“away” does not rhyme with “Bright” or “light”
Limerick fail.
“away” does not rhyme with “Bright” or “light”
Limerick fail.
“On Friday, three days from tonight!”
Actually, that sucks. But it rhymes.
It kind of reads like a proof of Poe’s Law itself. How meta.
ETA: the Conservapaedia page, that is.
BrainGlutton:And guess what! Conservapedia has its own entry on Poe’s Law.
Thanks for the link. It’s like stepping into topsy-turvy world.
On that note, check out today’s This Modern World.
Here we have people who claim that God can break the laws of physics claiming that the laws of physics are wrong because God can break them. Whaa? If we can going to call any statement of fact wrong because God isn’t bound by that fact, don’t we have to throw out all information as useless?
Circular Jesus logic means nothing is true unless your religious leader tells you so. What a happy place to be if you are a religious leader.
Umm, these are the same people that claim evolution can’t happen because that would break the 2nd law of thermodynamics. When it is then pointed out by that argument then no living thing can grow (IE increasing order) then they claim that living things can break the 2nd law because they’re alive. (But still can’t do evolution because that’d break the 2nd law.)
“away” does not rhyme with “Bright” or “light”
Limerick fail.
English majors! Is there no end to their perfidy, misfeasance, villainy, and pusillanimous pulchritude?
Its the Moldavian variation of the limerick, with the rhyme scheme A,A, B,B, and WTF. So there! Besides, check back next week and you’ll see I fixed it yesterday.
Euphonious_Polemic:“away” does not rhyme with “Bright” or “light”
Limerick fail.
English majors! Is there no end to their perfidy, misfeasance, villainy, and pusillanimous pulchritude?
Its the Moldavian variation of the limerick, with the rhyme scheme A,A, B,B, and WTF. So there! Besides, check back next week and you’ll see I fixed it yesterday.
Of course! Who can forget the classic:
Oedipus and Jocasta would pucker
And out if her clothes he would shuck 'er
'Till he got a surprise
And he tore out his eyes
The pitiful, sad, Freudian archetype
And guess what! Conservapedia has its own entry on Poe’s Law.
Sometimes I forget just how wonderful that website is.
Stupid Einstein! We should have burned him for his heresy.
They would have, but he was smart enough to know when to split.
They would have, but he was smart enough to know when to split.
Is that a “Nazi” joke or an “atom” joke? Either way, it’s funny.
Gone fission.
Jesus rose from the dead after three days. DID EINSTEIN???
He once had a wicked bad hangover that lasted three days.
That count?
-Joe
From the Conservapedia page on the Theory of Relativity:
Lack of evidence for Relativity
The Theory of relativity assumes that time is symmetric just as space is, but the biggest early promoter of relativity, Arthur Eddington, coined the term “arrow of time” admitting how time is not symmetric but is directional. The passage of time is tied to an increase in disorder, or entropy. The Theory of relativity cannot explain this, and implicitly denies it, specifically allowing for theoretical time travel (e.g., wormholes) and different rates of passage of time based on velocity and acceleration.
Claims that relativity was used to develop the Global Positioning System (GPS) are false. A 1996 article explains:
“The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter - less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”[14][15]
This article, which was published in 1996, goes on to propose relativistic corrections that might be used to design more accurate GPS systems. Clocks on board GPS satellites require adjustments to their clock frequencies if they are to be synchronized with those on the surface of the Earth.Tom Van Flandern, an astronomer hired to work on GPS in the late 1990s, concluded that “[t]he GPS programmers don’t need relativity.” He was quoted as saying that the GPS programmers “have basically blown off Einstein.”[16] Asynchronization can be easily addressed through communications between the satellites and ground stations, so it is unclear why any theory would be needed for GPS. But other obscure physicists having no connection with GPS design claim that Van Flandern is wrong about GPS, and insist that relativity provides the best explanation for its timing adjustments.[17]
Some internet articles claim that GPS timing differences confirm the Theory of Relativity or its Lorentzian counterpart (which uses a preferred frame of reference). GPS clocks run slower in the weaker gravitation field of the satellites than on ground stations on Earth, with the effects predicted by general relativity far outweighing the effects predicted by special relativity. However, the articles claiming that the slower GPS satellite clocks confirm relativity do not address the effect, if any, of the weaker gravitational force under Newton’s theory on the GPS satellite clocks.
Currently, GPS satellites are synchronized to Coordinated Universal Time by radio signals from the ground; therefore, they cannot currently be used to test general relativity.[18]
There are claims that the effects of relativity have been observed with the frequency shift of the signal being sent back to Earth several times as various spacecraft have dipped into the gravity wells around massive objects such as the sun (see image at right)[19] or Saturn[20]. A satellite called Gravity Probe B was put in orbit about the Earth to examine the effects of frame dragging and geodetic warping of space[21][22], but the results were inconclusive. Note, however, that Newtonian mechanics also predicts deflection of light by gravity, and in the initial theory of relativity it predicted the same amount of deflection.[23] Adjustments to the theory of relativity resulted in a prediction of a greater deflection of light than that predicated by Newtonian mechanics, though it is debatable how much deflection Newtonian mechanics should predict.
None of the NASA spacecraft incorporates predictions of relativity into their own timing mechanisms, as Newtonian mechanics is adequate even for probes sent deep into space.[24]
A decade of observation of the pulsar pair PSR B1913+16 detected a decline in its orbital period, which was attributed to a loss in energy by the system. It is impossible to measure the masses of the pulsars, their accelerations relative to the observers, or other fundamental parameters. Professors Joseph Taylor and Russell Hulse, who discovered the binary pulsar, found that physical values could be assigned to the pulsars to make the observed decline in orbital period consistent with the Theory of General Relativity, and for this they were awarded the 1993 Nobel Prize for Physics, which is the only award ever given by the Nobel committee for the Theory of Relativity.[25] In 2004, Professor Taylor utilized a correction to the derivative of the orbital period to fit subsequent data better to the theory. At most, assumptions can be made and altered to fit the data to the theory, rather than the data confirming the theory.
The perihelion of Mercury’s orbit precesses at a measurable rate, but even after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets in the solar system, Newton’s theory (assuming a precise inverse-square relationship for distance) predicts a rate of precession that differs from the measured rate by approximately 43 arcseconds per century. General relativity was developed in part to provide an estimate for this rate of precession that better matches observations.[26] [27] [28] Newton’s theory can also explain this perihelion by factoring in the gravitational pull due to other planets or making tiny adjustments to parameters in the gravitational equation.
General relativity predicts twice as much bending in light as it passes near massive objects than Newton’s theory might predict.[29] This phenomenon is known as gravitational lensing. A large number of instances of gravitational lensing have been observed, and it is now a standard astronomical tool.[30] [31] [32] Note, however, that the extent of bending of light predicted by Newton’s theory is open to debate, and depends on assumptions about the nature of light for gravitational purposes.[33]
In 1972, scientists flew extremely accurate clocks (“atomic clocks”) around the world in both directions on commercial airlines, and claimed to observe relativistic time dilation; the eastbound clock gained 273 ns and the westbound clock lost 59 ns, matching the predictions of general relativity to within experimental accuracy.[34] However, the inventor of the atomic clock, Louis Essen, declared that the experiment was inaccurate.[35] Dr A. G. Kelly examined the raw data from the experiment and declared it inconclusive.[36] The Nobel Committee chose not to honor this experiment for the significance that was claimed.
Despite censorship of dissent about relativity, evidence contrary to the theory is discussed outside of liberal universities.[37]
<snip>
**Political aspects of relativity **
Some liberal politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama helped publish an article by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe to apply the relativistic concept of “curvature of space” to promote a broad legal right to abortion.[45] As of June 2008, over 170 law review articles have cited this liberal application of the theory of relativity to legal arguments.[46] Applications of the theory of relativity to change morality have also been common.[47] Moreover, there is an unmistakable effort to censor or ostracize criticism of relativity.[48]Physicist Robert Dicke of Princeton University was a prominent critic[49] of general relativity, and Dicke’s alternative “has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time.”[50] Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was repeatedly passed over for a Nobel Prize, and in at least one case Dicke was insulted by the award being granted to others for contributions more properly credited to Dicke.
There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity.
Government Support for Relativistic research
The Theory of Relativity enjoys a disproportionate share of federal funding of physics research today.[51] In at least one case that research has been unsuccessful. The $365 million dollar LIGO project has failed to detect the gravity waves predicted by relativity.[52]
elucidator:English majors! Is there no end to their perfidy, misfeasance, villainy, and pusillanimous pulchritude?
Its the Moldavian variation of the limerick, with the rhyme scheme A,A, B,B, and WTF. So there! Besides, check back next week and you’ll see I fixed it yesterday.
Of course! Who can forget the classic:
Oedipus and Jocasta would pucker
And out if her clothes he would shuck 'er
'Till he got a surprise
And he tore out his eyes
The pitiful, sad, Freudian archetype
And in more adventurous vein:
There was an Albanian monk
Who slept on a hard wooden bunk;
He dreamed naked Venus
Was sucking his finger
And woke up all covered in perspiration.
So, it looks like Conservapedia thinks liberal professors managed to hoodwink entire colleges to mistake the ToR with Moral Relativity, and thus teaching all that quantum physics stuff dismantled all their students’ moral structures.
Maybe Einstein is seen as the progenitor of this moral collapse because of quotes like this:
Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
There is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human affair.
So, maybe, MAYBE, that’s the rationale behind the OP’s link. (I keep trying to figure out why kooks think the way they do. What does that make me?)
So, maybe, MAYBE, that’s the rationale behind the OP’s link. (I keep trying to figure out why kooks think the way they do. What does that make me?)
Eternally frustrated, I’d say, if “because they’re kooks” doesn’t satisfy you.
So, it looks like Conservapedia thinks liberal professors managed to hoodwink entire colleges to mistake the ToR with Moral Relativity, and thus teaching all that quantum physics stuff dismantled all their students’ moral structures.
Maybe Einstein is seen as the progenitor of this moral collapse because of quotes like this:
Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
There is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human affair.
Or it could just be because he was a kike. They tried that with Freud, too.
From the Conservapedia page on the Theory of Relativity:
Lack of evidence for Relativity
The Theory of relativity…predicted by relativity.[52]
This cannot be real, can it? Is Conservapedia like Wikipedia, where the general public can edit the articles? Because my mind won’t let me believe this entry is sincere. It has to be a prank, right?
BrainGlutton:And guess what! Conservapedia has its own entry on Poe’s Law.
Thanks for the link. It’s like stepping into topsy-turvy world.
I suppose it’s more coherent than Timecube. At least by a little bit.