Not a day goes by when I get a message from a conservative telling me that I must vote for Mitt Romney, not just because a vote for Gary Johnson (or anyone other than Romney or Obama) would be a wasted vote, but that we must vote for the one guy who has a shot of defeating Obama to save our country. That we absolutely cannot vote for anyone other than Romney, because if Obama gets another four years this country will no longer exist. There’s a reason for this.
Today I want to write about a little gem-of-ignorance over at Conservapedia.com I was introduced to today.
Even their logo is ridiculous
If you've never heard of Conservapedia before, they are a fundamentalist run, Christian-right biased, version of Wikipedia. Anti-intellectual would also be a fair label to attach to their website. As should be obvious from that description - I'm not a fan of their site. In any number of ways, they are the antithesis to many of the very values that I hold in high regard. Hence my surprise when my opinion of conservapedia was lowered even further.
How they managed to accomplish such a feat was through the truly stunning piece of anti-intellectual garbage (even by their standards) that is their page on E=mc². I don't recommend actually visiting the page, so as to spare your brain from the trauma that it would have to endure. I have copied the first paragraph here (it does a pretty good job of outlining the rest of the page's "information"):
E=mc² is Einstein's famous formula which asserts that the energy (E) which makes up the matter in any body is equal to the square of the speed of light (c²) times the mass (m) of that body.[1] It is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement that purports to relate all matter to light. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism), and numerous attempts to derive E=mc² in general from first principles have failed. Political pressure, 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=mc² is liberal claptrap.
For anyone who has even the most basic understanding of the statement E=mc² and physics, it should be plainly obvious that the above statement is almost pure fiction. The only points in it which aren't the apparent result of some fundy's wet dream are:
E=mc²is Einstein's famous formula which asserts that the energy (E) which makes up the matter in any body is equal to the square of the speed of light (c²) times the mass (m) of that body.[1]It is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement that purports to relate all matter to light.In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism), and numerous attempts to derive E=mc² in general from first principles have failed. Political pressure, 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=mc² is liberal claptrap.
Or, cleaned up:
E=mc²... asserts that the energy (E)... is equal to the square of the speed of light (c²) times the mass (m) of that body.
Lets look at the original statement's falsities, piece-by-piece; Because that is really just too much garbage to handle all at once.
Einstein's Famous Formula?
Einstein's famous formula
While it is common to hear people refer to it as his, Einstein was not the first to publish the equation E=mc². This is something which takes all of about five seconds worth of research to find out and is a sign as to how much effort the ideologues at conservapedia actually put into checking pesky things like "facts".
Einstein is certainly responsible for much of the work behind the current understanding of E=mc², which he called mass-energy equivalence and outlined in his 1905 paper Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?. He was hardly the first scientist to propose such a relationship though and is not the only one to contribute to its modern understanding:
In total, finding that information probably took all of about 30 seconds. It is readily available and there is no way that someone searching for information on E=mc² wouldn't come across it. The only sensible explanation for conservapedia getting it wrong is that they are a) either too lazy to bother with basic research before writing or b) are purposefully misleading their audience in order to push their ideological viewpoint - I'll let you decide which it actually is.
Energy Makes Up the Matter in Any Body?
energy (E) which makes up the matter in any body
Stanford University has published a great piece titled The Equivalence of Mass and Energy, I'll let it do the heavy lifting here:
Although it is far less common today, one still sometimes hears of Einstein's equation entailing that matter can be converted into energy. Strictly speaking, this constitutes an elementary category mistake. In relativistic physics, as in classical physics, mass and energy are both regarded as properties of physical systems or properties of the constituents of physical systems. ... we can assert that whatever sense of “conversion” seems compelling between mass and energy, it will have to be a “conversion” between mass and energy, and not between matter and energy.
As the author, FranciscoFernflores, implies - it could be that this is an honest mistake on the part of conservapedia - but, based on the wealth of dishonest material which they publish with such seemingly little regard for accuracy, I doubt it.
It Relates All Matter to Light
It is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement that purports to relate all matter to light.
First: It is a mathematically derived equation, so by its very nature it has meaning. Second: It is a mathematically derived equation, which makes complete logical sense. A simple explanation of where the equation comes from, in this case using Einstein's method, can be achieved in about two minutes and eleven seconds:
Third: Neither "matter" nor "light" are the focus of the equation Energy equals Mass times the Speed of Light squared. What the equation does do is relate the relativistic mass of an object to the speed of light. While swapping out matter for mass and light for speed-of-light may not seem like much of a difference, it fundamentally misrepresents the relationships which exist within this equation.
Theory of Everything
In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism)...
I'm not sure why the idiots over at conservapedia didn't use the words "general relativity" and "quantum mechanics" here. Perhaps such phrases are beyond the grasp of their normal audience. Regardless, the words that they use result in yet another false statement.
While there is not yet an experimentally verified theory relating General Theory of Relativity and Quantum Theory, each of these theories does successfully predict the behavior of light and mass, within their areas of application. Also, there is no singular set of "laws governing mass" or "laws governing light", in the case of E=mc², m is referring to relativistic mass.
True, sort of
...numerous attempts to derive E=mc² in general from first principles have failed.
In physics, first principles refers to established, basic laws of physics. This statement is actually true but what it implies is not. Often within physics, assumptions are made about different aspects of reality in order to develop valid proofs and theories. E=mc²is not unique in this way, despite what the above statement would lead someone to believe. The reason that these assumptions are accepted is because they result in proofs and theories which accurately predict experimental data, such as in the case of E=mc². Some of these fundamental assumptions can be found here.
Crap Cherry on a Crap Sundae
Political pressure, 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=mc² is liberal claptrap.
This here is the least surprising of all the statements within this opening paragraph. It is an example of the typical reasons that I have nothing but disdain for conservapedia, its authors, and those who believe it is a valid source of information. It is the typical kind of anti-intellectual, science-is-a-liberal-conspiracy bullshit that politically motivated assholes love to spew all over the place, just hoping some of it will stick.
Typically, this type of attack is targeted towards that Theory of Evolution or Theory of the Big Bang, where it is ultimately just as ridiculous and unfounded. Disproving the major theories is where the "money" is in science. There is no faster way in the Universe for a scientist to ensure herself unlimited grant money and a permanent place in history then by disproving one of these core theories.
As it turns out though, this is a particularly bad time to be making a claim that it is impossible to question the validity of E=mc², or Einstein in general, since the majority of the scientific community was doing just that only a matter of months ago, Has a Speeding Neutrino Really Overturned Einstein?
Conservapedia: Zero Minus 1?
Like I said at the start of this, I wasn't a fan of conservapedia before today and I'm certainly not one now. That said, it isn't every day that an organization for which I had zero respect for in the first place, is actually able to lower my estimation of them either further. Maybe there's a scientific hypothesis in all of this somewhere:
C=(PI)S² also known as Conservapedia equals the quantity Political Ideology times Stupid Squared.
Jacob Sullum of Reason writes a great article summing up which of the two major party candidates is actually the lesser of two evils. Link
The extent of the president's powers, although hardly mentioned during the general election campaign, is probably the most important consideration in choosing between McCain and Obama. It is tied to all the other major issues, including the Iraq war, the fight against terrorism, and the government's response to the current economic situation.
The crucial question is which matters more: a president's theory of executive power or the political environment he faces. If the former, Obama is the less risky choice. If the latter, McCain is, since he would face a less compliant Congress.
I agree with Mr. Sullum's assesment of the choice that is presented to the American people this election. One thing I would add is that a vote for McCain is also a vote for the continuation of President Bush's "politics of fear". Where the main tool that is used to accomplish political goals is manipulating the inherent fear that people have of things that are unknown or different. I think this factor is ampliphied even more if you assume that Senator McCain will not complete his full term in office due to his age and that Sarah Palin will take over at some point.
If I happened to live in a swing state the combination of executive power and politics of fear would be enough to swing my vote for Senator Obama and against Senator McCain. Luckily, I live in Illinois, where Senator Obama is sure to win, so I'll be voting for Bob Barr this presidential election.
Maybe it was a feature in past elections and I just wasn't paying close enough attention to notice it but there seems to be a large segment of the American populace that expects the country to collapse into ruin if their chosen presidential candidate doesn't win and, in response, have developed deeply emotional feelings towards the "other guy". People saying things such as "Obama will turn us into a Muslim country" or "McCain will destroy our country" seem far more common place than what I've seen in the past.
While I expect statements such as these to come from political operatives of all the parties, it amazes me when I hear it from a 20 something college grad or a 65 year old grandmother. People who seem perfectly reasonable and to have at least average intelligence suddenly drop any semblance of logic and spew off hateful statements with no basis in reality. To be sure, sentiments such as these have always existed along the extremes of American society but in the past year they seem to have found their way much closer to "main street".
Of course it could just be that this emotionally based, logic deprived hatred has always been a component of the average Americana's political views and is simply more visible now due to the internet giving anyone with a computer and a camera their own little world stage. I'm not sure if that possibility makes me feel better or worse about the current situation.
As this election cycle drags on it becomes more and more obvious to me just how close Senator Obama and Senator McCain are on a wide range of issues. And while I certainly don't support either of their campaigns for the presidency, I am an independant with strong libertarian leanings after all, I think I have made up my mind as to which one of them I want to win, McCain.
There are two reasons for this. The first is that in all likely hood three supreme court seats will opent up in the next 8 years, if not the next 4. My libetairian idology forces me to be a much stronger supporter of justices who tend to support a more conservative interpritation of the constitution, as opposed to those who would have a more liberal interpritation. Based on that I believe that Senator McCain will appoint far better justices than Senator Obama.
The second reason I want McCain to win is because of the current hot issue of universal health care. While I believe that every American should have access to health care, I am strongly opposed to the government being the vehical through which it is provided. With the current democratic attitude towards this issue it would be disastorous to have both a democratic controlled congress and a democratic president at the same time.
So while I won't be voting for Senator McCain or Senator Obama, there are 3 or 4 other candidates for President on the ballot after all, between the two of them I really do hope Senator McCain is able to walk away the victor come November.
