Conservapedia Article of the Day: Relativity


I love Conservapedia, when the Lenski Dialogs happened I stumbled on the congealed hatred of a website through the blow by blow coverage on New Scientist. Through it, I found the insanity of the website’s content and it’s moderators, the humorous and insightful coverage of RationalWiki (on army computers Conservapedia is readily accessible and RationalWiki is blocked, fuckers), and had the thankfully deceased TK (an infamous slimeball of a moderator) threaten my RL career repeatedly.

One of Andy Schlafly’s biggest hang-ups is the Theory of Relativity due to his linkage of the scientific concept with Moral Relativity, which he abhors. In his mind, because Moral Relativity is evil, the scientific theory must be a liberal lie perpetuated on society in order to bring about socialism (he really does think that). Just look at his long list of counter examples to the theory or his wiki’s statement that all current examples of the theory in use are lies while using software that relies on relativistic principles to coordinate real time posting and location updates.

So I present to you, perhaps for the first time, the Theory of relativity according to idiots.

Political aspects of relativity

Some liberal politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, Democratic President 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.[61] As of June 2008, over 170 law review articles have cited this liberal application of the theory of relativity to legal arguments.[62] Applications of the theory of relativity to change morality have also been common.[63] Moreover, there is an unmistakable effort to censor or ostracize criticism of relativity.[64]

Physicist Robert Dicke of Princeton University was a prominent critic[65] of general relativity, and Dicke’s alternative “has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time.”[66] 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.

 

Comments

  1. says

    I imagine he will be happy about the recent result from OPERA experiment where they found neutrinos travelling faster than the speed of light. I imagine he will probably latch onto that no matter what other experiments find as it is probably due to an experimental error of some sort.

  2. slc1 says

    Re Robert Dicke

    Prof. Dicke’s major contribution to physics was his very precise measurements of the universal gravitation constant which increased the number of significant digits from 3 to 5. However, his observations, which purported to show that the interior of the Sun is rotating 10 times as fast as its atmosphere have not been reproduced by other observers. This is in addition to most experts in stellar structure considering that such a finding is preposterous.

    The problem is that the Brans-Dicke theory, to which Mr. McCarthy alludes, is dependent on this observation because it implies a quadrupole moment of the Sun which would be sufficient to account for about 3 seconds of arc/century in the precession rate of the major axis of the planet Mercury. This would exclude Einstein’s theory which predicts that General Relativity accounts for the entire amount of the precession rate not accounted for by the effects of the other planets (e.g. 43 seconds of arc/century).

    In addition, experiments performed in the early 1970s using the time of transit of a radio signal from the earth to one of the early Mars probes and back indicated that the Brans-Dicke theory gave a value that was statistically in disagreement with what was observed.

    The bottom line of all of this is that the Brans-Dicke theory has been rejected by the scientific community because it doesn’t agree with observations. Period, end of discussion. Obviously, moron McCarthy is totally unaware of these results.

  3. jamessweet says

    I hate to say something positive about Conservapaedia — especially in regards to an article that tries to imply a legitimate scientific controversy over whether relativity is more accurate than Newtonian physics, lol wut! — but they have half a point in knocking the Laurence Tribe article trying to construct some sort of loopy analogy between relativistic spacetime curvature and the Living Document interpretation of the US constitution. I will admit I have not had time to dig up and read the Tribe article, so maybe it’s a good piece in the main — but IMO that metaphor is prima facie a bit on the silly side.

  4. uqbar says

    Presumably because even a blind pig can find an acorn now and then, the statement about the Nobel Prize committee paying scant recognition to the theory of relativity is essentially correct. In fact, if you look on the official Nobel Prize site (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/) you will see that Einstein got his prize “for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect”. However, according to some histories I have read, this likely had more to do with anti-semitic influences on the committee than with a dispute on the validity of relativity.

    The “political aspects relativity” are indeed interesting, but not for the reasons put forth on Conservapedia. The Nazis officially opposed relativity because it was considered “Jewish science,” and the Soviet Union officially opposed it because it was for some reason considered to counter dialectical materialism. However, both Nazi and Soviet physicists used the theory in their work, for an obvious reason: it was correct.

    Conservapedia is both funny and sad. Ans scary – how many people in positions of power actually believe this nonsense?

  5. Richard Simons says

    A couple of years ago I stumbled across their page on frogs, to find this:

    Frogs have often been the subject of scientific experiment, whether in high school science class dissections or Voltaire’s 1766 experiments, in which he discovered that frogs hear with their legs. The discovery that a frog’s leg will kick if an electrical shock is applied to it was the scientific basis behind the reflex tests now common in doctors’ offices.

    [snip]

    According to atheistic biologist Richard Dawkins, the joints of the Lesser Spotted Weasel Frog continue to present a challenge to the Theory of Evolution insofar as their origin cannot be explained by gradual degrees.

    Dawkins was actually giving a hypothetical creationist argument. I still get a chuckle out of this.

  6. macallan says

    Holy fuck this is insane even by conservapedia’s standards.
    And the scary thing is that these people vote.
    Man this country is fucked.

  7. Mommiest says

    Somewhere, somebody is writing an article for Conservapedia which explains that the force of gravity which keeps us bound to the Earth is also very, very sad.

  8. says

    I wanted to say your blog is very good. I continually like to hear anything new about this as a result of I even have the similar blog in my Country on this subject thus this help??s me a lot. I did a research on the matter and observed a excellent form of blogs but nothing like this.Thanks for sharing such a lot inside your blog.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>