20
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 635:
Line 635: + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
I removed the last section: time dilation and creation science. If we start including every crackpot scientific theory ever proposed, this page is going to become enormous.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 14:00, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
I removed the last section: time dilation and creation science. If we start including every crackpot scientific theory ever proposed, this page is going to become enormous.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 14:00, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
:I see you are not around to respond, but including the latest creationary thinking doesn't mean that crackpot theories will be included. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:01, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
:I see you are not around to respond, but including the latest creationary thinking doesn't mean that crackpot theories will be included. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:01, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
== New Edits, Proposed edits ==
This article needs some major work, and I don't mind diving in and trying to correct some things. I added something on the equivalence principle because the existing information about general relativity was mostly mathematical with no physical insight. I'll try to clean up more when I have more time. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
I also corrected a mistake about force defined in special relativity. The way it was written it wasn't defining a vector. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Further, I would really like to clean up the experimental evidence section, but there appears to be some contention regarding GPS, so I thought I'd discuss it with other editors here. The GPS definately DOES include some relativistic corrections. Consider the 1996 paper referenced in the article, on page 193 of the journal, page 5 of the article the authors tell us "The GPS operational control system corrects the pseudoranges measured by its monitor stations of for the sum of the gravitational and velocity effects." What the article discusses is that the corrections are merely the average corrections, not the full specific velocity/gravitational effects. The article is being used misleadingly to make an unsupported claim. If no one objects in a day or two, I'll make the changes. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
I'd also like to remove the stress on Dicke's theory, as Dicke's theory is basically just an extension of GR. Dicke's theory is still a metric theory of gravity involving curved space time, so most of the discussion of GR should be applicable to Dicke's theory. Dicke's theory should probably be included in another article. Also, the contention that Dicke didn't get a nobel because he proposed an alternative theory needs some supporting information or a citation or I think it should be removed. Again, if no one objects, I'll make the change. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
I also plan, given time, to give a more "layman" style description of GR following my brief discussion on the equivalence principle. For students, diving straight into tensors, geodesics and field equations will most likely obscure the physics. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)