Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Counterexamples to Relativity

  1. Mar 2, 2010 #1
    From Conservapedia:


    Don't forget to look at the Talk Page.

    Take that, libs!
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 2, 2010 #2
    OMG this is so funny. Thank you for that laugh.
  4. Mar 2, 2010 #3
    "9 The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54"
    Kinda hard to take it serious after that...
  5. Mar 2, 2010 #4
    Why must conservatives make religion look bad.

  6. Mar 3, 2010 #5
    Why must religion make conservatives look bad?


    Seriously, I like to consider myself conservative on several issues (I consider myself a libertarian overall), but I HATE getting lumped in with these guys. I'd rather get lumped in with the most radical hippies on the left over my "liberal" issues.
  7. Mar 3, 2010 #6

    Chi Meson

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Which is why we should all not consider ourselves as anything (re political box or stripe). Even donning the label of "anarchist" artificially presets one's reaction to an issue. Rather than looking objectively at a specific issue or problem, people will consult what their "team" would say.

    This list represents the worst of that particular team, but there are people who consult this list in order to find out what their opinion is on the matter.
  8. Mar 3, 2010 #7
    They should have a pistol duel to decide who is president.

    Oh, and party labeling is so. . . bad. Why would you want to lump yourself in with someone elses ideas? When it comes down to it, if you are running for a particular party; you will follow their agenda no matter what your ideas for change are. Although there is a small bit of wiggle room.
  9. Mar 3, 2010 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes, "bundling" of ideas and beliefs is widespread on both ends of the spectrum (you're pro-choice?...well then, you mustn't agree with nuclear power! :rolleyes:).

    In the footnotes:

    Seems the writer of that statement sees a clear example cause-and-effect :rolleyes:.
  10. Mar 3, 2010 #9
    18. The lack of a single useful device developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.

    w-t-f? How does this accomplish the original statement of intent for laying out the 'counter-examples'. In fact I don't think any of these are counter-examples...

    EDIT: 'every verified theory of science' I assume this ALSO includes that new branch of science religious nutcases made up called 'creation science'. It's verified in the bible, I read it myself. What exactly has creation science brought to the world that 'saved lives or helped them' or has led to 'other useful theories'... have there been any useful devices developed based on insights provided by the theory???
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2010
  11. Mar 3, 2010 #10
    "Here is a list of counterexamples, and if only one of these is true, then the theory fails:"


    what happens when they examine the list of reasons for going into Iraq?
  12. Mar 4, 2010 #11
    But wait, there's more :smile::

    I found it on Recursivity, the blog of computer scientist Jeffrey Shallit. There are more examples of this brand of nuttiness in his post and in the comments section.

    I was wondering this myself, especially considering that same objection is listed twice (see 11). As far as the other counterexampes are concerned--at least ones that make an honest effort at disconfirming relativity rather than just ranting--I will defer to people who know a lot about relativity. I would like to hear what some of you think.

    Again, I was thinking the same thing. So far Intelligent Design has one practical application that I know of: Southern Baptist ministers learn about it in seminary so they can pass it on to their congregations. But then, it is still a young science...
  13. Mar 4, 2010 #12
    techmologist, I thought you posted the link as a joke. If you buy any argument in the webpage, please specifically post one so we can discuss it.
    If I understand correctly, this is bordering moderation. Intelligent Design is not science, it has nothing to do with science, people who even begin to study ID as a branch of science have not understood the basic principles of science. I hope this is clear to you.

  14. Mar 4, 2010 #13
    Humanino I think that techmo is being sarcastic with that remark.

    However many people do not know enough about relativity to discredit things such as the Pioneer anomaly which is the first 'counterexample' listed. I think that techmo doesn't 'believe' what is written on there but they just don't know how to counter it and that's what they are interested in.
  15. Mar 4, 2010 #14
    Sorry, I'm a bit tired, I did not get it :redface:
  16. Mar 4, 2010 #15
    Conservapedia is of too low quality to take seriously.
  17. Mar 4, 2010 #16
    No problem. I move in and out of irony without warning. There need to be [irony]...[/irony] tags or something. But zomgwtf is right...while I can plainly see that Andrew Schlafly (Harvard-educated lawyer and son of conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly), the source of this stuff, is not on speaking terms with Reality, my knowledge of relativity is limited. And I know there are people here who know a lot more.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook