Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 201: Line 201:     
:::::: If Dicke's results were as good or better than General Relativity, then there would be no issue at all.  It also addresses reference #8 about not getting a Nobel Prize - that is because the prize is for discovery, not interpretations.  He wasn't a theoretician and thus didn't have other theories and discoveries.  The individual Dicke is held with high regard in the community - his theory is not (though it is respected in developing the framework for relativistic events). I am curious to see a citation that shows his theory as being respected for the results it gives.  --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
 
:::::: If Dicke's results were as good or better than General Relativity, then there would be no issue at all.  It also addresses reference #8 about not getting a Nobel Prize - that is because the prize is for discovery, not interpretations.  He wasn't a theoretician and thus didn't have other theories and discoveries.  The individual Dicke is held with high regard in the community - his theory is not (though it is respected in developing the framework for relativistic events). I am curious to see a citation that shows his theory as being respected for the results it gives.  --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
 +
::::::: Also the article you misuse by taking the whole renaissance statement out of says this in the same paragraph before your quote!
 +
::::::::''Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time.''
 +
[[User:Teji|Teji]] 16:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
71

edits

Navigation menu