Difference between revisions of "Talk:Essay:Quantifying Order"
From Conservapedia
(More Mercury matters, mainly) |
(Then, please, pause for a moment and ask yourself: why didn't they tell you this so you could decide for yourself, rather than being told what to think?) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
::Okay. Let's find a way of making that point without quoting an incorrect value for the Mercury anomaly then? Cause putting in a number that's not actually supported by observations just to make a philosophical point seems kind of … I dunno. Deceptive? --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 17:58, 14 November 2009 (EST) | ::Okay. Let's find a way of making that point without quoting an incorrect value for the Mercury anomaly then? Cause putting in a number that's not actually supported by observations just to make a philosophical point seems kind of … I dunno. Deceptive? --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 17:58, 14 November 2009 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::Kate, if I can call you that, I have no reason to lie about this. I'm not applying for any grants. I'm trying to get a PhD from liberal professors. I'm not worried about what my colleagues might say. Like the Bible, I'm just telling the truth, and trying to learn more of it. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::The physics journals all seem to require payment for access. But type this into a Google search: 5599.7 Mercury. You'll then see what the liberal physics professors won't tell you, as Google returns fragments from limited-access journals. Then, please, pause for a moment and ask yourself: why didn't they tell you this so you could decide for yourself, rather than being told what to think?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:40, 14 November 2009 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 23:40, November 14, 2009
"Subsequently, however, more accurate measurements with more sophisticated technology have determined this precession to be 55 arc-seconds per century, nearly 30% off the number provided by relativity."
Please provide a citation in the article for this. I'm shocked that I somehow missed the news. Thanks much. --KSorenson 17:48, 14 November 2009 (EST)
- I'm urging you to look beyond what you're taught. I went through the same physics curriculum as others, and it is what isn't taught that matters. Earnestly.--Andy Schlafly 17:53, 14 November 2009 (EST)
- Okay. Let's find a way of making that point without quoting an incorrect value for the Mercury anomaly then? Cause putting in a number that's not actually supported by observations just to make a philosophical point seems kind of … I dunno. Deceptive? --KSorenson 17:58, 14 November 2009 (EST)
- Kate, if I can call you that, I have no reason to lie about this. I'm not applying for any grants. I'm trying to get a PhD from liberal professors. I'm not worried about what my colleagues might say. Like the Bible, I'm just telling the truth, and trying to learn more of it.
- The physics journals all seem to require payment for access. But type this into a Google search: 5599.7 Mercury. You'll then see what the liberal physics professors won't tell you, as Google returns fragments from limited-access journals. Then, please, pause for a moment and ask yourself: why didn't they tell you this so you could decide for yourself, rather than being told what to think?--Andy Schlafly 18:40, 14 November 2009 (EST)
