Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 788:
Line 788: − − How can I address your point, when there's no way to know what IS your point? Is your point you don't want to pay tax $$ to detect gravitons? That's your choice, but it has nothing to do with the documented past successes of field theory. If funding is not your point, then what is? − − Is your point "All evidence is against your view"? OK, dish it out. Just list the top 3 evidences showing that action at a distance is the only way possible for particles to interact. − − My point is: the horrible paragraph in the Intro about non-locality and field theory, incorrectly implies field theory is defective. It is not. Field theory is the most successful theory in the history of science. Weinberg's statement about field theory not being "robust" cannot be assessed by the reader because "robust" is not defined in this context. Weinberg's speech was written in '79, his criticisms were resolved by later successes of QCD and QED, as Wilczek described. That paragraph should go. − − You're trashing relativity and field theory too. Why? In my last post I listed several Nobel-awarded experimental proofs of the success of field theory: all theoretical predictions made with local Hamiltonians; action at a distance is not needed. You ignored them. So if those are irrelevant, then what IS your point? − − Write 3 sentences. Top 3 evidences that action at a distance is the only way for particles to interact. Oh God you're right, my mind is so closed. "For my own sake", please open my weak mind with THREE EVIDENCES! Or if I've got your point wrong, what IS your point then?? − − PS: "your perception of what you think" is a redundant phrase. Andy, your "word-to-substance ratio" is very high; you are likely a [[liberal]]. --[[User:Cuddlytakun|Cuddlytakun]] 16:10, 21 May 2009 (EDT) − − :How about ONE evidence, Cuddles? Like the evidence that you refused to go beyond talk and ''improve the articles''. Nothing happened at all by way of action of your part, either in this article, nor in [[Quantum field theory]], which definately needs improvement. Instead of action, all we get is gab from you. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:23, 21 May 2009 (EDT) − − Fine, eat some [[Quantum field theory]]. Now can I delete that paragraph here? -- [[User:Cuddlytakun|Cuddlytakun]] 14:33, 22 May 2009 (EDT)
remove insubstantive talk
:I beg you to open your mind and learn here, for your own sake. Look at how you refused to address my simple point. Instead you cling to your perception of what you think others believe.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:11, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
:I beg you to open your mind and learn here, for your own sake. Look at how you refused to address my simple point. Instead you cling to your perception of what you think others believe.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:11, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
== Proof ==
== Proof ==