Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
→‎References: Add "see also" section, with same stuff as the others.
Line 266: Line 266:     
Unless someone can come up with a sensible example, we will not be posting further rebuttals.  The recent ones have been hideously pointless, and not worth replying to.  Many of them have cited articles that have ''nothing to do with relativity''.  Tides do not disprove relativity.  It's possible that, because of the rather famous nature of the "counterexamples" page (it is cited around the world, and has nearly 2 million web views), people are simply putting in parody, or trolling, or humor, or whatever, in an attempt to see their work on a world-famous page.
 
Unless someone can come up with a sensible example, we will not be posting further rebuttals.  The recent ones have been hideously pointless, and not worth replying to.  Many of them have cited articles that have ''nothing to do with relativity''.  Tides do not disprove relativity.  It's possible that, because of the rather famous nature of the "counterexamples" page (it is cited around the world, and has nearly 2 million web views), people are simply putting in parody, or trolling, or humor, or whatever, in an attempt to see their work on a world-famous page.
 +
 +
== See also ==
 +
*[[Theory of relativity]]
 +
*[[General Theory of Relativity]]
 +
*[[Special Theory of Relativity]]
 +
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
 +
*[[E=mc²]]
 +
*[[Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]
 +
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Logical Flaws in E%3Dmc²]]
    
== References ==
 
== References ==
SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266

edits

Navigation menu