Changes

:::I'm back.  Here's the deal on relativity.  I recognize that this is Andy's wiki, and that his position stands, even though I totally disagree.  If I chose to, I could make edits designed to make him look stupid.  But I don't.  I want CP's stance on relativity to be expressed as clearly as possible.  As such, I collaborate with Andy on making the [[Theory of relativity]], [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], and [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]] articles to be the best that they can be.  They are flagship articles.  To be the best it can be, the relativity article should not list the gravitational effects of other planets as one of the hypotheses that was put forth to try to explain the anomalous precession, because it's just not true.  The gravitational effects were the first thing that was tried.  It was the '''anomalous''' precession that was left over that caused the problem.  Also, the idea that scientists rejected Newcomb-Hall simply because the equation was harder is just wrong.  If you want the simple equation, you have to go with plain Newtonian (the delta=0 case above) which means that you posit that the anomalous precession is zero.  Which it isn't.  Hence my "Scientists don't choose wrong theories over right ones just because the math is easier." edit comment.  I believe Andy's current stance on the situation is that neither Newcomb-Hall nor relativity explains the anomalous precession correctly, so the true cause of the precession is unknown.  A completely wrong position, but at least stated in an understandable way.

:::I'm back.  Here's the deal on relativity.  I recognize that this is Andy's wiki, and that his position stands, even though I totally disagree.  If I chose to, I could make edits designed to make him look stupid.  But I don't.  I want CP's stance on relativity to be expressed as clearly as possible.  As such, I collaborate with Andy on making the [[Theory of relativity]], [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], and [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]] articles to be the best that they can be.  They are flagship articles.  To be the best it can be, the relativity article should not list the gravitational effects of other planets as one of the hypotheses that was put forth to try to explain the anomalous precession, because it's just not true.  The gravitational effects were the first thing that was tried.  It was the '''anomalous''' precession that was left over that caused the problem.  Also, the idea that scientists rejected Newcomb-Hall simply because the equation was harder is just wrong.  If you want the simple equation, you have to go with plain Newtonian (the delta=0 case above) which means that you posit that the anomalous precession is zero.  Which it isn't.  Hence my "Scientists don't choose wrong theories over right ones just because the math is easier." edit comment.  I believe Andy's current stance on the situation is that neither Newcomb-Hall nor relativity explains the anomalous precession correctly, so the true cause of the precession is unknown.  A completely wrong position, but at least stated in an understandable way.

:::Now, a little more on the subject, that might help you to understand my "I recommend that you not get into a battle over relativity, unless you have really done your homework, which you haven't." comment.  The comment was indeed brusque and rude.  But I've been deeply involved in this stuff more most of my 8 year tenure here.  I believe that there are only 3 people who know their way around the CP relativity articles in depth:  Andy, me, and AugustO.  (There have been others in the past, like KSorenson and JacobB, but they're long gone.)  When I see someone appear to parrot Andy's position, it gets my spider-sense tingling.  I am incredulous that someone else could hold the same view.  If you do hold the same view, you should try to explain it in your own words.

:::Now, a little more on the subject, that might help you to understand my "I recommend that you not get into a battle over relativity, unless you have really done your homework, which you haven't." comment.  The comment was indeed brusque and rude.  But I've been deeply involved in this stuff for most of my 8 year tenure here.  I believe that there are only 3 active people who know their way around the CP relativity articles in depth:  Andy, me, and AugustO.  (There have been others in the past, like KSorenson and JacobB, but they're long gone.)  When I see someone appear to parrot Andy's position, it gets my spider-sense tingling.  I am incredulous that someone else could hold the same view.  If you do hold the same view, you should try to explain it in your own words.

:::'''Andy does not need you to defend or protect him.'''  He has been taking on all comers for years, and doing a good job of it.  And '''that''' is what I meant by "doing your homework".

:::'''Andy does not need you to defend or protect him.'''  He has been taking on all comers for years, and doing a good job of it.  And '''that''' is what I meant by "doing your homework".

:::Do I hold myself to be above reproach or scrutiny?  Of course not.  And I object to the implication that I do.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:19, 17 April 2015 (EDT)

:::Do I hold myself to be above reproach or scrutiny?  Of course not.  And I object to the implication that I do.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:19, 17 April 2015 (EDT)