted in well. There was no reason given for its removal. If this behavour persists, I shall report the user to a Sysop and request that he or she be banned from conservapedia.
* (*) Actually, it's not quite true that I have simply reverted the edits. I have actually incorporated the amterial into the article. '''OfficerDibble'''.

:: I have now reverted two uncommented upon edits by RSchlafly. I shall report this behaviour to a Sysop.

: Let me know if any sysops express the opinion that my version is vandalism.
: Your stuff is junk. Your sources are just obscure and incoherent opinions pieces. Do you have some disagreement with the text that you removed? If so, what? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Exactly in what way is my stuff junk? I have used Galieleo's OWN WORDS and I have used a reference to a interpreation of the Galileo repudiation of Heliocentrism by by a Catholic Scholar. EXACTLY WHY IS THAT JUNK?? You offend me by saying that. I have cited my sources which is more than the rest of the article is doing. Would it not have been best to engage in dialogue before you remove stuff? On what grounds are you the arbiter of what, or should not be in this article? AFIK, I did not remove any of your material. If I did, I apologise. What I did was to rearrange the article to include the stuff you had removed.[[OfficerDibble]]

:: In any case, Modern Geocentricism is alive and kicking. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism. You may not agree with it, but that does not mean that you are entield to remove amterial concerning it without discussion.

: You say "this view is apparently based ...". Is it or isn't it? Does anyone know? You quote someone saying, "One could probably derive it nowadays". Probably? Can it be done or not? Is it an unknown question? Then he says "Maybe physicists would be forced", so I guess he doesn't know. Why not quote someone who does know? This is an old subject, and it is not that complicated. You text continue in this confusing and contradictory manner. Later you go on to Galileo and other topics that are better dealt with elsewhere.
: To answer your Galileo question, your quote is not really his own words. He was forced to say that.
: If you wanted to engage in dialog, then you'd explain why you removed the text that you removed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::: I asked you to tell me what text I removed. You say that Galileo was forced to say it, but say it he did, and The quote I used origianlly from Deutsch clearly demonstrates that this is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. If you want me to find a clearer referecne I will, as it is absolutley true that the universal vieew could be reformulated as a Geocentric one, Galitleo's own theory of relativity states that all frames are rquivalent. It's just that it provides a convoluted motion of the planets, and by Occam#]s Razor we normmally go with Heliocentriscm. There is a debate here, and you should NOT just remove good material without discussion. I am LIVID.[[OfficerDibble]]

: Calm down. Go ahead and express your views here. What is the point of quoting Galileo? Galileo also expressed opposing views. Why not quote them? Why even bother with Galileo? His dispute with the Pope is well-known, but he wasn't otherwise so important in the history of geocentric theory. What point are you trying to make? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:18, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==Conservapedia Protocol==

I am under the impression that edits should not be summarily removed unless they are clearly vandalism or worthless. Floccinaucinihilipilification should not be undertaken lightly, as the author has probably gone to a lot of trouble wrting it and finding sources. Even if you disagree with the views, and thisnk tha arguments are nonsense, someone doesn't and (especially as in this case), there are people who hold these views as part of their religious beliefs. Conservapedia was set up to giv voices to those who felt they were being persecuted and diesnfranchised by Wikipedia. The edits to this article are tantamount to the same thing. I think this issue needs to be debated much more widely. [[OfficerDibble]]

: So you think that my edits are vandalism and I think that your edits are worthless. We have a difference of opinion. Go ahead debate CP policies elsewhere if you wish. I would rather discuss the subject matter of this article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Suggested Changes ==

I think we should mention Genisis in the Scripture section. Genisis says that the Earth was made on day one, and the sun, moon and stars were made on day four. By the end of day three there was an Earth, complete with plants, but no sun or moon. I think that cleary indicates that the earth is central and the other celestial objects periferal. Clearly the Heleocentric theory cannot explain how the earth and its plants could exist four 24hours with out a sun.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:14, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I also think we should add some links to Pro-Geocentric sites, Here are a few that I know of:1) [http://www.geocentricity.com/ geocentricity.com] 2) [http://www.fixedearth.com/ fixedearth.com] 3) [http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/scicreed.htm Three] 4) [http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html Four] 5)[http://www.galileowaswrong.com/ galileowaswrong.com]. I've heard somebody suggest that fixedearth.com may be a parody site, I think its real, it isn't really funny or trying to be funny like a parrody would. Sure in a few places the author presents his views in a slightly light hearted way but I don't see anything wrong with that.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 14:01, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

: So how do you explain plants living without sunlight? Maybe the answer could go in an article on Genesis.
: Do any of those sites say that mainstream physics is wrong is some testable way? Has anyone done the tests? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Important elements to include in the Article ==

I am trying to make five points in this article, which are NOT currently sufficiently clear as it stands:
# The use of a Geocentric or Heliocentric frame of reference is a matter of choice, and not a matter of scientific proof. Both Galileo and Einstein have relativistic principles which allow celestial mechanics to be viewed from virtually whatever location you like. Bartosz Milewski (2006) states in reference to the Geocentric Theory: "Looking at the predictions it made of planetary movements, it is pretty good. One could probably derive it nowadays from the heliocentric theory by changing the system of coordinates (since the system attached to the Earth is not inertial, one would have to use Einstein's general relativity to do that correctly). Maybe physicists would be forced to introduce more cycles upon cycles to account for all the anomalies—maybe infinitely many. So even though the two theories differ in complexity, they are presumably equivalent in their predictive power." <ref> http://www.relisoft.com/Science/Physics/MicroAnt.html </ref> This is not a unique view: "If one treats the motions in the heavens as relative motions (whether Galilean relativity, Einstein's General Relativity, or other types), one can create a model of the cosmos which is consistent with observations from many (if not any) reference points.<ref>"http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html </ref> I can supply a hundred other sources which say the same thing. This is not in doubt, it is a fact and needs to be made clear.
# Secondly, I am pointing out that the preferred view by most scientists, is on the basis of a philosphical, rather than a scientific position. For example, in 'The Fabric of Reality', by David Deutsch (1997), Deutsch states the following criterion for reality: we should "... regard as real those complex entities which, if we did not regard them as real, would complicate explanations". This appears to be no more than a simple restatement of [[Occam's Razor]]. Deutsch's argument is that we choose to accept as real the Heliocentric argument simply because it 'makes more sense' and offers more readily understood explanations. In fact Deutsch spends a good deal of the book discussing the two positions. His view is that if we accept the Heliocentric reasoning through parsimony and explanatory power, we should also accept the view that the Universe is in fact a quantum [[multiverse]] by the same reasoning. All of this makes it clear that Heliocentrism is a ''philosophical'' position, not a scientific one, as we have no clear ''scientific'' basis of choosing between these explanations.
# Thirdly, it is clear that there are valid scientific arguments as to why the Geocentric Theory might be correct. For example : '''Gamma ray burst''' observations reported in "The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts" (ISBN 0-19-514570-4), by Jonathan I. Katz, professor of physics at Washington University: "The uniform distribution of burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center (some other extremely contrived and implausible distributions are also possible)." Another line of evidence referred to by modern geocentrists is related to '''quantized redshift'''. If the universe violates predictions from the FRW metric derived from General Relativity, it is not expanding but has a redshift-distance relation, and the redshifts of particular types of astronomical objects only take on certain values, that would suggest that the objects are located on shells concentric around the Earth, that is, that the location of the Earth is special.
# Fourthly as it is established that the acceptance of Heliocentrism is philosphical, and that there are scientific objections, it is therefore a matter of what we choose to believe, rather than what is an established fact, despite the fact that Heliocentricism is the established orthodoxy. Biblical arguments can be seen to be valid in this context, and therefore should be shown prominently (in fact they are, but they need to be explored further).
# Finally, since this debate is based on belief, we should foreground the matter of the Inquisition, and the debates which were prevalent at the time, as following the time of Galileo, science underwent a [[paradigm shift]] in belief away from Geocentricism towards Heliocentricism. What Galileo said or did not say during this debate then becomes crucial to understanding whay Geocentricsm was sidelined, why it refused to go away, and why there has been a recent resurgence of interest in it.

What Mmeelliissssaa and I are saying is therefore absolutely crucial to the article, and I totally object to the removal of it on specious grounds, and without discussion --[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 03:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

Talk:Geocentric theory

2007-05-07T07:57:57Z

OfficerDibble: /* Important elements to include in the Article */

I have added a paragraph about the scientific and biblical evidence for the Geocentric theory. I think there's a lot more that could be said here but I don't have time write it now. I'll probably add some more next week. - Mmeelliissssaa

: Your entry was kooky -- was it intended as a joke? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:25, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

No it wasn't. I appreciate that views like mine are not popular or wide spread, but aleast the bible verses and scientific evidence should be stated so that people can think about it. A admit that what I wrote wasn't brilliantly written, I'll rewrite it now that I have a bit more time. Please do some reasurch on the Michelson-Morley experiment rather than just deleting my stuff. Basicly scientists tried for ages to measure the motion of the earth through space, but the couldn't do it. The Michelson-Morley experiment was the first time they admited that they couldn't do it. Relatativity is illogical, people believe it because they are confused by it and they take scientists at their word. Why do people have so much faith in scientists instead of having faith in God when he says that the earth is "Fixed fast"? -Mmeelliissssaa [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 11:51, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Relativity is true, you're just gonna have to get used to it, and once you have, please remove the pseudo science from this article.

Here's the proof:

[http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment| Hafele-Keating experiment]

[http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html| GPS and relativity]

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: Relativity is not illogical. Please don't put this junk in, unless you can show the logical error in relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:30, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Did you read the Link I included? What do you say to that? I'm not interested in what Scientists say about Cesium clocks abd GPS, and you second link was broken. Heres my link again, this guy seems to know what he's talking about:
[http://www.thefinaltheory.com thefinaltheory.com]
I'll post a load more links when I have more time.
I'm just asking for my beliefs to mentioned so that people will be aware of them, thats all. Its fair that the article should mentioned evidence for AND against the Geocentric model. At least put the bible verses back in. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 05:42, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: The link is nonsense. Please do not put it back in. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:43, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

"The link is nonsense" thats not much of an argument is it? The guy is a genious and is currently making thousands / millions because he points out where science is going wrong and none of the experts can give an answer to him. Can't you even answer one of his points? Arn't you even going to try? I think that proves my point. The first chapter of his book is avalible online for free [http://www.thefinaltheory.com/viewchapter.html here]. He points out that the current theortical framework is full of contradictions and paradoxes, for instance on Page 17 of the book (page 23 of the PDF file) he explains that Newtons law of gravity is incompatable with the law of conservation of energy, on page 20 (26 of pdf) he shows that the work function is a flawed concept. On page 30 / 36 he start to put forward his alturnative theorys which include a purley geometric explanation of gravity.
The Science flaws section of his website highligts even more flaws in modern science [http://www.thefinaltheory.com/scienceflaws.html here] and he was links to articles in which scienctists admit that the don't have a clue how the world works [http://www.thefinaltheory.com/sciencearticles.html here]. Expalin that if you can [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:19, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Geocentric theory may be a minority view but I am not the only one. There are others who think the same way as me, there is evidence to support our beliefs and so our views should be mentioned here. Here are a list of websites suppoerting geocentric theory: 1) [http://www.geocentricity.com/ geocentricity.com] 2) [http://www.fixedearth.com/ fixedearth.com] 3) [http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/scicreed.htm Three] 4) [http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html Four]
[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:38, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

: The guy is a kook. No one should take the book seriously. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Could you please explain why you think he is "a kook". His ideas seem very logical to me. Thanks [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:10, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I've made some extensive changes. The article now gives some neutral information on geocentric theory with out promoting it or agreeing with it.
I apologise if my previous posts here have annoyed you, I just want my beliefs to be mentioned and I become somewhat defensive when my beliefs are so casually dismissed and ridiculed, that happens to me rather a lot. I hope you will agree that the article is now neutral and informative. I would welcome any constructive criticism or constructive edits to my work but please don't just delete it again, I have put work into it. Thank you. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:08, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

: No, your edits were not neutral or factual. They misstate Michelson-Morley, relativity, and geocentrism. Your beliefs are ridiculous, if you really believe that nonsense. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:25, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:: That is a dangerous precedent to claim. It might be applied to other articles. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:32, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I hope so. Nonsense like this should be removed from all the articles. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:04, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

You still haven't explained why you think the final theory book is "kooky", you don't discuss or argue your views at all, all you do here is insult me, insult my views, work and beliefs and vandalise the page. How did I misstate the Michelsom-Morley experiment? I accurately stated that most people took it as evidence of relativity rather than Geocentric theory, but minority views should be mentioned too, there is a huge a article on evolution for instance. How did I "misstate" relativity? I barely even mentioned it, except to say that most scientists believed in it, largely due to the M-M experiment. Stop vandalising the article. If you want to contribute to the article feel free, I think a section on evidence against Geocentric Theory could be beneficial to the article to give both sides of the argument. But if you do want to contribute you should stop vandalising the article and start discussing changes on the talk page instead of insulting me. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 09:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I've added a section for evidence against Geocentric Theory, I don't have time to put much in it at the mo, I'll do that another day, unless someone else would like to contribute for a change instead of deleting stuff.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 09:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

: You said the MM experiment was an "attempt to detect the absolute motion of the Earth through space". No, it was an attempt to measure motion of Earth relative to the aether. You said relativity postulates that space and time are distorted to make the Earth appear stationary. No, that's not right either. If you think that you have a valid view, then show me an example of one person who understands freshman physics and agrees with you. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:40, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:The aether was believed to be an absolution frame of reference therefor "Motion relative to aether" = "absolute motion through space". The two statments mean exactly the same thing. We can use your phrasing if you like, the meaning of the paragraph will remain unchanged.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::Many people have tried to create a [[Theory of everything]]. It's not for a trustworthy encyclopedia like ours to present cutting-edge research like that. [[Paradigm shift]]s in science can take decades. Let's just write up what we already know. Then later, if there's time, we can describe recent (possible) breakthroughs. Fair enough? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:43, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree that an encylopedia shouldn't endorse such cutting edge research yes, though I think it would be worth mentioning it. [[String theory]] has an entire article dedicated to it. Alturnative (To relativity) science is quite inportant to the Geocentric earth movement. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I've been advised to make smaller edits at a time, and to discuss them here before making them as well as afterwards so here goes. There are a number of Bible verses that describe the position and motion of the earth in space, and since that is what this article discusses I propose that they be added here. I propose that they be put in their own section at the end of the article. If known one has any objections I plan to make this change tomorrow. If anyone knows of some relevant verses please add / suggest them, I only know for off the top of my head but I know there are several others. Thank you [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, I object. You position has no significant support from either science or theology. You cannot meet the most minimal standards for a good edit. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:29, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::I do not object. I don't have any problem with stating what some people believe, or claim that the [[Bible]] says. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 12:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==Vandalism==
I have reverted edits* made by RSchlafly, as I consider them to be tantamount to vandalism. The material was well-sourced, relevant to the article as it stood, and fitted in well. There was no reason given for its removal. If this behavour persists, I shall report the user to a Sysop and request that he or she be banned from conservapedia.
* (*) Actually, it's not quite true that I have simply reverted the edits. I have actually incorporated the amterial into the article. '''OfficerDibble'''.

:: I have now reverted two uncommented upon edits by RSchlafly. I shall report this behaviour to a Sysop.

: Let me know if any sysops express the opinion that my version is vandalism.
: Your stuff is junk. Your sources are just obscure and incoherent opinions pieces. Do you have some disagreement with the text that you removed? If so, what? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Exactly in what way is my stuff junk? I have used Galieleo's OWN WORDS and I have used a reference to a interpreation of the Galileo repudiation of Heliocentrism by by a Catholic Scholar. EXACTLY WHY IS THAT JUNK?? You offend me by saying that. I have cited my sources which is more than the rest of the article is doing. Would it not have been best to engage in dialogue before you remove stuff? On what grounds are you the arbiter of what, or should not be in this article? AFIK, I did not remove any of your material. If I did, I apologise. What I did was to rearrange the article to include the stuff you had removed.[[OfficerDibble]]

:: In any case, Modern Geocentricism is alive and kicking. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism. You may not agree with it, but that does not mean that you are entield to remove amterial concerning it without discussion.

: You say "this view is apparently based ...". Is it or isn't it? Does anyone know? You quote someone saying, "One could probably derive it nowadays". Probably? Can it be done or not? Is it an unknown question? Then he says "Maybe physicists would be forced", so I guess he doesn't know. Why not quote someone who does know? This is an old subject, and it is not that complicated. You text continue in this confusing and contradictory manner. Later you go on to Galileo and other topics that are better dealt with elsewhere.
: To answer your Galileo question, your quote is not really his own words. He was forced to say that.
: If you wanted to engage in dialog, then you'd explain why you removed the text that you removed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::: I asked you to tell me what text I removed. You say that Galileo was forced to say it, but say it he did, and The quote I used origianlly from Deutsch clearly demonstrates that this is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. If you want me to find a clearer referecne I will, as it is absolutley true that the universal vieew could be reformulated as a Geocentric one, Galitleo's own theory of relativity states that all frames are rquivalent. It's just that it provides a convoluted motion of the planets, and by Occam#]s Razor we normmally go with Heliocentriscm. There is a debate here, and you should NOT just remove good material without discussion. I am LIVID.[[OfficerDibble]]

: Calm down. Go ahead and express your views here. What is the point of quoting Galileo? Galileo also expressed opposing views. Why not quote them? Why even bother with Galileo? His dispute with the Pope is well-known, but he wasn't otherwise so important in the history of geocentric theory. What point are you trying to make? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:18, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==Conservapedia Protocol==

I am under the impression that edits should not be summarily removed unless they are clearly vandalism or worthless. Floccinaucinihilipilification should not be undertaken lightly, as the author has probably gone to a lot of trouble wrting it and finding sources. Even if you disagree with the views, and thisnk tha arguments are nonsense, someone doesn't and (especially as in this case), there are people who hold these views as part of their religious beliefs. Conservapedia was set up to giv voices to those who felt they were being persecuted and diesnfranchised by Wikipedia. The edits to this article are tantamount to the same thing. I think this issue needs to be debated much more widely. [[OfficerDibble]]

: So you think that my edits are vandalism and I think that your edits are worthless. We have a difference of opinion. Go ahead debate CP policies elsewhere if you wish. I would rather discuss the subject matter of this article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Suggested Changes ==

I think we should mention Genisis in the Scripture section. Genisis says that the Earth was made on day one, and the sun, moon and stars were made on day four. By the end of day three there was an Earth, complete with plants, but no sun or moon. I think that cleary indicates that the earth is central and the other celestial objects periferal. Clearly the Heleocentric theory cannot explain how the earth and its plants could exist four 24hours with out a sun.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:14, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I also think we should add some links to Pro-Geocentric sites, Here are a few that I know of:1) [http://www.geocentricity.com/ geocentricity.com] 2) [http://www.fixedearth.com/ fixedearth.com] 3) [http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/scicreed.htm Three] 4) [http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html Four] 5)[http://www.galileowaswrong.com/ galileowaswrong.com]. I've heard somebody suggest that fixedearth.com may be a parody site, I think its real, it isn't really funny or trying to be funny like a parrody would. Sure in a few places the author presents his views in a slightly light hearted way but I don't see anything wrong with that.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 14:01, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

: So how do you explain plants living without sunlight? Maybe the answer could go in an article on Genesis.
: Do any of those sites say that mainstream physics is wrong is some testable way? Has anyone done the tests? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Important elements to include in the Article ==

I am trying to make five points in this article, which are NOT currently sufficiently clear as it stands:
# The use of a Geocentric or Heliocentric frame of reference is a matter of choice, and not a matter of scientific proof. Both Galileo and Einstein have relativistic principles which allow celestial mechanics to be viewed from virtually whatever location you like. Bartosz Milewski (2006) states in reference to the Geocentric Theory: "Looking at the predictions it made of planetary movements, it is pretty good. One could probably derive it nowadays from the heliocentric theory by changing the system of coordinates (since the system attached to the Earth is not inertial, one would have to use Einstein's general relativity to do that correctly). Maybe physicists would be forced to introduce more cycles upon cycles to account for all the anomalies—maybe infinitely many. So even though the two theories differ in complexity, they are presumably equivalent in their predictive power." <ref> http://www.relisoft.com/Science/Physics/MicroAnt.html </ref> This is not a unique view: "If one treats the motions in the heavens as relative motions (whether Galilean relativity, Einstein's General Relativity, or other types), one can create a model of the cosmos which is consistent with observations from many (if not any) reference points.<ref>"http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html </ref> I can supply a hundred other sources which say the same thing. This is not in doubt, it is a fact and needs to be made clear.
# Secondly, I am pointing out that the preferred view by most scientists, is on the basis of a philosphical, rather than a scientific position. For example, in 'The Fabric of Reality", by David Deutsch (1997), Deutsch states the following criterion for reality: we should "... regard as real those complex entities which, if we did not regard them as real, would complicate explanations". This appears to be no more than a simple restatement of [[Occam's Razor]]. Deutsch's argument is that we choose to accept as real the Heliocentric argument simply becsue it 'makes more sense' and offers more readily understood explanations. In fact Deutsch spends a good deal of the book discussing the two posisions. His view is that if we accept the Heliocentric reasoning through parsimony, we should also accept the view that the Universe is in fact a quantum [[multiverse]] by the same reasonsing. That means Heliocentrism is a philosophical position, not a scientific one, as we have no clear ''scientific'' basis of choosing between these explanations.
# Thirdly, it is clear that there are scientific arguments as to why the Geocentric Theory might be correct. For example : '''Gamma ray burst''' observations reported in "The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts" (ISBN 0-19-514570-4), by Jonathan I. Katz, professor of physics at Washington University: "The uniform distribution of burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center (some other extremely contrived and implausible distributions are also possible)." Another line of evidence referred to by modern geocentrists is related to '''quantized redshift'''. If the universe violates predictions from the FRW metric derived from General Relativity, it is not expanding but has a redshift-distance relation, and the redshifts of particular types of astronomical objects only take on certain values, that would suggest that the objects are located on shells concentric around the Earth, that is, that the location of the Earth is special.
# Fourthly as it is established that the acceptance of Heliocentrism is philosphical, and that there are scientific objections, it is therefore a matter of what we choose to believe, rather than what is established fact. Biblical arguments can be seen to be as valid in this context, and therefore should be shown prominently (in fact they are, but they need to be explored further).
# Finally, if this is a matter of beleief, we should foreground the matter of the Inquisition, and what Galieleo said or did not say then becomes crucial, as following the time of Galileo, science underwent a [[paradigm shift]] in belief away from Geocentricism towards Heliocentricism.

What Mmeelliissssaa and I are saying is therefore absolutely crucail to the article, and I totally object to the removal of it on specious grounds, and without discussion --[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 03:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

Talk:Geocentric theory

2007-05-07T07:52:53Z

OfficerDibble: /* Important elements to include in the Article */

I have added a paragraph about the scientific and biblical evidence for the Geocentric theory. I think there's a lot more that could be said here but I don't have time write it now. I'll probably add some more next week. - Mmeelliissssaa

: Your entry was kooky -- was it intended as a joke? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:25, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

No it wasn't. I appreciate that views like mine are not popular or wide spread, but aleast the bible verses and scientific evidence should be stated so that people can think about it. A admit that what I wrote wasn't brilliantly written, I'll rewrite it now that I have a bit more time. Please do some reasurch on the Michelson-Morley experiment rather than just deleting my stuff. Basicly scientists tried for ages to measure the motion of the earth through space, but the couldn't do it. The Michelson-Morley experiment was the first time they admited that they couldn't do it. Relatativity is illogical, people believe it because they are confused by it and they take scientists at their word. Why do people have so much faith in scientists instead of having faith in God when he says that the earth is "Fixed fast"? -Mmeelliissssaa [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 11:51, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Relativity is true, you're just gonna have to get used to it, and once you have, please remove the pseudo science from this article.

Here's the proof:

[http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment| Hafele-Keating experiment]

[http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html| GPS and relativity]

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: Relativity is not illogical. Please don't put this junk in, unless you can show the logical error in relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:30, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Did you read the Link I included? What do you say to that? I'm not interested in what Scientists say about Cesium clocks abd GPS, and you second link was broken. Heres my link again, this guy seems to know what he's talking about:
[http://www.thefinaltheory.com thefinaltheory.com]
I'll post a load more links when I have more time.
I'm just asking for my beliefs to mentioned so that people will be aware of them, thats all. Its fair that the article should mentioned evidence for AND against the Geocentric model. At least put the bible verses back in. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 05:42, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: The link is nonsense. Please do not put it back in. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:43, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

"The link is nonsense" thats not much of an argument is it? The guy is a genious and is currently making thousands / millions because he points out where science is going wrong and none of the experts can give an answer to him. Can't you even answer one of his points? Arn't you even going to try? I think that proves my point. The first chapter of his book is avalible online for free [http://www.thefinaltheory.com/viewchapter.html here]. He points out that the current theortical framework is full of contradictions and paradoxes, for instance on Page 17 of the book (page 23 of the PDF file) he explains that Newtons law of gravity is incompatable with the law of conservation of energy, on page 20 (26 of pdf) he shows that the work function is a flawed concept. On page 30 / 36 he start to put forward his alturnative theorys which include a purley geometric explanation of gravity.
The Science flaws section of his website highligts even more flaws in modern science [http://www.thefinaltheory.com/scienceflaws.html here] and he was links to articles in which scienctists admit that the don't have a clue how the world works [http://www.thefinaltheory.com/sciencearticles.html here]. Expalin that if you can [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:19, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Geocentric theory may be a minority view but I am not the only one. There are others who think the same way as me, there is evidence to support our beliefs and so our views should be mentioned here. Here are a list of websites suppoerting geocentric theory: 1) [http://www.geocentricity.com/ geocentricity.com] 2) [http://www.fixedearth.com/ fixedearth.com] 3) [http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/scicreed.htm Three] 4) [http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html Four]
[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:38, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

: The guy is a kook. No one should take the book seriously. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Could you please explain why you think he is "a kook". His ideas seem very logical to me. Thanks [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:10, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I've made some extensive changes. The article now gives some neutral information on geocentric theory with out promoting it or agreeing with it.
I apologise if my previous posts here have annoyed you, I just want my beliefs to be mentioned and I become somewhat defensive when my beliefs are so casually dismissed and ridiculed, that happens to me rather a lot. I hope you will agree that the article is now neutral and informative. I would welcome any constructive criticism or constructive edits to my work but please don't just delete it again, I have put work into it. Thank you. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:08, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

: No, your edits were not neutral or factual. They misstate Michelson-Morley, relativity, and geocentrism. Your beliefs are ridiculous, if you really believe that nonsense. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:25, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:: That is a dangerous precedent to claim. It might be applied to other articles. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:32, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I hope so. Nonsense like this should be removed from all the articles. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:04, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

You still haven't explained why you think the final theory book is "kooky", you don't discuss or argue your views at all, all you do here is insult me, insult my views, work and beliefs and vandalise the page. How did I misstate the Michelsom-Morley experiment? I accurately stated that most people took it as evidence of relativity rather than Geocentric theory, but minority views should be mentioned too, there is a huge a article on evolution for instance. How did I "misstate" relativity? I barely even mentioned it, except to say that most scientists believed in it, largely due to the M-M experiment. Stop vandalising the article. If you want to contribute to the article feel free, I think a section on evidence against Geocentric Theory could be beneficial to the article to give both sides of the argument. But if you do want to contribute you should stop vandalising the article and start discussing changes on the talk page instead of insulting me. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 09:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I've added a section for evidence against Geocentric Theory, I don't have time to put much in it at the mo, I'll do that another day, unless someone else would like to contribute for a change instead of deleting stuff.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 09:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

: You said the MM experiment was an "attempt to detect the absolute motion of the Earth through space". No, it was an attempt to measure motion of Earth relative to the aether. You said relativity postulates that space and time are distorted to make the Earth appear stationary. No, that's not right either. If you think that you have a valid view, then show me an example of one person who understands freshman physics and agrees with you. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:40, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:The aether was believed to be an absolution frame of reference therefor "Motion relative to aether" = "absolute motion through space". The two statments mean exactly the same thing. We can use your phrasing if you like, the meaning of the paragraph will remain unchanged.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::Many people have tried to create a [[Theory of everything]]. It's not for a trustworthy encyclopedia like ours to present cutting-edge research like that. [[Paradigm shift]]s in science can take decades. Let's just write up what we already know. Then later, if there's time, we can describe recent (possible) breakthroughs. Fair enough? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:43, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree that an encylopedia shouldn't endorse such cutting edge research yes, though I think it would be worth mentioning it. [[String theory]] has an entire article dedicated to it. Alturnative (To relativity) science is quite inportant to the Geocentric earth movement. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I've been advised to make smaller edits at a time, and to discuss them here before making them as well as afterwards so here goes. There are a number of Bible verses that describe the position and motion of the earth in space, and since that is what this article discusses I propose that they be added here. I propose that they be put in their own section at the end of the article. If known one has any objections I plan to make this change tomorrow. If anyone knows of some relevant verses please add / suggest them, I only know for off the top of my head but I know there are several others. Thank you [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, I object. You position has no significant support from either science or theology. You cannot meet the most minimal standards for a good edit. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:29, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::I do not object. I don't have any problem with stating what some people believe, or claim that the [[Bible]] says. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 12:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==Vandalism==
I have reverted edits* made by RSchlafly, as I consider them to be tantamount to vandalism. The material was well-sourced, relevant to the article as it stood, and fitted in well. There was no reason given for its removal. If this behavour persists, I shall report the user to a Sysop and request that he or she be banned from conservapedia.
* (*) Actually, it's not quite true that I have simply reverted the edits. I have actually incorporated the amterial into the article. '''OfficerDibble'''.

:: I have now reverted two uncommented upon edits by RSchlafly. I shall report this behaviour to a Sysop.

: Let me know if any sysops express the opinion that my version is vandalism.
: Your stuff is junk. Your sources are just obscure and incoherent opinions pieces. Do you have some disagreement with the text that you removed? If so, what? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Exactly in what way is my stuff junk? I have used Galieleo's OWN WORDS and I have used a reference to a interpreation of the Galileo repudiation of Heliocentrism by by a Catholic Scholar. EXACTLY WHY IS THAT JUNK?? You offend me by saying that. I have cited my sources which is more than the rest of the article is doing. Would it not have been best to engage in dialogue before you remove stuff? On what grounds are you the arbiter of what, or should not be in this article? AFIK, I did not remove any of your material. If I did, I apologise. What I did was to rearrange the article to include the stuff you had removed.[[OfficerDibble]]

:: In any case, Modern Geocentricism is alive and kicking. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism. You may not agree with it, but that does not mean that you are entield to remove amterial concerning it without discussion.

: You say "this view is apparently based ...". Is it or isn't it? Does anyone know? You quote someone saying, "One could probably derive it nowadays". Probably? Can it be done or not? Is it an unknown question? Then he says "Maybe physicists would be forced", so I guess he doesn't know. Why not quote someone who does know? This is an old subject, and it is not that complicated. You text continue in this confusing and contradictory manner. Later you go on to Galileo and other topics that are better dealt with elsewhere.
: To answer your Galileo question, your quote is not really his own words. He was forced to say that.
: If you wanted to engage in dialog, then you'd explain why you removed the text that you removed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::: I asked you to tell me what text I removed. You say that Galileo was forced to say it, but say it he did, and The quote I used origianlly from Deutsch clearly demonstrates that this is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. If you want me to find a clearer referecne I will, as it is absolutley true that the universal vieew could be reformulated as a Geocentric one, Galitleo's own theory of relativity states that all frames are rquivalent. It's just that it provides a convoluted motion of the planets, and by Occam#]s Razor we normmally go with Heliocentriscm. There is a debate here, and you should NOT just remove good material without discussion. I am LIVID.[[OfficerDibble]]

: Calm down. Go ahead and express your views here. What is the point of quoting Galileo? Galileo also expressed opposing views. Why not quote them? Why even bother with Galileo? His dispute with the Pope is well-known, but he wasn't otherwise so important in the history of geocentric theory. What point are you trying to make? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:18, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==Conservapedia Protocol==

I am under the impression that edits should not be summarily removed unless they are clearly vandalism or worthless. Floccinaucinihilipilification should not be undertaken lightly, as the author has probably gone to a lot of trouble wrting it and finding sources. Even if you disagree with the views, and thisnk tha arguments are nonsense, someone doesn't and (especially as in this case), there are people who hold these views as part of their religious beliefs. Conservapedia was set up to giv voices to those who felt they were being persecuted and diesnfranchised by Wikipedia. The edits to this article are tantamount to the same thing. I think this issue needs to be debated much more widely. [[OfficerDibble]]

: So you think that my edits are vandalism and I think that your edits are worthless. We have a difference of opinion. Go ahead debate CP policies elsewhere if you wish. I would rather discuss the subject matter of this article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Suggested Changes ==

I think we should mention Genisis in the Scripture section. Genisis says that the Earth was made on day one, and the sun, moon and stars were made on day four. By the end of day three there was an Earth, complete with plants, but no sun or moon. I think that cleary indicates that the earth is central and the other celestial objects periferal. Clearly the Heleocentric theory cannot explain how the earth and its plants could exist four 24hours with out a sun.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:14, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I also think we should add some links to Pro-Geocentric sites, Here are a few that I know of:1) [http://www.geocentricity.com/ geocentricity.com] 2) [http://www.fixedearth.com/ fixedearth.com] 3) [http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/scicreed.htm Three] 4) [http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html Four] 5)[http://www.galileowaswrong.com/ galileowaswrong.com]. I've heard somebody suggest that fixedearth.com may be a parody site, I think its real, it isn't really funny or trying to be funny like a parrody would. Sure in a few places the author presents his views in a slightly light hearted way but I don't see anything wrong with that.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 14:01, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

: So how do you explain plants living without sunlight? Maybe the answer could go in an article on Genesis.
: Do any of those sites say that mainstream physics is wrong is some testable way? Has anyone done the tests? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Important elements to include in the Article ==

I am trying to make five points in this article, which are NOT currently sufficiently clear as it stands:
# The use of a Geocentric or Heliocentric frame of reference is a matter of chooice, and not a matter of scientific proof. Both Galieleo and Einstein have relativistic principles which allow celestial mechanics to be viewed from whatever location you like. Bartosz Milewski (2006) states in reference to the Geocentric Theory: "Looking at the predictions it made of planetary movements, it is pretty good. One could probably derive it nowadays from the heliocentric theory by changing the system of coordinates (since the system attached to the Earth is not inertial, one would have to use Einstein's general relativity to do that correctly). Maybe physicists would be forced to introduce more cycles upon cycles to account for all the anomalies—maybe infinitely many. So even though the two theories differ in complexity, they are presumably equivalent in their predictive power." <ref> http://www.relisoft.com/Science/Physics/MicroAnt.html </ref> "If one treats the motions in the heavens as relative motions (whether Galilean relativity, Einstein's General Relativity, or other types), one can create a model of the cosmos which is consistent with observations from many (if not any) reference points.<ref>"http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html </ref> I can supply a hundred other sources which say the same thing. This is not in doubt, it is a fact and needs to be made clear.
# Secondly, I am pointing out that the preferred view by most scientists, is on the basis of a philosphical rather than a scientific position. For example, in 'The Fabric of Reality", by David Deutsch (1997), Deutsch states the following criterion for reality: we should "... regard as real those complex entities which, if we did not regard them as real, would complicate explanations". This appears to be no more than a simple restatement of [[Occam's Razor]]. Deutsch's argument is that we choose to accept as real the Heliocentric argument simply becsue it 'makes more sense' and offers more readily understood explanations. That means it is a philosophical position, not a scientific one, as we have no scientific basis of choosing between these explanations.
# Thirdly, it is clear that there are scientific arguments as to why the Geocentric Theory might be correct. For example : '''Gamma ray burst''' observations reported in "The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts" (ISBN 0-19-514570-4), by Jonathan I. Katz, professor of physics at Washington University: "The uniform distribution of burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center (some other extremely contrived and implausible distributions are also possible)." Another line of evidence referred to by modern geocentrists is related to '''quantized redshift'''. If the universe violates predictions from the FRW metric derived from General Relativity, it is not expanding but has a redshift-distance relation, and the redshifts of particular types of astronomical objects only take on certain values, that would suggest that the objects are located on shells concentric around the Earth, that is, that the location of the Earth is special.
# Fourthly as it is established that the acceptance of Heliocentrism is philosphical, and that there are scientific objections, it is therefore a matter of what we choose to believe, rather than what is established fact. Biblical arguments can be seen to be as valid in this context, and therefore should be shown prominently.
# Finally, if this is a matter of beleief, we should foreground the matter of the Inquisition, and what Galieleo said or did not say then becomes crucial, as following the time of Galileo, science underwent a [[paradigm shift]] in belief away from Geocentricism towards Heliocentricism.

What Mmeelliissssaa and I are saying is therefore absolutely crucail to the article, and I totally object to the removal of it on specious grounds, and without discussion --[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 03:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

Talk:Geocentric theory

2007-05-07T07:51:51Z

OfficerDibble: /* Important elements to include in the Article */

I have added a paragraph about the scientific and biblical evidence for the Geocentric theory. I think there's a lot more that could be said here but I don't have time write it now. I'll probably add some more next week. - Mmeelliissssaa

: Your entry was kooky -- was it intended as a joke? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:25, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

No it wasn't. I appreciate that views like mine are not popular or wide spread, but aleast the bible verses and scientific evidence should be stated so that people can think about it. A admit that what I wrote wasn't brilliantly written, I'll rewrite it now that I have a bit more time. Please do some reasurch on the Michelson-Morley experiment rather than just deleting my stuff. Basicly scientists tried for ages to measure the motion of the earth through space, but the couldn't do it. The Michelson-Morley experiment was the first time they admited that they couldn't do it. Relatativity is illogical, people believe it because they are confused by it and they take scientists at their word. Why do people have so much faith in scientists instead of having faith in God when he says that the earth is "Fixed fast"? -Mmeelliissssaa [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 11:51, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Relativity is true, you're just gonna have to get used to it, and once you have, please remove the pseudo science from this article.

Here's the proof:

[http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment| Hafele-Keating experiment]

[http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html| GPS and relativity]

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: Relativity is not illogical. Please don't put this junk in, unless you can show the logical error in relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:30, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Did you read the Link I included? What do you say to that? I'm not interested in what Scientists say about Cesium clocks abd GPS, and you second link was broken. Heres my link again, this guy seems to know what he's talking about:
[http://www.thefinaltheory.com thefinaltheory.com]
I'll post a load more links when I have more time.
I'm just asking for my beliefs to mentioned so that people will be aware of them, thats all. Its fair that the article should mentioned evidence for AND against the Geocentric model. At least put the bible verses back in. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 05:42, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: The link is nonsense. Please do not put it back in. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:43, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

"The link is nonsense" thats not much of an argument is it? The guy is a genious and is currently making thousands / millions because he points out where science is going wrong and none of the experts can give an answer to him. Can't you even answer one of his points? Arn't you even going to try? I think that proves my point. The first chapter of his book is avalible online for free [http://www.thefinaltheory.com/viewchapter.html here]. He points out that the current theortical framework is full of contradictions and paradoxes, for instance on Page 17 of the book (page 23 of the PDF file) he explains that Newtons law of gravity is incompatable with the law of conservation of energy, on page 20 (26 of pdf) he shows that the work function is a flawed concept. On page 30 / 36 he start to put forward his alturnative theorys which include a purley geometric explanation of gravity.
The Science flaws section of his website highligts even more flaws in modern science [http://www.thefinaltheory.com/scienceflaws.html here] and he was links to articles in which scienctists admit that the don't have a clue how the world works [http://www.thefinaltheory.com/sciencearticles.html here]. Expalin that if you can [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:19, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Geocentric theory may be a minority view but I am not the only one. There are others who think the same way as me, there is evidence to support our beliefs and so our views should be mentioned here. Here are a list of websites suppoerting geocentric theory: 1) [http://www.geocentricity.com/ geocentricity.com] 2) [http://www.fixedearth.com/ fixedearth.com] 3) [http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/scicreed.htm Three] 4) [http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html Four]
[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:38, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

: The guy is a kook. No one should take the book seriously. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Could you please explain why you think he is "a kook". His ideas seem very logical to me. Thanks [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:10, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I've made some extensive changes. The article now gives some neutral information on geocentric theory with out promoting it or agreeing with it.
I apologise if my previous posts here have annoyed you, I just want my beliefs to be mentioned and I become somewhat defensive when my beliefs are so casually dismissed and ridiculed, that happens to me rather a lot. I hope you will agree that the article is now neutral and informative. I would welcome any constructive criticism or constructive edits to my work but please don't just delete it again, I have put work into it. Thank you. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:08, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

: No, your edits were not neutral or factual. They misstate Michelson-Morley, relativity, and geocentrism. Your beliefs are ridiculous, if you really believe that nonsense. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:25, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:: That is a dangerous precedent to claim. It might be applied to other articles. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:32, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I hope so. Nonsense like this should be removed from all the articles. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:04, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

You still haven't explained why you think the final theory book is "kooky", you don't discuss or argue your views at all, all you do here is insult me, insult my views, work and beliefs and vandalise the page. How did I misstate the Michelsom-Morley experiment? I accurately stated that most people took it as evidence of relativity rather than Geocentric theory, but minority views should be mentioned too, there is a huge a article on evolution for instance. How did I "misstate" relativity? I barely even mentioned it, except to say that most scientists believed in it, largely due to the M-M experiment. Stop vandalising the article. If you want to contribute to the article feel free, I think a section on evidence against Geocentric Theory could be beneficial to the article to give both sides of the argument. But if you do want to contribute you should stop vandalising the article and start discussing changes on the talk page instead of insulting me. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 09:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I've added a section for evidence against Geocentric Theory, I don't have time to put much in it at the mo, I'll do that another day, unless someone else would like to contribute for a change instead of deleting stuff.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 09:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

: You said the MM experiment was an "attempt to detect the absolute motion of the Earth through space". No, it was an attempt to measure motion of Earth relative to the aether. You said relativity postulates that space and time are distorted to make the Earth appear stationary. No, that's not right either. If you think that you have a valid view, then show me an example of one person who understands freshman physics and agrees with you. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:40, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:The aether was believed to be an absolution frame of reference therefor "Motion relative to aether" = "absolute motion through space". The two statments mean exactly the same thing. We can use your phrasing if you like, the meaning of the paragraph will remain unchanged.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::Many people have tried to create a [[Theory of everything]]. It's not for a trustworthy encyclopedia like ours to present cutting-edge research like that. [[Paradigm shift]]s in science can take decades. Let's just write up what we already know. Then later, if there's time, we can describe recent (possible) breakthroughs. Fair enough? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:43, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree that an encylopedia shouldn't endorse such cutting edge research yes, though I think it would be worth mentioning it. [[String theory]] has an entire article dedicated to it. Alturnative (To relativity) science is quite inportant to the Geocentric earth movement. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I've been advised to make smaller edits at a time, and to discuss them here before making them as well as afterwards so here goes. There are a number of Bible verses that describe the position and motion of the earth in space, and since that is what this article discusses I propose that they be added here. I propose that they be put in their own section at the end of the article. If known one has any objections I plan to make this change tomorrow. If anyone knows of some relevant verses please add / suggest them, I only know for off the top of my head but I know there are several others. Thank you [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, I object. You position has no significant support from either science or theology. You cannot meet the most minimal standards for a good edit. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:29, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::I do not object. I don't have any problem with stating what some people believe, or claim that the [[Bible]] says. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 12:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==Vandalism==
I have reverted edits* made by RSchlafly, as I consider them to be tantamount to vandalism. The material was well-sourced, relevant to the article as it stood, and fitted in well. There was no reason given for its removal. If this behavour persists, I shall report the user to a Sysop and request that he or she be banned from conservapedia.
* (*) Actually, it's not quite true that I have simply reverted the edits. I have actually incorporated the amterial into the article. '''OfficerDibble'''.

:: I have now reverted two uncommented upon edits by RSchlafly. I shall report this behaviour to a Sysop.

: Let me know if any sysops express the opinion that my version is vandalism.
: Your stuff is junk. Your sources are just obscure and incoherent opinions pieces. Do you have some disagreement with the text that you removed? If so, what? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Exactly in what way is my stuff junk? I have used Galieleo's OWN WORDS and I have used a reference to a interpreation of the Galileo repudiation of Heliocentrism by by a Catholic Scholar. EXACTLY WHY IS THAT JUNK?? You offend me by saying that. I have cited my sources which is more than the rest of the article is doing. Would it not have been best to engage in dialogue before you remove stuff? On what grounds are you the arbiter of what, or should not be in this article? AFIK, I did not remove any of your material. If I did, I apologise. What I did was to rearrange the article to include the stuff you had removed.[[OfficerDibble]]

:: In any case, Modern Geocentricism is alive and kicking. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism. You may not agree with it, but that does not mean that you are entield to remove amterial concerning it without discussion.

: You say "this view is apparently based ...". Is it or isn't it? Does anyone know? You quote someone saying, "One could probably derive it nowadays". Probably? Can it be done or not? Is it an unknown question? Then he says "Maybe physicists would be forced", so I guess he doesn't know. Why not quote someone who does know? This is an old subject, and it is not that complicated. You text continue in this confusing and contradictory manner. Later you go on to Galileo and other topics that are better dealt with elsewhere.
: To answer your Galileo question, your quote is not really his own words. He was forced to say that.
: If you wanted to engage in dialog, then you'd explain why you removed the text that you removed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::: I asked you to tell me what text I removed. You say that Galileo was forced to say it, but say it he did, and The quote I used origianlly from Deutsch clearly demonstrates that this is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. If you want me to find a clearer referecne I will, as it is absolutley true that the universal vieew could be reformulated as a Geocentric one, Galitleo's own theory of relativity states that all frames are rquivalent. It's just that it provides a convoluted motion of the planets, and by Occam#]s Razor we normmally go with Heliocentriscm. There is a debate here, and you should NOT just remove good material without discussion. I am LIVID.[[OfficerDibble]]

: Calm down. Go ahead and express your views here. What is the point of quoting Galileo? Galileo also expressed opposing views. Why not quote them? Why even bother with Galileo? His dispute with the Pope is well-known, but he wasn't otherwise so important in the history of geocentric theory. What point are you trying to make? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:18, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==Conservapedia Protocol==

I am under the impression that edits should not be summarily removed unless they are clearly vandalism or worthless. Floccinaucinihilipilification should not be undertaken lightly, as the author has probably gone to a lot of trouble wrting it and finding sources. Even if you disagree with the views, and thisnk tha arguments are nonsense, someone doesn't and (especially as in this case), there are people who hold these views as part of their religious beliefs. Conservapedia was set up to giv voices to those who felt they were being persecuted and diesnfranchised by Wikipedia. The edits to this article are tantamount to the same thing. I think this issue needs to be debated much more widely. [[OfficerDibble]]

: So you think that my edits are vandalism and I think that your edits are worthless. We have a difference of opinion. Go ahead debate CP policies elsewhere if you wish. I would rather discuss the subject matter of this article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Suggested Changes ==

I think we should mention Genisis in the Scripture section. Genisis says that the Earth was made on day one, and the sun, moon and stars were made on day four. By the end of day three there was an Earth, complete with plants, but no sun or moon. I think that cleary indicates that the earth is central and the other celestial objects periferal. Clearly the Heleocentric theory cannot explain how the earth and its plants could exist four 24hours with out a sun.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:14, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I also think we should add some links to Pro-Geocentric sites, Here are a few that I know of:1) [http://www.geocentricity.com/ geocentricity.com] 2) [http://www.fixedearth.com/ fixedearth.com] 3) [http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/scicreed.htm Three] 4) [http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html Four] 5)[http://www.galileowaswrong.com/ galileowaswrong.com]. I've heard somebody suggest that fixedearth.com may be a parody site, I think its real, it isn't really funny or trying to be funny like a parrody would. Sure in a few places the author presents his views in a slightly light hearted way but I don't see anything wrong with that.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 14:01, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

: So how do you explain plants living without sunlight? Maybe the answer could go in an article on Genesis.
: Do any of those sites say that mainstream physics is wrong is some testable way? Has anyone done the tests? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Important elements to include in the Article ==

I am trying to make five points in this article, which are NOT currently sufficiently clear:
# The use of a Geocentric or Heliocentric frame of reference is a matter of chooice, and not a matter of scientific proof. Both Galieleo and Einstein have relativistic principles which allow celestial mechanics to be viewed from whatever location you like. Bartosz Milewski (2006) states in reference to the Geocentric Theory: "Looking at the predictions it made of planetary movements, it is pretty good. One could probably derive it nowadays from the heliocentric theory by changing the system of coordinates (since the system attached to the Earth is not inertial, one would have to use Einstein's general relativity to do that correctly). Maybe physicists would be forced to introduce more cycles upon cycles to account for all the anomalies—maybe infinitely many. So even though the two theories differ in complexity, they are presumably equivalent in their predictive power." <ref> http://www.relisoft.com/Science/Physics/MicroAnt.html </ref>
"If one treats the motions in the heavens as relative motions (whether Galilean relativity, Einstein's General Relativity, or other types), one can create a model of the cosmos which is consistent with observations from many (if not any) reference points.<ref>"http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html </ref> I can supply a hundred other sources which say the same thing. This is not in doubt, it is a fact and needs to be made clear.
# Secondly, I am pointing out that the preferred view by most scientists, is on the basis of a philosphical rather than a scientific position. For example, in 'The Fabric of Reality", by David Deutsch (1997), Deutsch states the following criterion for reality: we should "... regard as real those complex entities which, if we did not regard them as real, would complicate explanations". This appears to be no more than a simple restatement of [[Occam's Razor]]. Deutsch's argument is that we choose to accept as real the Heliocentric argument simply becsue it 'makes more sense' and offers more readily understood explanations. That means it is a philosophical position, not a scientific one, as we have no scientific basis of choosing between these explanations.
# Thirdly, it is clear that there are scientific arguments as to why the Geocentric Theory might be correct. For example : '''Gamma ray burst''' observations reported in "The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts" (ISBN 0-19-514570-4), by Jonathan I. Katz, professor of physics at Washington University: "The uniform distribution of burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center (some other extremely contrived and implausible distributions are also possible)." Another line of evidence referred to by modern geocentrists is related to '''quantized redshift'''. If the universe violates predictions from the FRW metric derived from General Relativity, it is not expanding but has a redshift-distance relation, and the redshifts of particular types of astronomical objects only take on certain values, that would suggest that the objects are located on shells concentric around the Earth, that is, that the location of the Earth is special.
# Fourthly as it is established that the acceptance of Heliocentrism is philosphical, and that there are scientific objections, it is therefore a matter of what we choose to believe, rather than what is established fact. Biblical arguments can be seen to be as valid in this context, and therefore should be shown prominently.
# Finally, if this is a matter of beleief, we should foreground the matter of the Inquisition, and what Galieleo said or did not say then becomes crucial, as following the time of Galileo, science underwent a [[paradigm shift]] in belief away from Geocentricism towards Heliocentricism.

What Mmeelliissssaa and I are saying is therefore absolutely crucail to the article, and I totally object to the removal of it on specious grounds, and without discussion --[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 03:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

Talk:Geocentric theory

2007-05-07T07:50:16Z

OfficerDibble: Important elements to include in the Article

I have added a paragraph about the scientific and biblical evidence for the Geocentric theory. I think there's a lot more that could be said here but I don't have time write it now. I'll probably add some more next week. - Mmeelliissssaa

: Your entry was kooky -- was it intended as a joke? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:25, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

No it wasn't. I appreciate that views like mine are not popular or wide spread, but aleast the bible verses and scientific evidence should be stated so that people can think about it. A admit that what I wrote wasn't brilliantly written, I'll rewrite it now that I have a bit more time. Please do some reasurch on the Michelson-Morley experiment rather than just deleting my stuff. Basicly scientists tried for ages to measure the motion of the earth through space, but the couldn't do it. The Michelson-Morley experiment was the first time they admited that they couldn't do it. Relatativity is illogical, people believe it because they are confused by it and they take scientists at their word. Why do people have so much faith in scientists instead of having faith in God when he says that the earth is "Fixed fast"? -Mmeelliissssaa [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 11:51, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Relativity is true, you're just gonna have to get used to it, and once you have, please remove the pseudo science from this article.

Here's the proof:

[http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment| Hafele-Keating experiment]

[http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html| GPS and relativity]

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: Relativity is not illogical. Please don't put this junk in, unless you can show the logical error in relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:30, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Did you read the Link I included? What do you say to that? I'm not interested in what Scientists say about Cesium clocks abd GPS, and you second link was broken. Heres my link again, this guy seems to know what he's talking about:
[http://www.thefinaltheory.com thefinaltheory.com]
I'll post a load more links when I have more time.
I'm just asking for my beliefs to mentioned so that people will be aware of them, thats all. Its fair that the article should mentioned evidence for AND against the Geocentric model. At least put the bible verses back in. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 05:42, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: The link is nonsense. Please do not put it back in. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:43, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

"The link is nonsense" thats not much of an argument is it? The guy is a genious and is currently making thousands / millions because he points out where science is going wrong and none of the experts can give an answer to him. Can't you even answer one of his points? Arn't you even going to try? I think that proves my point. The first chapter of his book is avalible online for free [http://www.thefinaltheory.com/viewchapter.html here]. He points out that the current theortical framework is full of contradictions and paradoxes, for instance on Page 17 of the book (page 23 of the PDF file) he explains that Newtons law of gravity is incompatable with the law of conservation of energy, on page 20 (26 of pdf) he shows that the work function is a flawed concept. On page 30 / 36 he start to put forward his alturnative theorys which include a purley geometric explanation of gravity.
The Science flaws section of his website highligts even more flaws in modern science [http://www.thefinaltheory.com/scienceflaws.html here] and he was links to articles in which scienctists admit that the don't have a clue how the world works [http://www.thefinaltheory.com/sciencearticles.html here]. Expalin that if you can [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:19, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Geocentric theory may be a minority view but I am not the only one. There are others who think the same way as me, there is evidence to support our beliefs and so our views should be mentioned here. Here are a list of websites suppoerting geocentric theory: 1) [http://www.geocentricity.com/ geocentricity.com] 2) [http://www.fixedearth.com/ fixedearth.com] 3) [http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/scicreed.htm Three] 4) [http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html Four]
[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:38, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

: The guy is a kook. No one should take the book seriously. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Could you please explain why you think he is "a kook". His ideas seem very logical to me. Thanks [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:10, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I've made some extensive changes. The article now gives some neutral information on geocentric theory with out promoting it or agreeing with it.
I apologise if my previous posts here have annoyed you, I just want my beliefs to be mentioned and I become somewhat defensive when my beliefs are so casually dismissed and ridiculed, that happens to me rather a lot. I hope you will agree that the article is now neutral and informative. I would welcome any constructive criticism or constructive edits to my work but please don't just delete it again, I have put work into it. Thank you. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:08, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

: No, your edits were not neutral or factual. They misstate Michelson-Morley, relativity, and geocentrism. Your beliefs are ridiculous, if you really believe that nonsense. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:25, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:: That is a dangerous precedent to claim. It might be applied to other articles. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:32, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I hope so. Nonsense like this should be removed from all the articles. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:04, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

You still haven't explained why you think the final theory book is "kooky", you don't discuss or argue your views at all, all you do here is insult me, insult my views, work and beliefs and vandalise the page. How did I misstate the Michelsom-Morley experiment? I accurately stated that most people took it as evidence of relativity rather than Geocentric theory, but minority views should be mentioned too, there is a huge a article on evolution for instance. How did I "misstate" relativity? I barely even mentioned it, except to say that most scientists believed in it, largely due to the M-M experiment. Stop vandalising the article. If you want to contribute to the article feel free, I think a section on evidence against Geocentric Theory could be beneficial to the article to give both sides of the argument. But if you do want to contribute you should stop vandalising the article and start discussing changes on the talk page instead of insulting me. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 09:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I've added a section for evidence against Geocentric Theory, I don't have time to put much in it at the mo, I'll do that another day, unless someone else would like to contribute for a change instead of deleting stuff.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 09:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

: You said the MM experiment was an "attempt to detect the absolute motion of the Earth through space". No, it was an attempt to measure motion of Earth relative to the aether. You said relativity postulates that space and time are distorted to make the Earth appear stationary. No, that's not right either. If you think that you have a valid view, then show me an example of one person who understands freshman physics and agrees with you. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:40, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:The aether was believed to be an absolution frame of reference therefor "Motion relative to aether" = "absolute motion through space". The two statments mean exactly the same thing. We can use your phrasing if you like, the meaning of the paragraph will remain unchanged.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::Many people have tried to create a [[Theory of everything]]. It's not for a trustworthy encyclopedia like ours to present cutting-edge research like that. [[Paradigm shift]]s in science can take decades. Let's just write up what we already know. Then later, if there's time, we can describe recent (possible) breakthroughs. Fair enough? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:43, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree that an encylopedia shouldn't endorse such cutting edge research yes, though I think it would be worth mentioning it. [[String theory]] has an entire article dedicated to it. Alturnative (To relativity) science is quite inportant to the Geocentric earth movement. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I've been advised to make smaller edits at a time, and to discuss them here before making them as well as afterwards so here goes. There are a number of Bible verses that describe the position and motion of the earth in space, and since that is what this article discusses I propose that they be added here. I propose that they be put in their own section at the end of the article. If known one has any objections I plan to make this change tomorrow. If anyone knows of some relevant verses please add / suggest them, I only know for off the top of my head but I know there are several others. Thank you [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, I object. You position has no significant support from either science or theology. You cannot meet the most minimal standards for a good edit. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:29, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::I do not object. I don't have any problem with stating what some people believe, or claim that the [[Bible]] says. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 12:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==Vandalism==
I have reverted edits* made by RSchlafly, as I consider them to be tantamount to vandalism. The material was well-sourced, relevant to the article as it stood, and fitted in well. There was no reason given for its removal. If this behavour persists, I shall report the user to a Sysop and request that he or she be banned from conservapedia.
* (*) Actually, it's not quite true that I have simply reverted the edits. I have actually incorporated the amterial into the article. '''OfficerDibble'''.

:: I have now reverted two uncommented upon edits by RSchlafly. I shall report this behaviour to a Sysop.

: Let me know if any sysops express the opinion that my version is vandalism.
: Your stuff is junk. Your sources are just obscure and incoherent opinions pieces. Do you have some disagreement with the text that you removed? If so, what? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Exactly in what way is my stuff junk? I have used Galieleo's OWN WORDS and I have used a reference to a interpreation of the Galileo repudiation of Heliocentrism by by a Catholic Scholar. EXACTLY WHY IS THAT JUNK?? You offend me by saying that. I have cited my sources which is more than the rest of the article is doing. Would it not have been best to engage in dialogue before you remove stuff? On what grounds are you the arbiter of what, or should not be in this article? AFIK, I did not remove any of your material. If I did, I apologise. What I did was to rearrange the article to include the stuff you had removed.[[OfficerDibble]]

:: In any case, Modern Geocentricism is alive and kicking. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism. You may not agree with it, but that does not mean that you are entield to remove amterial concerning it without discussion.

: You say "this view is apparently based ...". Is it or isn't it? Does anyone know? You quote someone saying, "One could probably derive it nowadays". Probably? Can it be done or not? Is it an unknown question? Then he says "Maybe physicists would be forced", so I guess he doesn't know. Why not quote someone who does know? This is an old subject, and it is not that complicated. You text continue in this confusing and contradictory manner. Later you go on to Galileo and other topics that are better dealt with elsewhere.
: To answer your Galileo question, your quote is not really his own words. He was forced to say that.
: If you wanted to engage in dialog, then you'd explain why you removed the text that you removed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::: I asked you to tell me what text I removed. You say that Galileo was forced to say it, but say it he did, and The quote I used origianlly from Deutsch clearly demonstrates that this is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. If you want me to find a clearer referecne I will, as it is absolutley true that the universal vieew could be reformulated as a Geocentric one, Galitleo's own theory of relativity states that all frames are rquivalent. It's just that it provides a convoluted motion of the planets, and by Occam#]s Razor we normmally go with Heliocentriscm. There is a debate here, and you should NOT just remove good material without discussion. I am LIVID.[[OfficerDibble]]

: Calm down. Go ahead and express your views here. What is the point of quoting Galileo? Galileo also expressed opposing views. Why not quote them? Why even bother with Galileo? His dispute with the Pope is well-known, but he wasn't otherwise so important in the history of geocentric theory. What point are you trying to make? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:18, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==Conservapedia Protocol==

I am under the impression that edits should not be summarily removed unless they are clearly vandalism or worthless. Floccinaucinihilipilification should not be undertaken lightly, as the author has probably gone to a lot of trouble wrting it and finding sources. Even if you disagree with the views, and thisnk tha arguments are nonsense, someone doesn't and (especially as in this case), there are people who hold these views as part of their religious beliefs. Conservapedia was set up to giv voices to those who felt they were being persecuted and diesnfranchised by Wikipedia. The edits to this article are tantamount to the same thing. I think this issue needs to be debated much more widely. [[OfficerDibble]]

: So you think that my edits are vandalism and I think that your edits are worthless. We have a difference of opinion. Go ahead debate CP policies elsewhere if you wish. I would rather discuss the subject matter of this article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Suggested Changes ==

I think we should mention Genisis in the Scripture section. Genisis says that the Earth was made on day one, and the sun, moon and stars were made on day four. By the end of day three there was an Earth, complete with plants, but no sun or moon. I think that cleary indicates that the earth is central and the other celestial objects periferal. Clearly the Heleocentric theory cannot explain how the earth and its plants could exist four 24hours with out a sun.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:14, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I also think we should add some links to Pro-Geocentric sites, Here are a few that I know of:1) [http://www.geocentricity.com/ geocentricity.com] 2) [http://www.fixedearth.com/ fixedearth.com] 3) [http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/scicreed.htm Three] 4) [http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html Four] 5)[http://www.galileowaswrong.com/ galileowaswrong.com]. I've heard somebody suggest that fixedearth.com may be a parody site, I think its real, it isn't really funny or trying to be funny like a parrody would. Sure in a few places the author presents his views in a slightly light hearted way but I don't see anything wrong with that.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 14:01, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

: So how do you explain plants living without sunlight? Maybe the answer could go in an article on Genesis.
: Do any of those sites say that mainstream physics is wrong is some testable way? Has anyone done the tests? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Important elements to include in the Article ==

I am trying to make five points in this article, which are NOT currently sufficiently clear:
# The use of a Geocentric or Heliocentric frame of reference is a matter of chooice, and not a matter of scientific proof. Both Galieleo and Einstein have relativistic principles which allow celestial mechanics to be viewed from whatever location you like. Bartosz Milewski (2006) states in reference to the Geocentric Theory: "Looking at the predictions it made of planetary movements, it is pretty good. One could probably derive it nowadays from the heliocentric theory by changing the system of coordinates (since the system attached to the Earth is not inertial, one would have to use Einstein's general relativity to do that correctly). Maybe physicists would be forced to introduce more cycles upon cycles to account for all the anomalies—maybe infinitely many. So even though the two theories differ in complexity, they are presumably equivalent in their predictive power." <ref> http://www.relisoft.com/Science/Physics/MicroAnt.html </ref>
"If one treats the motions in the heavens as relative motions (whether Galilean relativity, Einstein's General Relativity, or other types), one can create a model of the cosmos which is consistent with observations from many (if not any) reference points.<ref/>"http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html <ref> I can supply a hundred other sources which say the same thing. This is not in doubt, it is a fact and needs to be made clear.
# Secondly, I am pointing out that the preferred view by most scientists, is on the basis of a philosphical rather than a scientific position. For example, in 'The Fabric of Reality", by David Deutsch (1997), Deutsch states the following criterion for reality: we should "... regard as real those complex entities which, if we did not regard them as real, would complicate explanations". This appears to be no more than a simple restatement of [[Occam's Razor]]. Deutsch's argument is that we choose to accept as real the Heliocentric argument simply becsue it 'makes more sense' and offers more readily understood explanations. That means it is a philosophical position, not a scientific one, as we have no scientific basis of choosing between these explanations.
# Thirdly, it is clear that there are scientific arguments as to why the Geocentric Theory might be correct. For example : '''Gamma ray burst''' observations reported in "The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts" (ISBN 0-19-514570-4), by Jonathan I. Katz, professor of physics at Washington University: "The uniform distribution of burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center (some other extremely contrived and implausible distributions are also possible)." Another line of evidence referred to by modern geocentrists is related to '''quantized redshift'''. If the universe violates predictions from the FRW metric derived from General Relativity, it is not expanding but has a redshift-distance relation, and the redshifts of particular types of astronomical objects only take on certain values, that would suggest that the objects are located on shells concentric around the Earth, that is, that the location of the Earth is special.
# Fourthly as it is established that the acceptance of Heliocentrism is philosphical, and that there are scientific objections, it is therefore a matter of what we choose to believe, rather than what is established fact. Biblical arguments can be seen to be as valid in this context, and therefore should be shown prominently.
# Finally, if this is a matter of beleief, we should foreground the matter of the Inquisition, and what Galieleo said or did not say then becomes crucial, as following the time of Galileo, science underwent a [[paradigm shift]] in belief away from Geocentricism towards Heliocentricism.

What Mmeelliissssaa and I are saying is therefore absolutely crucail to the article, and I totally object to the removal of it on specious grounds, and without discussion --~~~~
<references/>

User talk:RSchlafly

2007-05-06T09:29:36Z

OfficerDibble: /* Wiki-Conservapedia? */

good edit to Einstein article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks Roger. Whatever I can do to help, let me know. Are there any plans for coordinated projects similiar to like they have over in, you know, that other place? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:48, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Review==
Roger, here's some material you may wish to review regarding "expansion of due process", [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fourteenth_Amendment&diff=21204&oldid=14972]

:''it can be argued that the legislative intent of the Amendment was especially to grow with the times, which it certainly has done.'' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Gospel of Thomas ==

It is true that the [[Gospel of Thomas]] is not part of the Bible, and not recognized outside the Coptic Christian church; I simply wanted to clarify that it nevertheless is a valuable source of information about early Christian beliefs, and that many Christians today do find great value in it. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 15:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: It is my understanding that Christians have historically regarded these apocryphal gospels as being tainted with heresy. Yes, fascinating, but fascinating in the way that heresy is fascinating. I didn't want the Thomas entry to imply that Thomas is a good source of Christian beliefs. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks for your reply. I have amended the entry, both on the [[Gospels]] and the [[Gospel of Thomas]], to make this more explicitly clear.

::[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 17:42, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== reply ==

I banned him because 3 times in row he posted to my userpage the same cross examination type garbage much of which (if not all) was unrelated to the article in question. I warned him to stop though and he ignored me. Three strikes and your out.

Secondly, are you related to Aschlafly? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: Yes, Aschlafly is my brother. I had nothing to do with creating Conservapedia; I first learned about it from reading blogs. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:56, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

That is wrong! your own brother didnt tell you! Mr. Schlafly! how could you! j/k :) welcome aboard. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 17:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== [[Scientology]] ==

Hello RSchlafly. In your recent modification to the article, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=43627&oldid=43502], you introduced that "not everyone considers it to be a religion". But that would be true of any religion that can be named, some people, somewhere, will consider it to not be a 'true' religion. Are we really trying to present such value judgements to our readers? Can't we simply be brief and to the point and inform readers, then let readers do as they like with their information? If we remain conservative and steadfast and present good, clean information, clear of bias and potential confusions or criticsm, our readers are better served, don't you think ? Yes, there are controversial issues the Church of Scientology has involved itself in but are those actually necessary to a brief, clear description of the religion? Can we discuss, please ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 14:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I was understating the controversy. I think that it is fair to say that most people do not consider Scientology a religion. IRS did not, until just a few years ago. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Okay. How does one explain news items like this one [http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/16921716.htm] ("Scientology Religion") in the Kansas City Star ? Or the 7000+ hits a person gets by googling "Scientology" (its religous locations) at google maps? Or the many website pages about the Scientology Religion? There is nothing like that for a "Scientology Cult" search, with the exception of thousands of pages of criticsm. If an organization presents itself as a religion, is accepted by most governments as a religion, is presented in newspapers as a religion, then shouldn't we present it as a religion, too ? On the other hand, if an article is to be large, then other points of view could be presented ? But if small, then why not as direct and simple as possible ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I did your test, and I found 113,000 google hits for "scientology religion", and 168,000 hit for "scientology cult". This does indeed suggest that more people call it a cult than a religion. But that is just one controversy. Care to say anything about psychotherapy? The Xenu story? Battles over leaks of the OT documents? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Sure, I'll talk with you about anything you like. psychotherapy sucks, no one who knows the myth talks, the Church defends itself vigorously in court. The critics are loud, the critics can publish cheaply. A simplicity of the situation exists, but how can a person view the simplicity, there's the question, would you say? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 09:39, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==McCarthy==
Much of the material [[User:PF Fox]] is "obsolete and deprecated", as per WP's new WP:ATTFAQ' I fought for this along time ago. Plus there is evidence of trolling on the talk page, as I forecasted. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=next&oldid=32278] I would propose a roll back to my version, with whatever material you may wish to save from the recent editing, and then Page Protection. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: My inclination is to start a section titled, "Criticism of McCarthy's methods", and start it by saying: "It is often alleged that McCarthy's methods were irresponsible, inhumane, and reckless. Here are some examples of where his committee supposedly ruined lives." Then let PF Fox put in his most egregious examples, as long as they are factual. You want to do it? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::I've protected the page. That sounds like a good idea. Let's have PF Fox place his proposed language on the Talk page while I work on completing the Venona materials. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Newton ==
I have copied the conversation below onto the [[Isaac Newton]] talk page. I think it makes more sense to have it there for future reference. If we need to continue the conversation, let's do so over there. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 07:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I bet Isaac Newton cared about his title of "sir." Not to split hairs. Publicly evaluating a person's legacy based on your opinion of it is a bad idea, and sounds like opinion forbidden by the Commandments.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 01:02, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: Sure, Newton may have cared, in the way that people care about honorary degrees and awards. Maybe he got some privileges from it, I don't know. But nobility status carries no weight with the typical American reader of Conservapedia. Nobody knows what Newton did to get that title, or why the title should make anyone deserving of any respect. It is just stupid and meaningless.
: Newton was a great man, and I am not putting him down. He is great for what he did, not because he was friends with some silly king or however he got the title. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:'Sir' is a title of respect. Not placing it would be equivalent to removing Doctor from the name of those holding a doctorate. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It is only a title of respect among fans of British nobility. Besides, encyclopedias do not normally list people with doctorates under the title "Doctor". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, can the bold text at least show that he was a peer? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I assume that you are joking. I don't know what a peer is, except that my dictionary says that it has something to do with British nobility. I think that the average American has very low respect for British nobility. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:A Peer of the Realm is a member of the British nobility. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:"Nobody knows what Newton did to get that title, or why the title should make anyone deserving of any respect. It is just stupid and meaningless." ... "I don't know what a peer is, except that my dictionary says that it has something to do with British nobility. I think that the average American has very low respect for British nobility." Are you serious? You don't know what Newton did that resulted in his title? I'd guess Calculus? Maybe Gravity? That deserves a heck of a lot of respect. I don't think we need to know the ins and outs of honorary titles in Britain to understand the basics of this one. According to Answers in Genesis, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i3/newton.asp] "His country officially recognized his work in 1705 when he became the first person to receive a knighthood for scientific achievement." Surely this is important enough to include his "Sir"? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:51, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, I am serious. No American has any respect for British nobility titles. Apparently you don't know how Newton got the title either, because you are just guessing. You have a source that says that it was for "his work". Okay, that narrows it a little bit. It wasn't for his relatives. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood my comment, as you misunderstood [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]]'s use of the term "peer". I guess we need to back up a bit. In Britian, knighthoods are given for exceptional achievement or service to the nation, much like the USA gives the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal. Newton was the first to be made a knight for scientific achievement rather than prowess on the battlefield. (From doesgodexist.org: "In 1705, Queen Anne knighted him, Sir Isaac Newton. It was the first knighthood for scientific discoveries rather than deeds on the battlefield or in government." [http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec01/IsaacNewtonAndGodsLawOfGravity.html]) Thus Newton was given his title for his *body of work*, which of course included topics like gravity and calculus. I understand that *you* have no respect for such awards. Indeed, there is some controversy over modern versions, even in Britian (see [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/23/world/main590022.shtml]). However, I think it's simply not true to say that *No* American has any respect for British nobility titles - see [[User:Robledo|Robledo]]'s examples below. Given that Newton's achievements were so great as to be awarded an honor that had previously been given only for military prowess, I think the "Sir" is worth keeping. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Honorary knighthoods (accepted & thus I'm guessing respected...)

* George Bush
* Ronald Reagan
* Colin Powell
* General Norman Schwarzkopf
* Bob Hope

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1091938.stm

Any more sweepingly daft generalisations to make? :P --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 20:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, you've made it for me. I've never heard any American call any of those men "sir". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:01, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Naturally....none of them are British citizens. Read the [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1091938.stm source], son....third paragraph. *sighs* --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 21:26, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's because it is inappropriate for an American to use such a title.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1091938.stm] Newton, however, was not American, thus the use of the title is appropriate. I know this stuff is complicated. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Exactly. To put it in context. "Bono" will never be "Sir Bono" (aside from the fact that his real name is Paul Hewson) because he is not a British citizen. So he can never be a "Sir". However, Newton ''was'' a British citizen, or a subject of the queen (or king), if you will. So he should be referred to by his correct title. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 21:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It's a simple matter of respect. "Sir" is his title in his native country and therefore should be the title that he is addressed by whenever he is addressed, wherever he is addressed. Aside from that argument, he is known the world over as "Sir Isaac Newton".[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 21:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

My students are fond of this song about Sir Issac - it's in MP3 format. [http://www.acme.com/jef/singing_science/newton-160.mp3]--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:32, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Theory ==

I would like to argue [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_Theory&diff=64382&oldid=63053 this] edit. It is an extremely important distinction, because scientifically, nothing can ever really be proven. Gravity, relativity, etc. are all still theories, but are backed up with massive amounts of evidence, and are used regularly as facts. In any usage outside science, "theory" usually means a "hunch", or unsubstantiated guess. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:05, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: I just don't think that it is true that usage of "theory" outside science is significantly different from its usage in science. Do you have any source for that? Theories have varying levels of substantiation, both inside and outside science. I think that the distinction is completely bogus and misleading.
: Why is this so important, anyway? The subject of what can be proven is another topic. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Any self-respecting scientist would never use the term theory to mean an unsubstantiated guess. Theories do not have varying levels of substantiation, only the true definition and the misuse by everyone else. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: That is just not true. Physicists use the term "String Theory", even tho it is just an unsubstantiated guess. Where is the evidence that scientists use the word "theory" differently from others? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Regarding string theory, it has a large amount of "evidence" backing it up. That doesn't mean it's true, but it's certainly not an unsubstantiated guess. Regarding how scientists use the word differently, ask anybody with any sort of involvement in science, it's considered common knowledge that a scientific theory is different than a "guess". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:51, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: No, there is no evidence for String Theory. The disputed section has no cited source, and is contrary to common knowledge. Are you just giving your opinion, or can you cite a source? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:04, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
It's not a disputed fact that theory in the scientific community is not the same as a hypothesis. Sorry. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Correct, that point is not under dispute. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Theory II ==
Is there a reason for [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory&diff=next&oldid=64081]] this edit? What was objectionable? --[[User:Letusratiocinate|Letusratiocinate]] 04:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I apologize for the ad hominem attack, but there is nothing disputed about what is said in those entries. And protecting articles only hurts the site. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Those entries certainly are disputed. I disputed them on the Talk pages, and here. The disputed material has no cited sources. I only protected the page because of the removal of the "disputed" tag. If you are right and I am wrong, then you should be able to give some evidence on the Talk page or here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no disputing the difference between common usage of theory and the scientific meaning. Look it up in a dictionary and you'll see theory is defined as both. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The disputed section says that a common speech theory is different from a scientific theory, with the former being an "unsubstantiated guess" and the latter having to be "well-supported and accepted". My dictionaries don't say any of those things, and they don't reflect any popular or scientific usage to my knowledge. I'd be happy to use a dictionary definition, but if you want something else, then you should provide some support for it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Look at webster's online. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 05:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: I looked at Merriam-Webster's, American Heritage, Compact Oxford English, Encarta, and a couple of others. They all disagree with you. You are promoting the oddball definition, so you find support for it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:21, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

A theory, as defined by Merriam-Webster:

1 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
2 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
3 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave ''theory'' of light>
4 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption :CONJECTURE

As you can see, definition 3 is different than the others. This is because a ''scientific theory'' must follow what is known as the ''scientific method''. The Scientific method is "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses". Of course, gravity, relativity, the theory of light, etc. are all unproven, but they are all backed up by massive amounts of evidence. A scientific theory is supported by evidence, though in modern usage outside of science, "theory" is synonymous with "guess". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:29, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Your definition shows that your last sentence is wrong on both counts. A scientific theory does ''not'' have to be supported by evidence. In modern usage outside of science, "theory" is ''not'' synonymous with "guess". I am tempted to add a paragraph explaining this point. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:17, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== [[Theory of Relativity/draft]] ==

Please stop. Special and general relativity are separate theories. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 14:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: What do you mean by that? They are certainly closely related, conceptually and historically. Putting them in separate sections already implies differences. Saying that they are separate without any explanation of the difference is just stupid and misleading. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:38, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::GR describes gravity, SR describes objects relative to each other. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 07:06, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, but they are not separate. SR is just GR without the gravity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Wrong, dude. Please stop pretending that you and Andy are experts on everything. Andy's obviously not even an expert on theories of constitutional interpretation. Nor are you an expert on physics. Anyways, special relativity deals with time & length dilation and the [[Lorentz Transformation]]. GR is an explanation of gravity and spacetime curvature. Completely different except the name.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, I am not wrong. I can see from your comments that you know very little about either subject. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::These are difficult subjects, and I myself don't understand either one well. I can do the math of the Lorentz transformation - where fast things get heavy, though.

::We need to make this subject accessible to our readership. If this means a simple (basic?) article which mentions both ideas, that will be a good start. We can use the {{tl|main}} template (or something like it: {spinoff} or {more detail}) to refer the reader to an in-depth treatment.

::Who wants to volunteer for any part of this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Roger is correct; not only are GR and SR not 'separate,' SR is a limiting case of GR, just as Newtonian mechanics is a limiting case of SR. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:29, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::How's that work? I guess I don't understand it.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:32, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I'll try to put in an explanation if no one else does. Currently, there are two relativity pages, and both need a lot of work. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:15, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::GR generally operates in curved spacetime; in SR spacetime is always flat. But if you plug a flat spacetime into the equations of GR, SR is what falls out. The connection is not only quite deep, but very useful too; in any smooth, curved space, one can always pick a sufficiently small patch such that curvature can be safely neglected. In practical terms, this means that any observer can always choose to work within a region of spacetime small enough to make SR an arbitrarily good approximation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Yes, that is correct. SR approximates GR in the way that a tangent line approximates a curve. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: They were developed in very different ways and at very different times '''and''' they are taught in very different ways and at very different times in university. They deserve completely separate articles (I am educated to graduate level on both). [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I believe the latest version of the draft is mine. I'm knowledgeable of Special Relativity and I was trying to explain it in as basic terms as possible. I don't know much about General Relativity other than what I've picked up from other people. However RSchlafly I hope you realise that gravity is a fairly complex force which adds a lot of extra levels of difficulty onto Special Relativity. If anything they should be given different sections simply because they are so abominably different in scale. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:11, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, Special Relativity is simpler. That is why it is called "special". I favor one article titled Relativity that tries to give a concise explanation. There are many textbooks on the subject if the reader really wants the full course. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Personally, I'd favour Relativity as a very short concise "these are the principles of" style article (a sentence or two on each) with links to separate articles for each of the two theories. Also, because it is specialised, "simpler" is not the word. It is "simpler" because the maths is less hardcore, two very different things. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:54, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== Copernicus ==

Your biased editing is an insult to the subjects you touch, to the site, and to your brother's ideals. Please defend your edits to the Copernicus article stating that those problems ''still exist in modern astronomy today'' (preposterous!) and your blatant POV articles to the Scalia article. Please use new arguments that I have not already refuted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:23, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, you have not refuted anything. Your edits are false, malicious, misleading, and disrupted. You do not defend what you do on the Talk pages. Please stop, or I'll have to block you.
: I did not say that those problems "still exist in modern astronomy today". Reread it. I even gave a date for resolving the parallax problem. Your change called Tycho one of "previous astronomers". That is not correct, as Tycho lived after Copernicus.
: Your changes to Scalia's article are also completely unacceptable. No encyclopedia would say that. You are trying to put words in his mouth that he never said. If you have proof that Scalia is against desegregation, then document it. Otherwise, don't say it. The article is about Scalia and what he has said and done, not about your personal speculations about what his opinions might have been in the 1950s.
: You are becoming a nuisance. Use the Talk pages to make your points. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:40, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::I blocked him. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:42, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't know AmesG's other work. My objection is to these edits: Scalia [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Antonin_Scalia&diff=69941&oldid=69913] Copernicus [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nicolaus_Copernicus&diff=71299&oldid=71288] Theory [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory&curid=7019&diff=71251&oldid=71242&rcid=73770], and to his subsequent edit wars over those edits. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:12, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What's wrong with the Brahe insert? He did solve many of the problems with Copernicus' theory.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:16, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Tycho Brahe did some important works, as did dozens of later eminent astronomers. I think that AmesG's comments were inappropriate because it is peculiar to single out Tycho in this context, Tycho was not a "previous astronomer", and Tycho did not solve any of the 3 problems that were mentioned in the previous sentence. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:27, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::*Just a little note here, a quick check of the edit history of the page reveals AmesG's edit '''''did not''''' say that Tycho was a "previous astronomer" but in fact, said the exact opposite! http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nicolaus_Copernicus&oldid=71299 . HTH [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 15:03, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::As to the other two, I think Ames could've left out the Brown v. Board part and left it at that. And most of the "Theory" part is good, except for this: " In fact, it is hard to find anyone who makes this distinction, outside those who are promoting the theory of evolution to the general public." That's a flat-out falsehood. It's also unsubstantiated and opinion, not fact.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:19, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: If the statement is "flat-out falsehood", then it should be easy to prove me wrong. Just give me a couple of URLs of pages that make the distinction. I did discuss the matter on the Talk page. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:36, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Are you serious?? If anything, the burden should be on you to prove your statement. I make that distinction all the time, b/c it'd be less than honest to tell people that the word "theory" can't be used in different ways. And again, you can't cite that claim. It should be removed.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, I am quite serious. If you have some evidence that I am wrong, please post it on [[Talk:Theory]]. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:11, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU and Evolution==
Thanks for the revert; however, what is wrong with reverting back to my edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=prev&oldid=76854]. (sourced ref from Ann Coulter).
I think it is wrong for liberal editors to change sourced conservative views and replace them with their own liberal opinions (in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments). This is Conservapedia, and I don't want this to turn into Wikipedia, where the libs edit out what they don't like. They preach about free speech, including burning the flag, but they won't allow sourced comments from Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 12:37, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

: If some edit of yours got lost, go ahead and put it back in. I was merely trying to revert an edit of AmesG. He removed a perfectly good quote, and inserted a sentence in a half that had 3 factual errors in it. Almost every edit of his is erroneous and destructive. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:22, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== My Reply ==
A few things.
# As requested by Ed Poor, I have posted my reply to your "charges" [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG#Why_do_you_stay.3F here]. I feel that my edits to [[Copernicus]] have been vindicated.
# In re the [[Theory]] article, Shlaf, you've been argued into a corner you can't get out of on the talk page. Please answer the comments there before claiming that you're right.
# In re the [[Antonin Scalia]] article, I never intended to imply that Scalia does not support the ''Brown'' decision. I'm sure he comes up with his own way to back it up. However, the [[Earl Warren]] opinion on ''Brown'' did rest on responsivism, which Scalia disagrees with flat out, as you have proven for me. So he disagrees with the popular reason for ''Brown'', which is '''all that I argued''', regardless of what you inferred. And you haven't disproven that thesis except to say, "Wha?! Who!??! Huh!?"
# Thank you to everyone who defended me. I appreciate it.
# I still think you can't be serious regarding the [[Theory]] article.
# Peace.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

No, your edits to [[Copernicus]] were entirely wrong. In fact, all of you edits have been 100% bogus. I just had to revert this edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=77179&oldid=77166] to [[ACLU]]. You just changed one line and managed to insert three errors. I believe that you should be blocked for persisting in making such destructive edits. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

: As discussed on [[talk:ACLU]], yours is a bias-laden statement that makes no pretense at neutrality. Mine is legal fact. Look it up, or read the case, if it's just not too much trouble for ya. I would be thrilled to e-mail you a PDF from Lexis so you can have a go at it. I already have.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:39, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Good delete==

Good delete on Flat Earth Society. I believe that both of those organizations, while the URLs exist, are hoaxes and do not belong on this site. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:19, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, those sites are hoaxes, and so was the article. I just added an article on [[Flat Earth]]. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:48, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Pedophilic priests==

I had previously deleted that, but sysop Ed Poor wanted to try to make it into an article. Do you think it would be maybe appropriate to make a more general article called something such as "Catholic Church abuse scandal"? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: I was thinking of moving it to a more general Pedophila article, but someone deleted that. Not sure why. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

That could also be done. At the very least, there should be a section on the specific Catholic aspects within that article, because it was obviously a fairly significant news story. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:47, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Flat Earth==

So, are you going to explain your block of the Flat Earth page? Given that my arguments are valid and need to be addressed I would have thought that an open, and more thoughtful outcome of the situation could have arisen. Also, given that its either my version or yours, the decision to block should be made by a different sysop (i.e. not one of the involved editors!) as to whether or not the page should be blocked. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

: So tell me on the Talk page where my version is in error. I posted why your version is wrong. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::Sorry, I had already posted this before I realised you had posted on the talk page! [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:49, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I added a lot to [[Flat Earth]] and made some comments at [[talk:Flat Earth]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Thanks. Conservapedia ought to be one place where evolutionists cannot make fun of Christians as flat earthers. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Mohammedans? ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Islam&curid=1925&diff=87904&oldid=87876 Mohammedans]? Never heard of it. I guess you learn something new every day... --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:55, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

It's a very old fashioned term, and considered to be offensive. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, it is an old-fashioned term, but it used to be extremely common and it is still in dictionaries. It fell out of favor, but I don't think that it is correct to say that it is offensive. It is no more offensive than "moslem". Some people prefer "muslim" to "moslem", but there is nothing wrong with using "moslem" or "mohammedan". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:03, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Moslem vs. Muslim is a trans-Atlantic distinction. As for "Mohammedan," I studied with one of the nation's best Islamicists when I was at Rice. She specifically told us never to use "Mohammedan," and if you read any formal scholarship (after 1900) on the subject, you'll learn not to do it either. May I suggest Berkey, "the Formation of Islam"? Or, if you still disagree, we might as well revert to the Sayers translation of ''Song of Roland'', and just call Muslims ''Paynims''. It has about the same pejorative meaning.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:24, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, there are those who prefer not to use the term Mohammedan, but their objection is not that it is an ethnic slur or a synonym for paynim. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:57, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Those who "prefer not to use" the term are the Muslims themselves :-/ -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:04, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: And there are terrorists who prefer not to be called terrorists, and Moslems who prefer not to be called Moslems. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:37, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::My understanding is that the reason why it is not used is because it falsely implies that Muslims worship Mohammed. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:38, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Reasons like that are sometimes given, but they don't make much sense. Note that your reason is different from AmesG's reason. I don't think that there is any good reason. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:13, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I suppose the #1 determinant for whether the term goes in should be whether it is, in fact, commonly used or not. I can't speak for others, but I don't hear it used. Maybe in other parts of the country the term is more common, I don't know. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:31, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: It used to be more common. You'll find it a lot if you read old books. I would not be suggesting it if I thought that it was an ethnic slur. It is not. It literally means just a follower of Mohammad. Nothing wrong with the term. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:44, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I think the one place I've seen it is in an old book in my church library, so that makes sense. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:51, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it's bad because it is an ethnic slur, and insulting for the reason that MountainDew stated - it implies that Muslims worship Mohammed, which is insulting in the same way that saying that Jews worship Moses would be insulting. If you can find it in old books, guys, but not in any other books, it probably means that the term is outdated, as I've argued. I'm sure you'll find "colored" in old books describing African Americans, but I'd advise against using it in an article...-10:36, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

It is VERY offensive for muslims to be referred to as Mohammadeans, for the above reasons. They are a very adamantly monotheistic faith, and any implication that they worship a human being is considered blasphemy (and you know how they feel about that). It's like calling Christians John-ians or Luke-ians. Leave it out already. Why would you want to be so offensive. [[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 10:57, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

: I don't think that Mohammedan is an ethnic slur any more than "Abrahamic religion" is an ethnic slur on Jews. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:19, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::You don't think a lot of the time. Apology accepted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::: AmesG, I was not apologizing to you.
::: PalMD, calling Christians John-ians or Luke-ians is not particularly offensive. Of course, there are people who are offended by innocuous statements. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:04, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Since you weren't apologizing to me before, I'll accept it now.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:08, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: For what? Are you a Mohammedan who doesn't like to be called a Mohammedan? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:57, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

==Abortion poll==

Dear Ms Schlafly - I did quote the abortion poll correctly, and when you quoted it selectively I expanded your quotation to give details. Please check the link. My subsequent editing of your misleading statement has been reverted. I suggest altering it to the unarguable one that 62% of Americans do not want Roe v Wade to be returned. Unless I hear your reasons why you believe this to be less than factual, I will edit it to that version shortly. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 16:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: Your statement did not match the most recent poll on the cited page with the poll results. Yes, your statement is less than factual. Give support on the Talk page, if you wish. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:12, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::The page I linked to had a whole series of polls. The two most recent polls said that 16% of the American public favored retaining unlimited rights to abortion, and 39% favored abortion being 'legal in most cases'. Of the remainder, 31% favored it being illegal in 'most' cases and 12% illegal in all cases. In other words, 55% favor it being legal in all or most cases and 43% favor it being illegal in all or most cases, with 2% unsure either way. The other poll referred to the retention of the rights granted under Roe v Wade and 62% favored this. This should be reflected in the article because as it stands the article misrepresents the facts. Please tell me why you think we should misrepresent facts clearly laid out in a neutral opinion poll. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:37, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::: No, I posted actual facts. I am against misrepresenting facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Here is something I put on my userpage. Please spread the word among your friends ==

'''ARTICLES I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WRITTEN AT CONSERVAPEDIA:'''

'''ABORTION RELATED ARTICLES:'''

*[[Abortion alternatives]]
*[[Abortion procedures]]
*[[Culture of life]]
*[[Dilatation and curettage abortion]]
*[[Dilatation and Evacuation abortion]]
*[[National Right to Life Committee]]
*[[Prostaglandin Abortion]]
*[[Partial birth abortion]]
*[[Right to life]]
*[[Right to life books]]
*[[Right to life movement]]
*[[Right to life leaders]]
*[[Saline abortion]]
*[[Suction abortion]]
*[[Sanctity of life]]
*[[Silent scream]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

==Sysop Pledge==

As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 00:05, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

{{Sysop Pledge}}

==Adultery==
Could we divide the topic of adultery into, for example, the [[Sin of adultery]] and "[[Adultery]]"? I'm not sure what the two types of infraction should be called, but it might make it easier on readers if we did a sort of division. What do you think would be best? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:11, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: What's the difference between the Sin of adultery and Adultery? What's the latter, the crime? I don't really agree with the recent edits on that page, and I guess I'll say so there. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Homosexuality article ==

Hi Roger. Could you please alter the first sentences of [[Homosexuality]] in accordance with [[talk:homosexuality#attraction or activity]] or comment there? I see you altered the Biblical Prohibition section. Thanks. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:15, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

==Capital punishment==

What was dubious about explaining the context of Leviticus and Deuteronomy as a covenant between the Israelis and God?

By the way, I wasn't the one who put the stupid comment about the Ten Commandments in there. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== please vote for me ==

Please vote for me here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Request_for_Bureaucratship [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why do you hate gay people so much? ==
Just curious. I'd love to know the reasons behind your "principled" disagreement.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 10:52, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

: My disagreement is with your edits, as they are frequently erroneous and destructive. It has nothing to do with you being gay or not gay. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I never said I was gay or not (!?), but as someone who believes in equality & egalitarianism, I think it offends all of humanity, the level of distaste that your edits level against homosexuals.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:31, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

: I never said that I hate gay people. Your bigotry is noted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:02, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::Hmm, bigotry is not accepting bigotry now? (butting in where I'm not wanted) [[User:Human|Human]] 21:32, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Apparently AmesG and you want to use this page for ad hominem attacks on me. You will note that AmesG does not mention any specific edits to support his attacks. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

i know i have no part in this, but doesnt it seem like "mr. equality and egalitarianism and tolerance" AmesG is showing an utter lack of tolerance?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:No, AmesG asked Roger a question and he schlaflied it by avoiding the question and making a random assessment of the user. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:51, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I liked this edit. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homophobia&diff=next&oldid=140220] It's exactly what I was trying to say, but couldn't put into words. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:29, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== Question about your beliefs ==

Have you heard how they genetically alter fruit to make new fruits? I strongly disagree with this practice because it messes with the Earth the way it was created. Next it will be human cloning. This is just a stepping stone. Whats your opinion? (By the way I love your user page! It is so exciting. Mine is boring.) Thanks your friend--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 23:40, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

: I think that the genetic modifications have been for the better, so far. Human cloning is another story. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:25, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== f****t==

Please do not ever use the above-referenced word in an encyclopedia article. It is an offensive and ignorant slur, and does not reflect well upon the user. Thank you. --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|JeffersonDarcy]] 14:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: Why do you say that it is "ignorant"? Is it more offensive than "homophobic"? Why? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:39, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

It is more offensive than "homophobic." The parallel is, "n****r" : "racist" :: "f****t" : "homophobe".-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:32, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: So you say, but that is not my experience. Do you have any evidence to back up what you say? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:56, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Call a gay man a "f****t" and see the effect. Ask a homosexual how they feel about that word. If you have any emotions at all, you can see why it's more offensive.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:I hear black men say "nigger" frequently. I have heard homosexual man say "faggot" frequently. Both are obviously "in words". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:02, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, let's clarify the difference. I'm not saying it's okay to say it under any circumstances. But the generally accepted cultural convention is that someone "in" the group may use a derogatory slur, just like you can say, "yeah, I sucked on that exam," but your friend saying, "DUDE, you sucked on that exam," is not okay. That doesn't make EITHER words that are okay when used by someone outside the group, and esp. not to convey malice.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::shouldnt the "homophobes" only be able to call themselves homophobes?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
NO. There is a difference. But tell you what if you don't see it, and if you don't want to be called a "homophobe," fine. I won't call you that, and I'll not use the word, if you won't use the words discussed above. This is only because I can't seem to make the difference clear to you, although it would be clear to anyone who actually is gay.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: Yeah, I see the difference. You just happen to like some name-calling better than other name-calling, based on your own personal prejudices. That's all. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:46, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

==Revert==
Hey can you revert my user talk page? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 14:34, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== [[Geocentric theory]] ==

Roger: Strange as it might seem, I have personally run into people who cite the [[Bible]] in support of the [[geocentric theory]] of the [[solar system]]. I'm not saying that I buy those interpretations. I am saying that there's more to that proposition than someone (like user [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]]) trying to be a "wiseguy." I would say to [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] that she ought to cite her sources for any claims of "evidence advanced to support geocentrism." Then we can cite contrary evidence. But as I say--I don't think those edits really constituted subtle vandalism. I believe that the editor submitted them in good faith, and all that they need are appropriate citations.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:13, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: I don't know whether she believes that stuff or not, but even if she believes it, that is not reason enough to put it in an encyclopedia. A lot of people believe a lot of kooky things, and we can't list them all. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see why you are so opposed to the page stating that some people believe the geocentric theory. Clearly some people do believe it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 12:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::: No, it is not clear. Who? Where? How do you know that the web page is not a joke? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:36, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::It looks real, as does [http://www.galileowaswrong.com/ This one] --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 12:41, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: I am not going to pay the $27 to try to find out. What if someone else says the Moon is made of green cheese and cites a web site? It is not much evidence that there is any significant belief in a green cheese theory. Maybe it could be mentioned in an article on Internet scams or something like that. I did look at the work that Mmeelliissssaa referred me too, and it is not a serious piece of work. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:49, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Exactly what i try to tell to creationists time to time, if 99% of biologists think creationism has no merits and is just view held by few people because of their religious beliefs, why waste time and space on encyclopedia for that. But still, most encyclopedias like Wikipedia are willing to add articles that admit that some people still believe earth to be 6000 years old. But i see Conservapedia is taking a stricter attitude here. I'm all in favour of it. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 12:57, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: What is the idea in adding joke pages (for example fixedearth) as references - I don't understand it if this site is trying to be encyclopedic one and not a joke collection!? They are parodies written about Christians. Irony and taunt. And even better joke if someone takes it as earnestly written. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 13:42, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well to be fair, I thought [[YEC]] was a parody of Christian beliefs until I did some research on it. Geocentrism doesn't sound that much more implausible to me. --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 14:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==Vandalism to Geocentric Theory==
You managed to cut out all of my well-researched and highly-relevant material from the article without any comment whatsoever. I consider this to be vandalism. If this behaviour continues I shall report this to a SySop. [[User:OfficerDibble]].

==Reversions==
WILL YOU DISCUSS THIS INSTEAD OF JUST UNDOING????

Peace Pact. If you want to make reversions, propose them on the Talk page. I know I have one other person who is editing who will support my point of view.

==Wiki-Conservapedia?==

Can I point out that the reason the Conservapedia was set up in the first place was that some conservative views were being sidelined by an obviously liberal organ because those views did not concur whith the majority. Your revert of the [[Geocentric Theory]] page then protection of it clearly demonstrates that the are some conservative elements who are quilty of the same crime that Wikipedia is accused of. [[User:OfficerDibble]]

I have made my points, and have to log off now. I shall attempt to reformulate these ideas in a different form. The points i am tying to make in the GeoCentric Article are twofold:
# The view of whether the earth, the sun, the moon, Ceres or for that matter any other body is a starionary object at the centre of the universe is a matter of scientific convention. The Laws of Gravity and relativity can, in principle be reformulated to ake this happen. Thsi is a sceintific FACT, not a speculation. The fact that we don't do this is a matter of convention and parsimony, due to Occam's Razor, combined with the fact that the exlanatory schema imposed by Heliocentrism has a certain elegance. i.e. it makes the math easier. David Deutsch's book confirms this position. It is a PHiliosophiucal View, therefore and not a scientific one.
#There are groups of people who hold that the Bible says that GeoCentricisnm is correct, and is supported by biblical text. An article on Geocentricism should include material about these people, their beliefs and how these are squared with current scientific evidnce.

Ypu are just removing this without discussion, and my point is that this is no way to behave. [[User:OfficerDibble]]

Talk:Geocentric theory

2007-05-06T09:22:06Z

OfficerDibble: /* Vandalism */

User talk:RSchlafly

2007-05-06T09:15:49Z

OfficerDibble: /* Reversions */

User talk:RSchlafly

2007-05-06T09:00:21Z

OfficerDibble: /* Reversions */

Talk:Geocentric theory

2007-05-06T08:58:44Z

OfficerDibble: /* Vandalism */

User talk:RSchlafly

2007-05-06T08:54:08Z

OfficerDibble: /* Vandalism to Geocentric Theory */

Geocentric theory

2007-05-06T08:53:16Z

OfficerDibble: Undo revision 145507 by Special:Contributions/RSchlafly (User talk:RSchlafly)

[[Image:Ptolemaicsystem-small.png|right|thumb|Rendition of a geocentric system from the Middle Ages.]]
The '''geocentric theory''' is a system for describing the universe with Earth-centered coordinates. It was extremely popular from ancient times until the 1600s, as it had better agreement with observation than any of the contemporary theories. Ptolemy's model was particularly effective at cosmological predictions.

By the 1800s, the spectacular successes of Newtonian theory and Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism had convinced everyone that the Sun is a preferred frame of reference, and that the laws of physics must be applied in that frame. The geocentric theory was considered to be profoundly mistaken, and the [[Heliocentrism|heliocentric theory]] correct.

However, this view is apparently based more on a philosphical rather than a scientific position <ref> For example, in 'The Fabric of Reality", by David Deutsch (1996), Deutsch states the following criterion for reality: we should "... regard as real those complex entities which, if we did not regard them as real, would complicate explanations". This appears to be no more than a simple restatement of [[Occam's Razor]].</ref>. Bartosz Milewski (2006) states in reference to the Geocentric Theory: "Looking at the predictions it made of planetary movements, it is pretty good. One could probably derive it nowadays from the heliocentric theory by changing the system of coordinates (since the system attached to the Earth is not inertial, one would have to use Einstein's general relativity to do that correctly). Maybe physicists would be forced to introduce more cycles upon cycles to account for all the anomalies—maybe infinitely many. So even though the two theories differ in complexity, they are presumably equivalent in their predictive power." <ref> http://www.relisoft.com/Science/Physics/MicroAnt.html </ref>

All of this means that it is possible to ascribe a consistent geocentric model of the universe; the fact that we do not choose to do so, is due to convention, pragmatism and parsimony of explanation, rather than an absolute proof that heliocentrism is correct. The idea that planets move around the sun, in nearly circular ellipses, has become the currently-accepted wisdom.

==Conflicts with Biblical teachings==

[[Copernicus]] and [[Galileo]] were the main proponents of the Heliocentric view, a view which brought Galileo into direct conflict with the Catholic Church. Eventually Galileo recanted his Heliocentric position, stating in his abjuration: "I believe now, and with God's help I will in future believe all that is held, preached, and taught by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. But whereas – after having been admonished by this Holy Office, entirely to abandon the false opinion that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable." <ref> taken from: http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00002228&channel=university%20ave </ref>. One of the reasons oft-quoted for Galeileo's conflict with the Inquisition over the Copernican view is that Heliocentrism denies biblical teachings. However, as Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer points out: "When the Roman church attacked Copernicus and Galileo,it was not because teaching actually contained anything contrary to the Bible. The church authorities thought it did, but that was because Aristotelian elements had become part of church orthodoxy, and Galileo's notions clearly conflicted with them. In fact, Galileo defended the compatibility of Copernicus and the Bible, and this was one of the factors which brought about his trial" <ref> (Schaeffer, F. , 1976, How Shall We Then Live?)cited at : http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/EV/wrongassumptions.htm </ref>.

== Scripture Quoted to justify Geocentric Theory ==

A small number of people still accept the Geocentric theory. They interpret the [[Bible]] as saying that the geocentric theory is correct.

"He has fixed the earth firm, immovable." (1 Chronicles 16:30)

"Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..." (Psalm 93:1)

"Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken." (Psalm 104:5)

"...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..." (Isaiah 45:18)

"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose." (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

"Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." (Joshua 10, 12-13)

==References and Notes==

<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Talk:Geocentric theory

2007-05-06T08:51:57Z

OfficerDibble: /* Vandalism */

Talk:Geocentric theory

2007-05-06T08:48:05Z

OfficerDibble:

Talk:Geocentric theory

2007-05-06T08:45:44Z

OfficerDibble: /* Vandalism */

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-05-06T08:36:47Z

OfficerDibble: /* Current Alerts */

'''This is where you can report abuse of editing privileges. Please make notes short and concise. Unsigned posts will be removed.'''
__TOC__
Sysops, please move notes down to 'old alerts' once the incident is closed.

Archives:
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive1|1]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive2|2]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive3|3]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive4|4]]

Other links:
*[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]]
*[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]]
*[[Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion|Articles for Deletion]]
*[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Articles for Speedy Deletion]]
*[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]]

==Current Alerts==
* Please investigate [[User:RShlafly]]'s edits to [[Geocentric Theory]]. They are simply cutting out well-justified and relevant material, and there is no rationale given for the decision. This is tantamount to vandalism. [[User:OfficerDibble]]

*{{user|YouGuysSuck}}, replaced Theory of Relativity with insults.
:Blocked infinitely Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Commodore Morgan}}, replacing user talk pages with "Icewedge has pwned Bronzefinger", in my case. [[User:Bronzefinger|Bronzefinger]] 13:04, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked infinitely Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Muschifresser}}, user name needs explanation. No apparent justification for blocking, but "Fresser" means "to eat like an animal," and "Muschi" is, uh, blocked by Google's Safe Search filtering. I'm about to leave a note on his Talk page. watch for his reply. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:50, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Swordofdestiny}} using specious reasoning to defend a troublemaker. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:11, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked by ed poor Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Boris Johnson, MP}} obscenity [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 15:45, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|The Black Angel of Death}} [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 15:40, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Czolgolz}} - Karajou says he lied about sources. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor#Zugstein] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:User made a mistake Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Tennis Sweatshirt}} I think he might be icewedge and he also posted "This place is pretty worthless so I would leave Tennis Sweatshirt 12:29, 29 April 2007 (EDT)." So I am not sure if you can trust any of his edits as being of any worth. --'''[[User:AdrianP|Adrian]][[User talk:AdrianP|P]] 20:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Pokeisthemon}} mostly hunch, but I'm sure it's a sock of Icewedge. Should be watched closely, if not pre-emptively blocked. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Inconclusive on checkuser Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 16:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::Cool. My apologies to Poke. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:33, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|JoshuaZ}} Misleading edit summary + removed valid information from [[Noah]] article. Last 3 edits are questionable. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:11, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** I reviewed his unproductive edits and a short block is appropriate. Please proceed as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Fred]] -- questionable edits intended to embarass CP. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Censorship&diff=prev&oldid=46203][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Separation_of_church_and_state&diff=prev&oldid=41507] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|GeorgeJ.W.}} keeps to add seemingly parodic, biased nonsense to articles, often attacking free software for being "communist". --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 19:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
: Silly edits by GeorgeJ.W., I agree. Not quite enough to block him, but he's getting there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
::They're parodic, Andy, not silly, unless he's an utterly ignorant moron. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 07:47, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|Scorpion}}, vote fraud via sockpuppets. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 21:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|Hacker}} Review of Hacker's edits: slightly less than 500 edits, of which only about 6 are new entries and only about 10 are substantive edits of existing entries. One of the new entries was "Geek". Unless this improves quickly, I propose blocking this account because this violates the 90/10 rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::That seems disingenuous. Yes, he has only a few new pages, but he has made a number of templates. And, maybe I read the "total" incorrectly, but it said 307 edits? At the risk of sounding tautological, this user is quite useful, IMHO. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

===Dealt with===
*{{user|CaptainCAVEMAN}} ought to be blocked. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked.
*{{user|Pussyfooter}} check out edits to [[Pudding]] [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|JeffersonDarcy}} He put "this user doesn't have a problem with calling a person a faggot" on my user page. He also deleted my post putting his name on the current alerts. --[[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 14:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked for 1 week. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Auld Nick}} User name means Satan ("Old Nick"). Uploaded picture of a man in a skirt and frilly blouse, mislabeled as "traditional attire". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*:- Ed, a kilt (pleated male skirt) and (on formal occasions) dress shirt with ruffles ''is'' traditional Scottish dress. [[User:Unthank|Unthank]] 07:26, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#You are both on probation. Let's see your writing plans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*Terreista and LambChop -blocked, socks of each other --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Alfa Papa}} causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 17:18, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's a sock of Icewedge. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::'''Blocked''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:39, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Aydindrill}} Causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 22:09, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
**'''Blocked''' by Aschlafly as a sock of icewedge. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 12:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Staple]] -- vandalism and other questionable content. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
** Feel free to make my one-month block permanent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** Staple has many counterproductive edits, and potentially offensive ones by labeling users with categories. I lengthened his block to 1 month. I don't know anything about a "swastika" but feel free to make his block permanent if that is what it sounds like.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
***He had a swastika on his userpage[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
****The [[:Category:Liberal Users]] he created as a subcat of [[:Category:Communists]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Liberal_Users]; he & I were the only [[:Category:Conservative Users]] in that cat after he put a swastika on his User page.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Staple&diff=prev&oldid=132099] At a minimum this is incivility and trolling, and has little to do with his own use of his User page. A permanent block is warranted. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 02:04, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** Swastika alone justifies it. Good block.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:33, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[user:MontyZuma]], for instances of minor vandalism, and the creation of a profane page which involved moving an article into and changing the content. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm going to unblock him; this particular article he wrote is actually a dish, as I just found out. My apologies. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-05-06T08:36:14Z

OfficerDibble: /* Current Alerts */ RShlafly

'''This is where you can report abuse of editing privileges. Please make notes short and concise. Unsigned posts will be removed.'''
__TOC__
Sysops, please move notes down to 'old alerts' once the incident is closed.

Archives:
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive1|1]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive2|2]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive3|3]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive4|4]]

Other links:
*[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]]
*[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]]
*[[Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion|Articles for Deletion]]
*[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Articles for Speedy Deletion]]
*[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]]

==Current Alerts==
* Please investigat [[User:RShlafly]]'s edits to [[Geocentric Theory]]. They are simply cutting out well-justified and relevant material, and there is no rationale given for the decision. This is tantamount to vandalism. [User:OfficerDibble]]

*{{user|YouGuysSuck}}, replaced Theory of Relativity with insults.
:Blocked infinitely Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Commodore Morgan}}, replacing user talk pages with "Icewedge has pwned Bronzefinger", in my case. [[User:Bronzefinger|Bronzefinger]] 13:04, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked infinitely Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Muschifresser}}, user name needs explanation. No apparent justification for blocking, but "Fresser" means "to eat like an animal," and "Muschi" is, uh, blocked by Google's Safe Search filtering. I'm about to leave a note on his Talk page. watch for his reply. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:50, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Swordofdestiny}} using specious reasoning to defend a troublemaker. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:11, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked by ed poor Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Boris Johnson, MP}} obscenity [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 15:45, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|The Black Angel of Death}} [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 15:40, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Czolgolz}} - Karajou says he lied about sources. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor#Zugstein] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:User made a mistake Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Tennis Sweatshirt}} I think he might be icewedge and he also posted "This place is pretty worthless so I would leave Tennis Sweatshirt 12:29, 29 April 2007 (EDT)." So I am not sure if you can trust any of his edits as being of any worth. --'''[[User:AdrianP|Adrian]][[User talk:AdrianP|P]] 20:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Pokeisthemon}} mostly hunch, but I'm sure it's a sock of Icewedge. Should be watched closely, if not pre-emptively blocked. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Inconclusive on checkuser Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 16:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::Cool. My apologies to Poke. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:33, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|JoshuaZ}} Misleading edit summary + removed valid information from [[Noah]] article. Last 3 edits are questionable. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:11, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** I reviewed his unproductive edits and a short block is appropriate. Please proceed as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Fred]] -- questionable edits intended to embarass CP. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Censorship&diff=prev&oldid=46203][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Separation_of_church_and_state&diff=prev&oldid=41507] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|GeorgeJ.W.}} keeps to add seemingly parodic, biased nonsense to articles, often attacking free software for being "communist". --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 19:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
: Silly edits by GeorgeJ.W., I agree. Not quite enough to block him, but he's getting there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
::They're parodic, Andy, not silly, unless he's an utterly ignorant moron. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 07:47, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|Scorpion}}, vote fraud via sockpuppets. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 21:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|Hacker}} Review of Hacker's edits: slightly less than 500 edits, of which only about 6 are new entries and only about 10 are substantive edits of existing entries. One of the new entries was "Geek". Unless this improves quickly, I propose blocking this account because this violates the 90/10 rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::That seems disingenuous. Yes, he has only a few new pages, but he has made a number of templates. And, maybe I read the "total" incorrectly, but it said 307 edits? At the risk of sounding tautological, this user is quite useful, IMHO. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

===Dealt with===
*{{user|CaptainCAVEMAN}} ought to be blocked. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked.
*{{user|Pussyfooter}} check out edits to [[Pudding]] [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|JeffersonDarcy}} He put "this user doesn't have a problem with calling a person a faggot" on my user page. He also deleted my post putting his name on the current alerts. --[[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 14:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked for 1 week. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Auld Nick}} User name means Satan ("Old Nick"). Uploaded picture of a man in a skirt and frilly blouse, mislabeled as "traditional attire". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*:- Ed, a kilt (pleated male skirt) and (on formal occasions) dress shirt with ruffles ''is'' traditional Scottish dress. [[User:Unthank|Unthank]] 07:26, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#You are both on probation. Let's see your writing plans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*Terreista and LambChop -blocked, socks of each other --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Alfa Papa}} causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 17:18, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's a sock of Icewedge. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::'''Blocked''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:39, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Aydindrill}} Causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 22:09, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
**'''Blocked''' by Aschlafly as a sock of icewedge. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 12:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Staple]] -- vandalism and other questionable content. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
** Feel free to make my one-month block permanent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** Staple has many counterproductive edits, and potentially offensive ones by labeling users with categories. I lengthened his block to 1 month. I don't know anything about a "swastika" but feel free to make his block permanent if that is what it sounds like.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
***He had a swastika on his userpage[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
****The [[:Category:Liberal Users]] he created as a subcat of [[:Category:Communists]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Liberal_Users]; he & I were the only [[:Category:Conservative Users]] in that cat after he put a swastika on his User page.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Staple&diff=prev&oldid=132099] At a minimum this is incivility and trolling, and has little to do with his own use of his User page. A permanent block is warranted. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 02:04, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** Swastika alone justifies it. Good block.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:33, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[user:MontyZuma]], for instances of minor vandalism, and the creation of a profane page which involved moving an article into and changing the content. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm going to unblock him; this particular article he wrote is actually a dish, as I just found out. My apologies. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Geocentric theory

2007-05-06T08:33:52Z

OfficerDibble: /* Vandalism */ Vandalism by RShlafly

Geocentric theory

2007-05-06T08:32:37Z

OfficerDibble: Undo revision 145488 by Special:Contributions/RSchlafly (User talk:RSchlafly)

User talk:RSchlafly

2007-05-06T06:34:34Z

OfficerDibble: /* Geocentric theory */

Talk:Geocentric theory

2007-05-06T06:31:25Z

OfficerDibble: Vandalism to the Article

Geocentric theory

2007-05-06T06:27:18Z

OfficerDibble: /* Objections */ tidy up

Geocentric theory

2007-05-06T06:24:19Z

OfficerDibble:

[[Image:Ptolemaicsystem-small.png|right|thumb|Rendition of a geocentric system from the Middle Ages.]]
The '''geocentric theory''' is a system for describing the universe with Earth-centered coordinates. It was extremely popular from ancient times until the 1600s, as it had better agreement with observation than any of the contemporary theories. Ptolemy's model was particularly effective at cosmological predictions.

By the 1800s, the spectacular successes of Newtonian theory and Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism had convinced everyone that the Sun is a preferred frame of reference, and that the laws of physics must be applied in that frame. The geocentric theory was considered to be profoundly mistaken, and the [[Heliocentrism|heliocentric theory]] correct.

However, this view is apparently based more on a philosphical rather than a scientific position <ref> For example, in 'The Fabric of Reality", by David Deutsch (1996), Deutsch states the following criterion for reality: we should "... regard as real those complex entities which, if we did not regard them as real, would complicate explanations". This appears to be no more than a simple restatement of [[Occam's Razor]].</ref>. Bartosz Milewski (2006) states in reference to the Geocentric Theory: "Looking at the predictions it made of planetary movements, it is pretty good. One could probably derive it nowadays from the heliocentric theory by changing the system of coordinates (since the system attached to the Earth is not inertial, one would have to use Einstein's general relativity to do that correctly). Maybe physicists would be forced to introduce more cycles upon cycles to account for all the anomalies—maybe infinitely many. So even though the two theories differ in complexity, they are presumably equivalent in their predictive power." <ref> http://www.relisoft.com/Science/Physics/MicroAnt.html </ref>

All of this means that it is possible to ascribe a consistent geocentric model of the universe; the fact that we do not choose to do so, is due to convention, pragmatism and parsimony of explanation, rather than an absolute proof that heliocentrism is correct. The idea that planets move around the sun, in nearly circular ellipses, has become the currently-accepted wisdom.

==Objections==

[[Copernicus]] and [[Galileo]] were the main proponents of the Heliocentric view, a view which brought Galileo into fdirect conflict with the Catholic Curch. Eventually Galileo recanted his Heliocentric position, stating in his abjuration: "I believe now, and with God`’ help I will in future believe all that is held, preached, and taught by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. But whereas – after having been admonished by this Holy Office entirely to abandon the false opinion that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable." <ref> taken from: http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00002228&channel=university%20ave </ref>. One of the reasons oft-quoted for Galeileo's conflict with the Inquisition over the Copernican view is that Heliocentrism denies biblical teachings. However, as Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer, points out: "When the Roman church attacked Copernicus and Galileo,it was not because teaching actually contained anything contrary to the Bible. The church authorities thought it did, but that was because Aristotelian elements had become part of church orthodoxy, and Galileo's notions clearly conflicted with them. In fact, Galileo defended the compatibility of Copernicus and the Bible, and this was one of the factors which brought about his trial" <ref> (Schaeffer, F. , 1976, How Shall We Then Live?)cited at : http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/EV/wrongassumptions.htm </ref> and [[Kepler]] began to change this (see [[Copernican Revolution]]).

== Scripture Quoted to justify Geocentric Theory ==

A small number of people still accept the Geocentric theory. They interpret the [[Bible]] as saying that the geocentric theory is correct.

"He has fixed the earth firm, immovable." (1 Chronicles 16:30)

"Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..." (Psalm 93:1)

"Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken." (Psalm 104:5)

"...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..." (Isaiah 45:18)

"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose." (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

"Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." (Joshua 10, 12-13)

==References and Notes==

<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Geocentric theory

2007-05-06T06:23:34Z

OfficerDibble: Undo revision 145020 by Special:Contributions/RSchlafly (User talk:RSchlafly) - Revert edits and reinstate previous material

[[Image:Ptolemaicsystem-small.png|right|thumb|Rendition of a geocentric system from the Middle Ages.]]
The '''geocentric theory''' is a system for describing the universe with Earth-centered coordinates. It was extremely popular from ancient times until the 1600s, as it had better agreement with observation than any of the contemporary theories. Ptolemy's model was particularly effective at cosmological predictions.

By the 1800s, the spectacular successes of Newtonian theory and Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism had convinced everyone that the Sun is a preferred frame of reference, and that the laws of physics must be applied in that frame. The geocentric theory was considered to be profoundly mistaken, and the [[Heliocentrism|heliocentric theory]] correct.

However, this view is apparently based more on a philosphical rather than a scientific position <ref> For example, in 'The Fabric of Reality", by David Deutsch (1996), Deutsch states the following criterion for reality: we should "... regard as real those complex entities which, if we did not regard them as real, would complicate explanations". This appears to be no more than a simple restatement of [[Occam's Razor]].</ref>. Bartosz Milewski (2006) states in reference to the Geocentric Theory: "Looking at the predictions it made of planetary movements, it is pretty good. One could probably derive it nowadays from the heliocentric theory by changing the system of coordinates (since the system attached to the Earth is not inertial, one would have to use Einstein's general relativity to do that correctly). Maybe physicists would be forced to introduce more cycles upon cycles to account for all the anomalies—maybe infinitely many. So even though the two theories differ in complexity, they are presumably equivalent in their predictive power." <ref> http://www.relisoft.com/Science/Physics/MicroAnt.html </ref>

All of this means that it is possible to ascribe a consistent geocentric model of the universe; the fact that we do not choose to do so, is due to convention, pragmatism and parsimony of explanation, rather than an absolute proof that heliocentrism is correct. The idea that planets move around the sun, in nearly circular ellipses, has become the currently-accepted wisdom.

==Objections==

[[Copernicus]] and [[Galileo]] were the main proponents of the Heliocentric view, a view which brought Galileo into fdirect conflict with the Catholic Curch. Eventually Galileo recanted his Heliocentric position, stating in his abjuration: "I believe now, and with God`’ help I will in future believe all that is held, preached, and taught by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. But whereas – after having been admonished by this Holy Office entirely to abandon the false opinion that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable." taken from: http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00002228&channel=university%20ave </ref>. One of the reasons oft-quoted for Galeileo's conflict with the Inquisition over the Copernican view is that Heliocentrism denies biblical teachings. However, as Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer, points out: "When the Roman church attacked Copernicus and Galileo,it was not because teaching actually contained anything contrary to the Bible. The church authorities thought it did, but that was because Aristotelian elements had become part of church orthodoxy, and Galileo's notions clearly conflicted with them. In fact, Galileo defended the compatibility of Copernicus and the Bible, and this was one of the factors which brought about his trial" <ref> (Schaeffer, F. , 1976, How Shall We Then Live?)cited at : http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/EV/wrongassumptions.htm </ref> and [[Kepler]] began to change this (see [[Copernican Revolution]]).

== Scripture Quoted to justify Geocentric Theory ==

A small number of people still accept the Geocentric theory. They interpret the [[Bible]] as saying that the geocentric theory is correct.

"He has fixed the earth firm, immovable." (1 Chronicles 16:30)

"Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..." (Psalm 93:1)

"Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken." (Psalm 104:5)

"...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..." (Isaiah 45:18)

"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose." (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

"Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." (Joshua 10, 12-13)

==References and Notes==

<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Talk:Michelson-Morley experiment

2007-05-06T05:51:11Z

OfficerDibble: Edit By MiddleMan

== Article Created ==

I've just created this article. I plan to do a lot more work on it but don't have time right now.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:02, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== Planned future work ==

I'm planning to add another section describing the experimental set up, and expand the section about the results. I also plan to re-draft a lot of it, I've written it in a hurry and I think a lot of things could be explained better.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:02, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== Edit By MiddleMan ==

I have incorporated Middleman's edits and reinstated the ones i did yesterday. I would be obliged if good material wasn't summarily removed without discussion - OfficeDibble.

Michelson-Morley experiment

2007-05-06T05:49:38Z

OfficerDibble: Undo revision 144965 by Special:Contributions/Middle Man (User talk:Middle Man)

The Michelson-Morley experiment was an important physics experiment performed in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley. The experiment attempted to measure the motion of the earth through the aether and failed to do so. This unexpected failure threw physics into chaos, and lead to the [[Theory of relativity]].

== Historical Background ==

The experiment was performed in the days when technology had just become sufficiently advanced to accurately measure the speed of light. At that time it was known that light behaved like a wave. Scientists believed that light waves (consisting of photons) traveled through a medium referred to as the aether (Sometimes spelt ether). The aether was believed to be fixed in space and so was regarded as an absolute frame of reference, relative to which the velocity of any object could (in theory), be measured. The concept of the eather was in some ways similar to the modern concept of "space-time" though some differences exist.
Thus the idea was that absolute movement existed.

Scientists at the time believed that if they could accurately measure the relative velocity between the earth and light waves, they would get different results for the speed of the light waves moving in different directions. They believed this would happen because the earth was constantly moving, and the aether was fixed. They believed that by examining the results they could measure the relative velocity between the earth and the aether, and hence determine the absolute velocity of the earth through space. The Michelson-Morley experiment was an attempt to do that.

== Results of the Experiment ==

The experiment gave unexpected results. The speed of light was found to be the same regardless of the direction the light was traveling in. At first it was assumed that the result was due to poor equipment or some other anomaly, but further work ruled that possibility out.

== Consequences of the results ==

Scientists then faced the dilemma. They believed the earth was moving through space, but the Michelson-Morley experiment and similar experiments indicated that the earth was somehow stationery relative to the aether at all times.

A number of theories were proposed to explain the paradox, including the idea that the aether might in some way be "dragged along" by the earth. In the end the theory of special relativity (See [[Theory of relativity]]) became the accepted explanation, and the concept of the aether was subsequently rejected, as experimental evidence accumulated in support of the theory of Relativity. Modern speculative concepts such as a space-time which can be folded by gravitation (a concept vital to [[General Relativity]]), or the [[Higgs Field]] (a proposed concept in particle physics to explain the gravitational force) have been misinterpreted by laymen to be the aether of pre-Einsteinian physics.

==Objections to the current view==

However, a small number of people feel that the scientific community took a wrong turn when they rejected the concept of the aether, and recently some cosmologists have been toying with the idea of 're-inventing' the aether as a way of understanding the creation event: "Could spacetime literally be a kind of fluid, like the ether of pre-Einsteinian physics?" <ref> See, for example a recent article in Scientific American, ehre the aether is interpreted as a quantum foam of black holes - December 2005 issue of Scientific American: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000ADA62-D854-137C-962A83414B7F0000&sc=I100322</ref>.

Others argue that [[Geocentric theory]] is an alternative explanation of the result {{fact}}. If the earth is in-fact stationary relative to the aether then the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is easy to understand. This interpretation makes the Earth "special" compared to other celestial objects, supporting the view that Humanity (and the Earth) is the pinnacle of creation (and thus central).

==References==

<references/>

[[category:physics]]

Geocentric theory

2007-05-05T10:30:17Z

OfficerDibble: /* References */

[[Image:Ptolemaicsystem-small.png|right|thumb|Rendition of a geocentric system from the Middle Ages.]]
The '''geocentric theory''' is a system for describing the universe with Earth-centered coordinates. It was extremely popular from ancient times until the 1600s, as it was particularly effective at cosmological predictions.

The work of [[Galileo]] <ref> However, it is interesting to read Galileo's abjuration: "I believe now, and with God`’ help I will in future believe all that is held, preached, and taught by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. But whereas – after having been admonished by this Holy Office entirely to abandon the false opinion that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable." taken from: http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00002228&channel=university%20ave </ref> <ref> Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer, "When the Roman church attacked Copernicus and Galileo,it was not because teaching actually contained anything contrary to the Bible. The church authorities thought it did, but that was because Aristotelian elements had become part of church orthodoxy, and Galileo's notions clearly conflicted with them. In fact, Galileo defended the compatibility of Copernicus and the Bible, and this was one of the factors which brought about his trial" (Schaeffer, F. , 1976, How Shall We Then Live?)cited at : http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/EV/wrongassumptions.htm </ref> and [[Kepler]] began to change this (see [[Copernican Revolution]]). The idea that planets move around the sun, in nearly circular ellipses, gradually took hold. The difficulty of calculating the orbits was one factor which militated against quick acceptance of Kepler's laws of motion.

By the 1800s, the spectacular successes of Newtonian theory convinced everyone that the Sun is a preferred frame of reference, and that the laws of physics must be applied in that frame. The geocentric theory was considered to be profoundly mistaken, and the [[Heliocentrism|heliocentric theory]] correct. However, this view is apparently based more on a philosphical rather than a scientific position <ref> For example, in 'The Fabric of Reality", by David Deutsch (1996), Deutsch states the following criterion for reality: we should "... regard as real those complex entities which, if we did not regard them as real, would complicate explanations". This appears to be no more than a simple restatement of [[Occam's Razor]].</ref>. Bartosz Milewski (2006) states in reference to the Geocentric Theory: "Looking at the predictions it made of planetary movements, it is pretty good. One could probably derive it nowadays from the heliocentric theory by changing the system of coordinates (since the system attached to the Earth is not inertial, one would have to use Einstein's general relativity to do that correctly). Maybe physicists would be forced to introduce more cycles upon cycles to account for all the anomalies—maybe infinitely many. So even though the two theories differ in complexity, they are presumably equivalent in their predictive power." <ref> http://www.relisoft.com/Science/Physics/MicroAnt.html </ref>

== Scripture Quoted to justify Geocentric Theory ==

A small number of people still accept the Geocentric theory. They interpret the [[Bible]] as saying that the geocentric theory is correct.

"He has fixed the earth firm, immovable." (1 Chronicles 16:30)

"Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..." (Psalm 93:1)

"Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken." (Psalm 104:5)

"...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..." (Isaiah 45:18)

"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose." (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

"Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." (Joshua 10, 12-13)

==References and Notes==

<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Geocentric theory

2007-05-05T10:29:27Z

OfficerDibble: ref

[[Image:Ptolemaicsystem-small.png|right|thumb|Rendition of a geocentric system from the Middle Ages.]]
The '''geocentric theory''' is a system for describing the universe with Earth-centered coordinates. It was extremely popular from ancient times until the 1600s, as it was particularly effective at cosmological predictions.

The work of [[Galileo]] <ref> However, it is interesting to read Galileo's abjuration: "I believe now, and with God`’ help I will in future believe all that is held, preached, and taught by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. But whereas – after having been admonished by this Holy Office entirely to abandon the false opinion that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable." taken from: http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00002228&channel=university%20ave </ref> <ref> Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer, "When the Roman church attacked Copernicus and Galileo,it was not because teaching actually contained anything contrary to the Bible. The church authorities thought it did, but that was because Aristotelian elements had become part of church orthodoxy, and Galileo's notions clearly conflicted with them. In fact, Galileo defended the compatibility of Copernicus and the Bible, and this was one of the factors which brought about his trial" (Schaeffer, F. , 1976, How Shall We Then Live?)cited at : http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/EV/wrongassumptions.htm </ref> and [[Kepler]] began to change this (see [[Copernican Revolution]]). The idea that planets move around the sun, in nearly circular ellipses, gradually took hold. The difficulty of calculating the orbits was one factor which militated against quick acceptance of Kepler's laws of motion.

By the 1800s, the spectacular successes of Newtonian theory convinced everyone that the Sun is a preferred frame of reference, and that the laws of physics must be applied in that frame. The geocentric theory was considered to be profoundly mistaken, and the [[Heliocentrism|heliocentric theory]] correct. However, this view is apparently based more on a philosphical rather than a scientific position <ref> For example, in 'The Fabric of Reality", by David Deutsch (1996), Deutsch states the following criterion for reality: we should "... regard as real those complex entities which, if we did not regard them as real, would complicate explanations". This appears to be no more than a simple restatement of [[Occam's Razor]].</ref>. Bartosz Milewski (2006) states in reference to the Geocentric Theory: "Looking at the predictions it made of planetary movements, it is pretty good. One could probably derive it nowadays from the heliocentric theory by changing the system of coordinates (since the system attached to the Earth is not inertial, one would have to use Einstein's general relativity to do that correctly). Maybe physicists would be forced to introduce more cycles upon cycles to account for all the anomalies—maybe infinitely many. So even though the two theories differ in complexity, they are presumably equivalent in their predictive power." <ref> http://www.relisoft.com/Science/Physics/MicroAnt.html </ref>

== Scripture Quoted to justify Geocentric Theory ==

A small number of people still accept the Geocentric theory. They interpret the [[Bible]] as saying that the geocentric theory is correct.

"He has fixed the earth firm, immovable." (1 Chronicles 16:30)

"Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..." (Psalm 93:1)

"Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken." (Psalm 104:5)

"...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..." (Isaiah 45:18)

"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose." (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

"Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." (Joshua 10, 12-13)

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Geocentric theory

2007-05-05T10:20:56Z

OfficerDibble: added ref for Galileo

[[Image:Ptolemaicsystem-small.png|right|thumb|Rendition of a geocentric system from the Middle Ages.]]
The '''geocentric theory''' is a system for describing the universe with Earth-centered coordinates. It was extremely popular from ancient times until the 1600s, as it was particularly effective at cosmological predictions.

The work of [[Galileo]] <ref> However, it is interesting to read Galileo's abjuration: "I believe now, and with God`’ help I will in future believe all that is held, preached, and taught by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. But whereas – after having been admonished by this Holy Office entirely to abandon the false opinion that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable." taken from: http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00002228&channel=university%20ave </ref> and [[Kepler]] began to change this (see [[Copernican Revolution]]). The idea that planets move around the sun, in nearly circular ellipses, gradually took hold. The difficulty of calculating the orbits was one factor which militated against quick acceptance of Kepler's laws of motion.

By the 1800s, the spectacular successes of Newtonian theory convinced everyone that the Sun is a preferred frame of reference, and that the laws of physics must be applied in that frame. The geocentric theory was considered to be profoundly mistaken, and the [[Heliocentrism|heliocentric theory]] correct. However, this view is apparently based more on a philosphical rather than a scientific position <ref> For example, in 'The Fabric of Reality", by David Deutsch (1996), Deutsch states the following criterion for reality: we should "... regard as real those complex entities which, if we did not regard them as real, would complicate explanations". This appears to be no more than a simple restatement of [[Occam's Razor]].</ref>. Bartosz Milewski (2006) states in reference to the Geocentric Theory: "Looking at the predictions it made of planetary movements, it is pretty good. One could probably derive it nowadays from the heliocentric theory by changing the system of coordinates (since the system attached to the Earth is not inertial, one would have to use Einstein's general relativity to do that correctly). Maybe physicists would be forced to introduce more cycles upon cycles to account for all the anomalies—maybe infinitely many. So even though the two theories differ in complexity, they are presumably equivalent in their predictive power." <ref> http://www.relisoft.com/Science/Physics/MicroAnt.html </ref>

== Scripture Quoted to justify Geocentric Theory ==

A small number of people still accept the Geocentric theory. They interpret the [[Bible]] as saying that the geocentric theory is correct.

"He has fixed the earth firm, immovable." (1 Chronicles 16:30)

"Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..." (Psalm 93:1)

"Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken." (Psalm 104:5)

"...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..." (Isaiah 45:18)

"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose." (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

"Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." (Joshua 10, 12-13)

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Geocentric theory

2007-05-05T10:09:47Z

OfficerDibble:

Geocentric theory

2007-05-05T10:08:57Z

OfficerDibble: Deutsch quote

Geocentric theory

2007-05-05T09:53:18Z

OfficerDibble: typo

Geocentric theory

2007-05-05T09:52:18Z

OfficerDibble:

Geocentric theory

2007-05-05T09:51:33Z

OfficerDibble:

Geocentric theory

2007-05-05T09:50:48Z

OfficerDibble: added link

Michelson-Morley experiment

2007-05-05T09:41:22Z

OfficerDibble: /* Consequences of the results */

The Michelson-Morley experiment was an important physics experiment performed in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley. The experiment attempted to measure the motion of the earth through the aether and failed to do so. This unexpected failure threw physics into chaos, and lead to the [[Theory of relativity]].

== Historical Background ==

The experiment was performed in the days when technology had just become sufficiently advanced to accurately measure the speed of light. At that time it was known that light behaved like a wave. Scientists believed that light waves (consisting of photons) traveled through a medium referred to as the aether (Sometimes spelt ether). The aether was believed to be fixed in space and so was regarded as an absolute frame of reference, relative to which the velocity of any object could (in theory), be measured. The concept of the eather was in some ways similar to the modern concept of "space-time" though some differences exist.
Thus the idea was that absolute movement existed.

Scientists at the time believed that if they could accurately measure the relative velocity between the earth and light waves, they would get different results for the speed of the light waves moving in different directions. They believed this would happen because the earth was constantly moving, and the aether was fixed. They believed that by examining the results they could measure the relative velocity between the earth and the aether, and hence determine the absolute velocity of the earth through space. The Michelson-Morley experiment was an attempt to do that.

== Results of the Experiment ==

The experiment gave unexpected results. The speed of light was found to be the same regardless of the direction the light was traveling in. At first it was assumed that the result was due to poor equipment or some other anomaly, but further work ruled that possibility out.

== Consequences of the results ==

Scientists then faced the dilemma. They believed the earth was moving through space, but the Michelson-Morley experiment and similar experiments indicated that the earth was somehow stationery relative to the aether at all times.

A number of theories were proposed to explain the paradox, including the idea that the aether might in some way be "dragged along" by the earth. In the end the theory of special relativity (See [[Theory of relativity]]) became the accepted explanation, and the concept of the aether was completely rejected, years later experimental evidence was provided to support the theory of Relativity.

A small number of people feel that the scientific community took a wrong turn when they rejected the concept of the aether: "Could spacetime literally be a kind of fluid, like the ether of pre-Einsteinian physics?" <ref> This is an interesting phenomenon. Lately some cosmologists have been toying with the idea of 're-inventing' the aether as a way of understanding the creation event. See the article on Black Holes in the December 2005 issue of Scientific American: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000ADA62-D854-137C-962A83414B7F0000&sc=I100322</ref>. They argue that [[Geocentric theory]] is an alternative explanation of the result. If the earth is in-fact stationary relative to the aether then the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is easy to understand. This interpretation makes the Earth "special" compared to other celestial objects, supporting the view that Humanity (and the Earth) is the pinnacle of creation (and thus central).

==References==

<references/>

[[category:physics]]

Michelson-Morley experiment

2007-05-05T09:40:25Z

OfficerDibble: /* Consequences of the results */

The Michelson-Morley experiment was an important physics experiment performed in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley. The experiment attempted to measure the motion of the earth through the aether and failed to do so. This unexpected failure threw physics into chaos, and lead to the [[Theory of relativity]].

== Historical Background ==

The experiment was performed in the days when technology had just become sufficiently advanced to accurately measure the speed of light. At that time it was known that light behaved like a wave. Scientists believed that light waves (consisting of photons) traveled through a medium referred to as the aether (Sometimes spelt ether). The aether was believed to be fixed in space and so was regarded as an absolute frame of reference, relative to which the velocity of any object could (in theory), be measured. The concept of the eather was in some ways similar to the modern concept of "space-time" though some differences exist.
Thus the idea was that absolute movement existed.

Scientists at the time believed that if they could accurately measure the relative velocity between the earth and light waves, they would get different results for the speed of the light waves moving in different directions. They believed this would happen because the earth was constantly moving, and the aether was fixed. They believed that by examining the results they could measure the relative velocity between the earth and the aether, and hence determine the absolute velocity of the earth through space. The Michelson-Morley experiment was an attempt to do that.

== Results of the Experiment ==

The experiment gave unexpected results. The speed of light was found to be the same regardless of the direction the light was traveling in. At first it was assumed that the result was due to poor equipment or some other anomaly, but further work ruled that possibility out.

== Consequences of the results ==

Scientists then faced the dilemma. They believed the earth was moving through space, but the Michelson-Morley experiment and similar experiments indicated that the earth was somehow stationery relative to the aether at all times.

A number of theories were proposed to explain the paradox, including the idea that the aether might in some way be "dragged along" by the earth. In the end the theory of special relativity (See [[Theory of relativity]]) became the accepted explanation, and the concept of the aether was completely rejected, years later experimental evidence was provided to support the theory of Relativity.

A small number of people feel that the scientific community took a wrong turn when they rejected the concept of the aether: "Could spacetime literally be a kind of fluid, like the ether of pre-Einsteinian physics?" <ref> This is an interesting phenomenon. Lately some cosmologist have been toying with the idea of 're-inventing' the aether as a way of understanding the creation event. See the article on Black Holes in the December 2005 issue of Scientific American: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000ADA62-D854-137C-962A83414B7F0000&sc=I100322</ref>. They argue that [[Geocentric theory]] is an alternative explanation of the result. If the earth is in-fact stationary relative to the aether then the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is easy to understand. This interpretation makes the Earth "special" compared to other celestial objects, supporting the view that Humanity (and the Earth) is the pinnacle of creation (and thus central).

==References==

<references/>

[[category:physics]]

Michelson-Morley experiment

2007-05-05T09:39:54Z

OfficerDibble: /* Consequences of the results */ quote

The Michelson-Morley experiment was an important physics experiment performed in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley. The experiment attempted to measure the motion of the earth through the aether and failed to do so. This unexpected failure threw physics into chaos, and lead to the [[Theory of relativity]].

== Historical Background ==

The experiment was performed in the days when technology had just become sufficiently advanced to accurately measure the speed of light. At that time it was known that light behaved like a wave. Scientists believed that light waves (consisting of photons) traveled through a medium referred to as the aether (Sometimes spelt ether). The aether was believed to be fixed in space and so was regarded as an absolute frame of reference, relative to which the velocity of any object could (in theory), be measured. The concept of the eather was in some ways similar to the modern concept of "space-time" though some differences exist.
Thus the idea was that absolute movement existed.

Scientists at the time believed that if they could accurately measure the relative velocity between the earth and light waves, they would get different results for the speed of the light waves moving in different directions. They believed this would happen because the earth was constantly moving, and the aether was fixed. They believed that by examining the results they could measure the relative velocity between the earth and the aether, and hence determine the absolute velocity of the earth through space. The Michelson-Morley experiment was an attempt to do that.

== Results of the Experiment ==

The experiment gave unexpected results. The speed of light was found to be the same regardless of the direction the light was traveling in. At first it was assumed that the result was due to poor equipment or some other anomaly, but further work ruled that possibility out.

== Consequences of the results ==

Scientists then faced the dilemma. They believed the earth was moving through space, but the Michelson-Morley experiment and similar experiments indicated that the earth was somehow stationery relative to the aether at all times.

A number of theories were proposed to explain the paradox, including the idea that the aether might in some way be "dragged along" by the earth. In the end the theory of special relativity (See [[Theory of relativity]]) became the accepted explanation, and the concept of the aether was completely rejected, years later experimental evidence was provided to support the theory of Relativity.

A small number of people feel that the scientific community took a wrong turn when they rejected the concept of the aether: "Could spacetime literally be a kind of fluid, like the ether of pre-Einsteinian physics?" <ref> This is an interesting phenomenon. Lately some cosmologist have been toying with the idea of 're-inventing' the aether as a way of understansding the creation event. See the article on Black Holes in the December 2005 issue of Scientific American: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000ADA62-D854-137C-962A83414B7F0000&sc=I100322</ref>. They argue that [[Geocentric theory]] is an alternative explanation of the result. If the earth is in-fact stationary relative to the aether then the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is easy to understand. This interpretation makes the Earth "special" compared to other celestial objects, supporting the view that Humanity (and the Earth) is the pinnacle of creation (and thus central).

==References==

<references/>

[[category:physics]]

Michelson-Morley experiment

2007-05-05T09:37:00Z

OfficerDibble: /* Consequences of the results */

The Michelson-Morley experiment was an important physics experiment performed in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley. The experiment attempted to measure the motion of the earth through the aether and failed to do so. This unexpected failure threw physics into chaos, and lead to the [[Theory of relativity]].

== Historical Background ==

The experiment was performed in the days when technology had just become sufficiently advanced to accurately measure the speed of light. At that time it was known that light behaved like a wave. Scientists believed that light waves (consisting of photons) traveled through a medium referred to as the aether (Sometimes spelt ether). The aether was believed to be fixed in space and so was regarded as an absolute frame of reference, relative to which the velocity of any object could (in theory), be measured. The concept of the eather was in some ways similar to the modern concept of "space-time" though some differences exist.
Thus the idea was that absolute movement existed.

Scientists at the time believed that if they could accurately measure the relative velocity between the earth and light waves, they would get different results for the speed of the light waves moving in different directions. They believed this would happen because the earth was constantly moving, and the aether was fixed. They believed that by examining the results they could measure the relative velocity between the earth and the aether, and hence determine the absolute velocity of the earth through space. The Michelson-Morley experiment was an attempt to do that.

== Results of the Experiment ==

The experiment gave unexpected results. The speed of light was found to be the same regardless of the direction the light was traveling in. At first it was assumed that the result was due to poor equipment or some other anomaly, but further work ruled that possibility out.

== Consequences of the results ==

Scientists then faced the dilemma. They believed the earth was moving through space, but the Michelson-Morley experiment and similar experiments indicated that the earth was somehow stationery relative to the aether at all times.

A number of theories were proposed to explain the paradox, including the idea that the aether might in some way be "dragged along" by the earth. In the end the theory of special relativity (See [[Theory of relativity]]) became the accepted explanation, and the concept of the aether was completely rejected, years later experimental evidence was provided to support the theory of Relativity.

A small number of people feel that the scientific community took a wrong turn when they rejected the concept of the aether <ref> This is an interesting phenomenon. Lately some cosmologist have been toying with the isea of 're-inventing' the aether as a way of understansding the creation event. See: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000ADA62-D854-137C-962A83414B7F0000&sc=I100322</ref>. They argue that [[Geocentric theory]] is an alternative explanation of the result. If the earth is in-fact stationary relative to the aether then the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is easy to understand. This interpretation makes the Earth "special" compared to other celestial objects, supporting the view that Humanity (and the Earth) is the pinnacle of creation (and thus central).

==References==

<references/>

[[category:physics]]

Michelson-Morley experiment

2007-05-05T09:36:17Z

OfficerDibble: /* Consequences of the results */ added link

The Michelson-Morley experiment was an important physics experiment performed in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley. The experiment attempted to measure the motion of the earth through the aether and failed to do so. This unexpected failure threw physics into chaos, and lead to the [[Theory of relativity]].

== Historical Background ==

The experiment was performed in the days when technology had just become sufficiently advanced to accurately measure the speed of light. At that time it was known that light behaved like a wave. Scientists believed that light waves (consisting of photons) traveled through a medium referred to as the aether (Sometimes spelt ether). The aether was believed to be fixed in space and so was regarded as an absolute frame of reference, relative to which the velocity of any object could (in theory), be measured. The concept of the eather was in some ways similar to the modern concept of "space-time" though some differences exist.
Thus the idea was that absolute movement existed.

Scientists at the time believed that if they could accurately measure the relative velocity between the earth and light waves, they would get different results for the speed of the light waves moving in different directions. They believed this would happen because the earth was constantly moving, and the aether was fixed. They believed that by examining the results they could measure the relative velocity between the earth and the aether, and hence determine the absolute velocity of the earth through space. The Michelson-Morley experiment was an attempt to do that.

== Results of the Experiment ==

The experiment gave unexpected results. The speed of light was found to be the same regardless of the direction the light was traveling in. At first it was assumed that the result was due to poor equipment or some other anomaly, but further work ruled that possibility out.

== Consequences of the results ==

Scientists then faced the dilemma. They believed the earth was moving through space, but the Michelson-Morley experiment and similar experiments indicated that the earth was somehow stationery relative to the aether at all times.

A number of theories were proposed to explain the paradox, including the idea that the aether might in some way be "dragged along" by the earth. In the end the theory of special relativity (See [[Theory of relativity]]) became the accepted explanation, and the concept of the aether was completely rejected, years later experimental evidence was provided to support the theory of Relativity.

A small number of people feel that the scientific community took a wrong turn when they rejected the concept of the aether <ref>This is an interesting phenomenon. Lately some cosmologist have been toying with the isea of 're-inventing' the aether as a way of understansding the creation event. See: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000ADA62-D854-137C-962A83414B7F0000&sc=I100322</ref>. They argue that [[Geocentric theory]] is an alternative explanation of the result. If the earth is in-fact stationary relative to the aether then the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is easy to understand. This interpretation makes the Earth "special" compared to other celestial objects, supporting the view that Humanity (and the Earth) is the pinnacle of creation (and thus central).

[[category:physics]]

Debate:Are cats just useless Dogs

2007-05-05T08:39:17Z

OfficerDibble: /* Feline Intelligence */

{{debate-humorous}}

==Even more useless than dogs==

I constantly fight against the temptation to put catnip in the road ; ) --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

cats are very useless! all they do is lay around and eat all day.

==Yes==
People who have cats really want a dog but haven't got the time to keep one. So they settle for a cat which is vastly inferior because you can't take it for walks, it wont bring anything back to you unless it killed it first, and it will never ever treat you with anything less than complete contempt.

:::It is well known, in fact that cats ARE dogs, in spite of what those silly, left-wing inspired dictionaries, naturalists, scientists, and pet owners claim. We at Conservapedia face an uphill battle undoing several centuries of leftwing brainwashing that attempts to sell the notion that these domesticated, four-legged mammal carnivores are different animals entirely, and as soon as I find some scientists and naturalists who agree with me, I'll be sure to post them as cites. Honest. Cross my heart and hope to die. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:Hey PF Fox, I'm a scientist. I agree. They are genetically more similar than a European Garden Snail is to an African Land Snail, yet we'd still call both of these creatures 'snails'. It's our mamaliocentric view of life that makes us classify very similar animals as being different. (Like chimps and humans perhaps - sorry creationists, just playing devils advocate, this is conservapedia and we are all entitled to our views!) So lets hear it for Cogs, or is that Dats? [[user:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 08:42, 13 April 2007 (BST)

==No==
Cats are different altogether from dogs. Some people(myself included) aren't fans of dogs.[[User:Nsmyth]] 09:15, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

People who have dogs are emotionally insecure individuals who need the validation of constant, interminable, unremitting, unconditional affection, affection, affection. That is why Walt Whitman wrote:

:I think I could turn and live with cats, they are so placid and self-contain’d
:I stand and look at them long and long.
:They do not sweat and whine about their condition;
:They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins;
:Not one kneels to another, nor to his kind that lived thousands of years ago;
:Not one is respectable or industrious over the whole earth.

::::(What Whitman actually wrote "I think I can turn and live with ''animals,''" but the passage just applies to perfectly to ''cats'' that I'm sure it was just a mistake on his part and that he meant to write "cats," so I've corrected the text accordingly...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:05, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, dogs slobber.

Well, cats do, too, but at least cats have the courtesy to spread it thinly and discreetly all over their body in a dignified way, where it dries out and becomes invisible except for adding that subtle gloss to their coat.

Unlike our Newfoundland who flings great stringy arcs of slobber all over the house, leaving big dried strings of Newfie spittle on the couch, the television set, and as high as five feet up on our walls. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:28, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

This is what Lord Byron said of his dog, which was evidently better than Walt Whitmans cat;

Near this spot

Are deposited the Remains of one

Who possessed Beauty without Vanity,

Strength without Insolence,

Courage without Ferocity,

And all the Virtues of Man without his Vices.

This Praise, which would be unmeaning Flattery

If inscribed over human ashes,

Is but a just tribute to the Memory of

BOATSWAIN, a DOG

Who was born at Newfoundland, May, 1803,

And died at Newstead, Nov 18th, 1808.

You dont get that with a cat do you!?? Well, do you??
[[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 14:40, 12 April 2007, (BST)

::Yeah, Newfies are great—I trust everybody knows that Nana, the dog that took care of the Darling children in ''Peter Pan,'' was really a Newfie, but Disney turned her into a St. Bernard just for the visual appeal.[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Cats are different to dogs, I agree. A little. But they're not as good. They don't do as much.
[[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 14:32, 12 April 2007, (BST)

Hmm...eyupdutch, this is interesting and I am intrigued...so when dogs chase cats are they playing or defending their terretory like any normal dog v. dog situation. And also...why do people think that the left-wingers want to brainwash us into thinking that dogs and cats are different...again I don't strongly disagree...I'm just interested.
Kind thanks, bealecr

== It is unclear ==

The Bible mentions dogs far more than cats, but it does not speak well of them. Are dogs holier (and therefore better) by their more frequent inclusion, or does the biblical censure of dogs make cats the superior being by default? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

The Bible says "a living dog is better than a dead lion," for whatever that's worth. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:29, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Hmm. Interesting point raised there. The ancient egyptians used to worship cats didn't they. Surely that's a false idol? Did/does any culture worship dogs? If christian texts favour the dog, maybe this is a question of the relative moral worth of cats and dogs, rather than a mere objective comparisson of the two creatures. Shall we move this to the religious debates I wonder?? [[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 14:29, 12 April 2007 (BST)

==Maybe?==
I got 4 cats and about to get another 2 but yet my mom says no dog because they are too much trouble. I would have to say that dogs and cats are equailly hard to take care of. It's slightly easier to take care of cats though with the having them poo in a box instead of having to get up at 2 AM to let fido outback to run and pee everywhere.

Cats .. are not 'useless' dogs. Just .. simplier dogs. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 23:34, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Cats are free to roam about and poo on other peoples gardens though. It upsets your neighbours and forces them to put it back through your mailbox. (Or maybe that's just where I live). Regarding the 'letting the dog out' problem - maybe some sort of dogflap is required??

==Feline Intelligence==

Cats are subtle, devious and very very egocentric. Cats treat humans as if they were other cats, whereas dogs attempt to become human. Cats will come to you to be stroked, but if you don't do it right, or they tire of you, you may find that you are suddenly grabbed by claws or teeth. It's what a cat would do to another cat (on friendly terms) to say 'ok, thats enough'. I have known cats to walk into a room, lie on a chair, and when asked to move ''pretend'' to be asleep, then behave as if they have been there for hours. Soem cats will even argue with you visibly and vocally. If you understand cat intelligence, you are in a world of subtlety, arrogance and individual need. It's like having the most determined and self-assured three year old imaginable.
--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Macavity was here!--[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 04:39, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Morecambe and Wise

2007-05-01T14:02:01Z

OfficerDibble: /* References */cat

[[Image:MandW.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Morecambe and Wise as Holmes & Watson]]

Morecambe and Wise <ref> Official website at
http://www.morecambeandwise.co.uk/ </ref> are one of the best known of all British Comedic Double acts of the 20th Century. During the 1970s and the 1980s their shows achieved viewing figures that were the envy of other broadcasters and their Specials were eagerly anticipated as the Queen’s Speech on Christmas Day. <ref><http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/articles/m/morecambeandwise_7774470.shtml </ref>

Lately there has been a re-evaluation of their contribution, with the rumours circulating after the death in 1999 of Ernie Wise of his enduring relationship with Eric Morecambe <ref> for a full analysis of this topic see Jane Morgan's Blog at http://comedyanalysis.blogspot.com/ </ref>. This has led some literary and media academics to re-interpret their work, and in a spate of recent papers, there has been an increasing trend to view their on-screen banter as a ‘jocular homo-erotic manifestation of something much deeper”. <ref name = "A">Arndale, C. , 2001, "Bringing us Sunshine: Re-evaluating a cultural phenomenon". Journal of Interpretive and Cultural History, Vol 3 No 2, pp 23-31</ref>

In retrospect, and viewed in this light, much of their work can clearly be construed to have dubious meanings: Eric would always refer to Ernie as the one with ‘short fat hairy legs’; privately Ernie would confide that he was the butt of Eric’s jokes “…and other things”. The comedy record made in the 1960’s “Bum oooh! Ya ta ta!” , seemed an innocent enough title at the time, but such a record would now be seen for exactly what it is, a thinly veiled musical analogy in which four men circulating their musical parts within the same passage, echoing what is called in some circles a ‘Daisy Chain’. <ref> Vendura, D., (2006), "Homoerotic musical references in well-known popular songs", Musical Symbolisim and Semiotics , Vol 1 no, 1, pp 30-35 </ref>

A pervasive and recurring ‘untold’ joke, which appears throughout their TV work, is a reference to “two old men sitting in deck chairs”. In fact this joke was often told to live audiences, and is very simple but illuminating: “Nice Out” says the first man. “Think I’ll get mine out” says the second. Eddie Braben (their script writer) is quoted as saying that such veiled references on TV had a triple meaning <ref> Braben, E. , 1994, quoted in "Writing a Legend" , article the Guardian Newspaper , 24th May 1994.</ref>. On the surface this is a simple ritornello device, used to keep audiences amused and guessing; for those who had attended live shows, this was an ‘in-joke’ meant as a reward; however, the two of them used it at a much deeper level to cement their relationship, as it was clear that both of them manifested such exhibitionist tendencies in private, and this was put in for their own amusement. <ref name = "A"> x </ref>

In many of their comedy sketches, there is a clear indication that Eric and Ernie live together, and that the relationship is dominated by Eric, and Ernie is the one who has feminine tendencies. Clearly those scenes, which show them in bed together, cannot now be seen as innocent, nor can the most famous of their comedy sketches, the ‘morning after’ sketch where they are preparing breakfast to the sounds of David Rose’s “The Stripper”. During this sketch a number of different elements are intensely suggestive: for example the way that Eric takes a sausage from Ernie, and the manner in which Ernie holds Eric’s chopper. <ref name = "H"> Holberg, D., Mandinka, R and Graham J., (2004) , "A radical interpretaion of some media icons", the , Journal of Creative Counselling and Psychiatry, vol 34, no 3, pp 18-40.</ref>

Apparently when Eric died in 1984 , Ernie was inconsolable. <ref name = "H">x </ref>

==References==

<references/>

{{Category:Broadcasting}}

Morecambe and Wise

2007-05-01T13:51:47Z

OfficerDibble: Added picture

File:MandW.jpg

2007-05-01T13:47:51Z

OfficerDibble: Morecambe and Wise

Morecambe and Wise