• VHS [he/him]
    ·
    3 years ago

    conservapedia is hilarious, if it's not satire it's indistinguishable from it

    • EnsignRedshirt [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      I think it's both. Conservative politics is just a big, crowdsourced creative writing exercise anyway.

    • soiejo [he/him,any]
      ·
      3 years ago

      AFAIK some of the articles are genuine, some of them are satire made by trolls, and it's impossible to tell them apart

    • AFineWayToDie [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      "C-decay" is a wingnut creationist proposal to explain why we can observe objects more than 6,000 light years away, even though the universe was only created 6,000 years ago. "Well, maybe light used to move faster."

    • Llituro [he/him, they/them]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Laws of physics are only laws insomuch as we can consistently verify them in our local bit of spacetime, as we can currently perceive them. Nothing says that it can't change, we just wouldn't have any model to describe a driving mechanism for that. That said, searches for inconsistencies in this aspect of relativity are known as Lorentz invariance violations.

    • HornyOnMain
      ·
      3 years ago

      This does actually happen to a small degree when the light is moving inside of something that's already moving (e.g. a very fast spaceship travelling at almost the speed of light) when observed from outside the spaceship. I can't remember why but it's something to do with quantum physics (I think, I wasn't paying attention in my physics uni lectures)

        • HornyOnMain
          ·
          3 years ago

          I might be talking about something deeper than that but I'm not sure because I never paid attention in my physics lectures

    • WaterBear [they/them, comrade/them]
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      Strictly speaking it does, in media, more strictly speaking doesn't look for the light in media as if it's slower.

      We could add that m isn't static either and that in the useful undergrad formulation you got multiple terms, and we got a ton of useful results from that equation.

      Light energy, yeah the cones it creates and the symmetry between dimensions of space and time are kinda rad and already without going deeper something akin to matter energy light equivalence for not exact meanings.

      But if one would argue with them the best way would be to not argue but post ppb

  • blobjim [he/him]
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    I like how this is clearly just some dude's random questions he came up with while doing other stuff and probably told to his coworker.

    Okay, this is definitely fake though right, since it's so on-the-nose. The last bullet's answer is literally E=mc^2 right?

  • Circra [he/him]
    ·
    3 years ago

    Ahhh I wonder if they've got a problem with Einstein's work for the same reason the nazis took issue with it?

  • UlyssesT
    ·
    edit-2
    15 days ago

    deleted by creator

    • VapeNoir [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      the page about nuclear energy literally uses e=mc^2 as an explanation for how it works

  • Dingdangdog [he/him,comrade/them]
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    So when did the idea that "logic" was more important than nuanced understanding and knowledge happen?

    I know it's been around for awhile, just wondering if there was a moment that it took over.

    You can unironically yell "fallacy" or "whataboutism" at someone these days, no matter the circumstance, and look like you've won an argument to the public eye. What the fuck happened lmao

  • VernetheJules [they/them]
    ·
    3 years ago

    I can't believe they didn't catch the fact that E isn't even equal to m and c!!

    Like wtf those are different letters of the alphabet??

  • Hawke [he/him]
    ·
    3 years ago

    You can read it in Shapiro voice, the way of speaking is on point.