Theory of Relativity= LIBERAL PLOT (rofl)

[sgreger1]

To many conservatives, almost everything is a secret liberal plot: from fluoride in the water to medicare reimbursements for end-of-life planning with your doctor to efforts to teach evolution in schools. But Conservapedia founder and Eagle Forum University instructor Andy Schlafly -- Phyllis Schlafly's son -- has found one more liberal plot: the theory of relativity.

If you're behind on your physics, the Theory of Relativity was Albert Einstein's formulation in the early 20th century that gave rise to the famous theorum that E=mc2, otherwise stated as energy is equal to mass times the square of the speed of light. Why does Andy Schlafly hate the theory of relativity? We're pretty sure it's because he's decided it doesn't square with the Bible.

In the entry, "Counterexamples to Relativity," the authors (including Schlafly) write:

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.[1]

To what does that reference lead? Why, a note by Schlafly:

See, e.g., historian Paul Johnson's book about the 20th century, and the article written by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe as allegedly assisted by Barack Obama. 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

In other words, reading a theory about physics is correlated to a decrease in people's interest in reading the Bible, which means that it causes people to stop reading the Bible.
Schlafly also points to the Bible as a reason that Einstein's theory must be wrong:

9. The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54.

Conservapedia defines "action-at-a-distance" as "Action at a distance consists of affecting a distant body instantaneously. At the atom level, this is known as "non-locality." In non-confusing terms, that indicates the ability to cause something to happen instantaneously in another location (i.e., faster than the speed of light). Since Jesus could, reportedly, do this, thus Einstein is wrong. Schlafly's evidence is John 4:46-54, in which Jesus reportedly cured someone's son just by saying it had happened.

Once more he visited Cana in Galilee, where he had turned the water into wine. And there was a certain royal official whose son lay sick at Capernaum.

When this man heard that Jesus had arrived in Galilee from Judea, he went to him and begged him to come and heal his son, who was close to death.

"Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders," Jesus told him, "you will never believe."

The royal official said, "Sir, come down before my child dies."

Jesus replied, "You may go. Your son will live."The man took Jesus at his word and departed.

While he was still on the way, his servants met him with the news that his boy was living.

When he inquired as to the time when his son got better, they said to him, "The fever left him yesterday at the seventh hour."

Then the father realized that this was the exact time at which Jesus had said to him, "Your son will live." So he and all his household believed.

This was the second miraculous sign that Jesus performed, having come from Judea to Galilee.

/I knew it, physics is teh debil.

Also, lol @ the statement that "learning physics is directly corrolated with reading the bible less". (No shit shirlock)

[lxskllr]

The American Taliban... We should go to war ;^)

[zoomzoom9]

It's so much easier to come up with counterexamples than your own theory...I guess it makes it even easier when the counterexamples are whatever happens to pop into your head and you can prove it by appealing to the "belief principal": I believe it, therefore it must be true!

[shikitohno]

Kind of typical. You ask a religious person who tasks issue with a scientific idea to back up their claims that it's "wrong," and it seems like 9 times out of 10, they appeal to their chosen sacred text. Then they fail to understand why something with factual data to back it up cannot be disproved with something based solely on faith, and throw a hissy fit about how scientists and liberals are trying to lead us down the path of evil. See: evolution, heliocentricity, dinosaurs, and apparently now relativity. At least with evolution, they make an attempt to use science, although it usually winds up being flawed science, to disprove it. You wouldn't disprove the entirety of the Bible or Qu'ran by showing something works different from how it's portrayed in those books. You'd point out whatever logic flaws and inconsistencies exist within the books themselves.

Also, cat's never get mentioned in the Bible, so by some people's logic (the "Dinosaurs weren't in the Bible so they never existed, it's a test of the devil!" set), my cat doesn't exist. Could be wrong, but I've heard this bit about cats mentioned a number of times.

[sgreger1]

Kind of typical. You ask a religious person who tasks issue with a scientific idea to back up their claims that it's "wrong," and it seems like 9 times out of 10, they appeal to their chosen sacred text. Then they fail to understand why something with factual data to back it up cannot be disproved with something based solely on faith, and throw a hissy fit about how scientists and liberals are trying to lead us down the path of evil. See: evolution, heliocentricity, dinosaurs, and apparently now relativity. At least with evolution, they make an attempt to use science, although it usually winds up being flawed science, to disprove it. You wouldn't disprove the entirety of the Bible or Qu'ran by showing something works different from how it's portrayed in those books. You'd point out whatever logic flaws and inconsistencies exist within the books themselves.

Also, cat's never get mentioned in the Bible, so by some people's logic (the "Dinosaurs weren't in the Bible so they never existed, it's a test of the devil!" set), my cat doesn't exist. Could be wrong, but I've heard this bit about cats mentioned a number of times.

Another thing I find funny is that his explanation of why relitivity can't be real is flawed in another way. He says basically that Jesus made some miracle and it affected something at a distant place faster than the speed of light. Relitivity and this do not contradict each other. In quantum physics, if you have two entangled particles, and you observe or change one, the other changes immediately at faster than the speed of light (10x c as a matter of fact). So affecting things at great distance at a rate faster than the speed of light is already explained by science and not contrary to relitivity.


Not saying that jesus used quantum physics, but that this guys explanation fails to note that there already exists in science an explnation for things going faster than light, and it does not disprove relativity even though we have observed it.

[lxskllr]

If that's the stance you're gonna take... Could primitive people really be able to discern a delay from anywhere on the planet if the "miracle" merely moved at the speed of light?

[sgreger1]

If that's the stance you're gonna take... Could primitive people really be able to discern a delay from anywhere on the planet if the "miracle" merely moved at the speed of light?

No, as clearly stated, Jesus snapped his fingers at roughly "the 7th hour", and the kid got healed "around the 7th hour". <--- PROOF that it was faster than light.


Sure your "scientific" nonesense sounds good to the heathens LX, but have you read the book of Genesis? I clearly refutes any claims you have made up to this point.

/s

[f. bandersnatch]

Been saying that for years. I also find gravity suspect. I just can't trust things that require me to break bones when I fall off of places. Pretty sure it is part of the Zionist agenda.

[truthwolf1]

I think even within current religions there has been a loss of spirituality on purpose. The bible was re-written and edited for control.
What bothers me about faith and even science is the closed mindness it can become. You start asking questions and the Faith people go to the book and stop while the Science people comeback with the taste, sniff, feel argument. Think deep down about all the questions you have about life and could your local minister or physics professor answer those?

One thing that has bothered me is how we are slowly becoming disconnected with the natural world and moving into a marriage with the machine.

[sgreger1]

I think even within current religions there has been a loss of spirituality on purpose. The bible was re-written and edited for control.
What bothers me about faith and even science is the closed mindness it can become. You start asking questions and the Faith people go to the book and stop while the Science people comeback with the taste, sniff, feel argument. Think deep down about all the questions you have about life and could your local minister or physics professor answer those?

One thing that has bothered me is how we are slowly becoming disconnected with the natural world and moving into a marriage with the machine.

And as we all know, the machine stops.


I agree, i've been having this real urge lately to just go spend a few days in the forest and just meditate by myself. I think that while a lot of people consider "civilization" to be a forward evolution away from "primitive man", it is also in a way our downfall. After thousands of years, multiple scientific disciplines, etc etc, we have just found more questions than answers and our time is consumed with just putting out fires constantly. Look at how unstable the world economy is, look at our dwindling energy resources, look at food scarecity and wealth disparity.

We have invented so much technology to make things better, and yet most of the world are still nothing but savages dressed in fine robes, concealing their inner barbarian. The man with the three thousand dollar suit is often times undistinguishable from the caveman if you see who he is inside.


I hold a lot of stock in religion and religious texts mainly because they are so old. Even if the literal story they tell is nonsense, anything that old has to contain some seed of truth about something. Things get exadurated over time and the words get changed for political purposes, but the underlying message must have been maintained somewhere in the text, it must have come from something for people to pass it on for that long.