IGX

powerlifter54 wrote:

Testiclaw wrote:

powerlifter54 wrote:but not questioning assumptions is the road to ignorance.

A starting place.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/19 ... 114024.htm

Thanks for the link; I now have Moffat's book headed my way.

I know you and I are polar opposites when it comes to politics, so please don't take this as anything other than a genuine question:

I can understand when science has to be "Politically-Sensitive" in regards to some views typically appearing with Conservatives, ie Creationism and Intelligent Design because the implications lead directly to the fundamental tenets of several mass-Religions, but am still not sure why something like Relativity is appearing on a Conservative site discussing PC material?

The Speed of Light is "imposed by leftists on the American public to restrict debate and silence opposition"?

I'm the most Lefty Left that ever Lefted, and even I didn't know we did this.

This thread already is proving my point.

http://phys.columbia.edu/~cqft/physics.htm

http://www.murzim.net/QM/QM.pdf

For the record, i think ID is just avoiding the subject, and Creationism is way too sure of itself, exactly mirroring the attitude of Darwinian Evolutionists. But none of that matters in areas where Science has very real questions of how things work. SR and QT have conflicts. They don't know how subatomic particles act for sure. While the speed of light changing has impact on Evolutionary Theory, it has more real impact today if they figure that out one way or the other. Which the majority of the PC science community is not leaning towards because the one implication i mentioned is not worth all the other concepts it would yield. Keep reading this thread. While i am capable of a Genesis to Revelation debate which has little to do with this subject, i would actually just like to know why Schrodinger's Theory does not completely square with SR and GR. And why the very real questions about this subject get dismissed.