Author Topic: The Theory of Relativity is Just Liberal Conspiracy  (Read 1020 times)

Copypasta'd cause I'm lazy. Source here.

The Catholic Church attacked the revolutionary 16th century idea that Earth actually revolves around the sun. Some conservative Christian groups continue to rail against the Theories of Evolution and Natural Selection.

Many believe the Earth is only about 6,000 years old, despite evidence that it is over 4.5 billion years old. And the war between religion and science just took another weird, political turn.

The website Conservapedia has declared that Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is a liberal conspiracy, according to TPMMuckrakerAndy Schlafly, son of anti-abortion activist Phyllis Schlafly, founded Conservapedia.

In its “Counterexamples to Relativity” website, Conservapedia says, “The theory of relativity is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.”

The site lists 28 separate “examples,” some backed by scripture, of why Relativity is incorrect.

A footnote in the Conservapedia site adds, “Virtually no one who is taught and believes relativity continues to read the Bible, a book that outsells New York Times bestsellers by a hundred-fold.”

The site does not, however, give any of the numerous experimental verifications of the theory.

New Scientist magazine picked up on the story and called the “liberal conspiracy” completely baseless, and said there is absolutely no reason to associate the Theory of Relativity with the philosophy of relativism.

The New Scientist article also said that fundamentalist groups selectively use Einstein’s ideas and theories acceptable to their beliefs, such as the famous quote, “God does not throw dice,” while ignoring that Einstein did not believe in a personal god.

Conservapedia gives some strange counterexamples to relativity. One cites Genesis 1:6-8 in which God created a firmament in the heavens, which the site equates with the “aether.”

The Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887, and further experiments in the 1950s, largely disproved the existence of aether.

In another example citing John 4:46-54, the site claims that Jesus was able perform deeds through “action-at-a-distance,” or instantaneous action, and that would violate Einstein’s theory that nothing can travel faster than light.

New Scientist pointed out that action-at-a-distance, however, happens all the time during the quantum entanglement of particles.

Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity revolutionized the way scientists understand light and how massive objects in the universe interact through gravity.

The theory was successfully used to explain the motion of Mercury more accurately than Newton’s laws could. Relativity also explained the deflection of light by gravitational fields.

New Scientist pointed out that even though General Relativity has passed many tests, most physicists don’t believe it is ultimately correct because it conflicts with quantum mechanics.

But physicists are working hard to wrap gravity and the three other fundamental forces into a “grand unified theory” through such ideas as String Theory and Supersymmetry.

—Don Clyde/Newsdesk


Silly conservatives, science is for educated people.


-snip-
Silly conservatives, science is for educated people.
Implying that all conservatives are uneducated hillbillies.

Haha.  Oh those conservatives.
Implying that all conservatives are uneducated hillbillies.
Some aren't but most are.

Implying that all conservatives are uneducated hillbillies.

You know damn well I'm talking specifically about the conservatives that believe this.

flaws in theory of relativity






uneducated conservatives go apestuff

I wasent following very well here, did i get it right dkamm?

flaws in theory of relativity






uneducated conservatives go apestuff

I wasent following very well here, did i get it right dkamm?

Well, sort of.

The "flaws" in the theory of relativity are the things that aren't compatible with the bible.

The Conservapedia editors realize Einstein is making them look bad, so they come up with this malarkey.


In another example citing John 4:46-54, the site claims that Jesus was able perform deeds through “action-at-a-distance,” or instantaneous action, and that would violate Einstein’s theory that nothing can travel faster than light.

HAHAHAHAHAAhahahaa...hahahaaa
haha..

"I SAW A MAGICIAN AT THE FAIR DO SOMETHING REALLY COOL ONCE, SCIENCE MUST BE FAKE!"

I--

Wh--

But th--

No. Just no.

Sooo, conservatives are retrocigarettes?

Tom

Sooo, conservatives are retrocigarettes?
That is a redundant statement.

Pfft. The Earth can't revolve around the sun. Flat things don't go flying in circles. Silly Liberals.


:3

Tom

Well it is a theory. Maybe in 1000 years when we have super technology it might be proven wrong.

Well it is a theory. Maybe in 1000 years when we have super technology it might be proven wrong.

Quote from: http://www.nebscience.org/theory.html
A theory is built upon one or more hypotheses, and upon evidence. The word "built" is essential, for a theory contains reasoning and logical connections based on the hypotheses and evidence. Thus we have Newton's theory of gravity and the motion of planets, Einstein's theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, the cell theory of organisms, plate tectonics (theory of the motion of land masses), the valence theory of chemical compounds, and theories of evolution in biology, geology, and astronomy. These theories are self-consistent and consistent with one another.

In other words, theories are proven statements. My mistake, they are actually only proven in pure mathematics, however they are still backed up by many hypotheses and evidence, so the term "just a theory" is misleading.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 10:53:55 PM by Raeyok »

Tom

In other words, theories are proven statements.
They are proven, but with math and evidence, not with scientific experimentation.

From the same page you just posted:
Quote
Yes, a scientific theory can be wrong, as shown by experiment or observation, since one of its hypotheses might be wrong or the reasoning might be flawed or new data might come along that disagree with it. Or its validity might be limited (as are some of those listed above). So in science, a wrong theory gets modified, discarded, or replaced. This has happened, for example, in physics with the caloric theory of heat and the theory of the luminiferous ether, and in chemistry with the phlogiston theory of combustion.

I'm not saying that the theory is wrong, but I'm saying that there is always the possibility that it is.