RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (3) < 1 2 [3] >   
  Topic: Alternative reality wikis, Beware: Nutters at work< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Arctodus23



Posts: 322
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2013,16:18   

Anti-E=mc^2 propaganda

--------------
"At our church’s funerals, we sing gospel songs (out loud) to God." -- FL

"So the center of the earth being hotter than the surface is a "gross
violation of the second law of thermodynamics??" -- Ted Holden

   
Cubist



Posts: 511
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2013,16:55   

Quote (Arctodus23 @ April 25 2013,16:18)
Anti-E=mc^2 propaganda

The Talk_page for that one is amusing. Aschafly is clearly ramming his personal dogma down Conservapedia's throat, never mind all the C'pedians who, equally clearly, know exactly how and why Aschafly is wronger than lime green bowling shoes. Granted, Aschafly does regard C'pedia as his personal mouthpiece, so the dissenters are missing the point… My single favorite comment:
Quote
Additionally, the page for this is just a mess. The opening section claims it to be liberal claptrap, while the rest of the article lists experiments that conclusively prove it to be true (None of which I think I've ever seen you directly address). If real-world results contradict your supposed logic, perhaps there is a problem with your logic?--RobertDW 21:31, 16 January 2013 (EST)

  
Arctodus23



Posts: 322
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2013,12:57   

Anti-English launguage propaganda!

--------------
"At our church’s funerals, we sing gospel songs (out loud) to God." -- FL

"So the center of the earth being hotter than the surface is a "gross
violation of the second law of thermodynamics??" -- Ted Holden

   
stevestory



Posts: 11094
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2013,15:31   

Quote (Cubist @ April 25 2013,17:55)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ April 25 2013,16:18)
Anti-E=mc^2 propaganda

The Talk_page for that one is amusing. Aschafly is clearly ramming his personal dogma down Conservapedia's throat, never mind all the C'pedians who, equally clearly, know exactly how and why Aschafly is wronger than lime green bowling shoes. Granted, Aschafly does regard C'pedia as his personal mouthpiece, so the dissenters are missing the point… My single favorite comment:
 
Quote
Additionally, the page for this is just a mess. The opening section claims it to be liberal claptrap, while the rest of the article lists experiments that conclusively prove it to be true (None of which I think I've ever seen you directly address). If real-world results contradict your supposed logic, perhaps there is a problem with your logic?--RobertDW 21:31, 16 January 2013 (EST)

man, that's something. On the main page:

Quote
Political pressure,[2] however, has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of this nonsensical equation. Simply put, E=mc˛ is liberal claptrap.


and in the talk pages:

Quote
It's a liberal fiction that E=mc2 has ever been applied in any practical way. The equation defines rest mass in terms of the speed of light - an absurdity.--Andy Schlafly 10:15, 12 November 2012 (EST)


Quote
With all due respect, relativity was factored into the design of the GPS satellite system. If you want to calculate the energy release of an atomic bomb, E=mc2 is very useful. We don't know with great precision the speed of light, and we don't know with great precision the value of "c". But God gave us brains and curiosity, so we will learn more precise values for both. So far, they match. If someday in the future, someone calculates "c" and measures the speed of light to more decimal places and discovers that they are different, I will have an open mind as to why. The constant "c" carries through consistently in Einstein's calculations for the Special Theory. The coincidence that "c" happens to equal the speed of light is one of the beautiful things about God's universe. Although I do not spend my life's work on theoretical physics, I am pleased that God has inspired some very smart people to devote their lives to thinking about relativity, and I wish them success and happiness. Wschact 11:15, 12 November 2012 (EST)


Quote
                   Relativity was not factored into the GPS design, and E=mc2 has never been useful in any other way.
__
                   We've discussed the claim about relativity and GPS over and over on this site, and as a matter of historical fact (not to mention obvious engineering efficiency), theoretical relativity was not part of its design. It is far easier and more accurate simply to synchronize directly based on observation, as may be needed.--Andy Schlafly 11:20, 12 November 2012 (EST)


Quote
If relativity isn't factored into the GPS design, why does the Global Positioning System Standard Positioning Service Signal Specification (and you can't get more official than that) state that they have to compensate for relativistic effects? --AugustO 12:30, 12 November 2012 (EST)


And schlafly doesn't reply.

   
Nomad



Posts: 311
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2013,18:08   

So, about that E=mc^2 denialism, umm...

How exactly did this happen:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci....140.htm

An Argonne national laboratory run "ask a scientist" site that says that compressing a spring increases its mass because of the aforementioned formula?  The hell?

  
Henry J



Posts: 5123
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2013,23:14   

For that, E/c^2 would be a very tiny amount in mass units; I expect it would generally not be measurable.

Henry

  
Nomad



Posts: 311
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2013,02:08   

Oookay..  <frantic googling ensues>

Woops.  I'd swear I was specifically taught that that formula only applied to nuclear reactions, that chemical and other forms of potential energy didn't do that at all.

I appear to have entered a parallel dimension in which conservapedia has taught me something.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5123
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2013,19:22   

Well, for chemical and physical (but non-nuclear) reactions, it (AFAIK) doesn't affect the mass enough for that to be detectable. So beginning physics courses are apt to defer that point until later, especially if the course is talking about Newtonian physics and not Einstein.

Henry

  
Arctodus23



Posts: 322
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2013,05:57   

Quote (Nomad @ May 05 2013,02:08)
Oookay..  <frantic googling ensues>

Woops.  I'd swear I was specifically taught that that formula only applied to nuclear reactions, that chemical and other forms of potential energy didn't do that at all.

I appear to have entered a parallel dimension in which conservapedia has taught me something.

Don't you mean Wackopedia?

--------------
"At our church’s funerals, we sing gospel songs (out loud) to God." -- FL

"So the center of the earth being hotter than the surface is a "gross
violation of the second law of thermodynamics??" -- Ted Holden

   
  68 replies since Mar. 02 2007,12:57 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (3) < 1 2 [3] >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]