Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, oversight, Administrators
2,260
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 246:
Line 246: +
Talk:Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness (view source)
Revision as of 04:41, October 2, 2009
, 04:41, October 2, 2009→Just my answers, for fun!
:::: I think there was a physics paper published about a hundred years ago indicating that an observed anomaly in orbits could be explained by an exponential like 2.000001. But mathematical physicists instinctively oppose the suggestion, just as we've seen here, and moved to relativity theories rather than explore this further. After all, who would expect to win a Nobel Prize for explaining anomalies in orbit with such an inelegant approach!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
:::: I think there was a physics paper published about a hundred years ago indicating that an observed anomaly in orbits could be explained by an exponential like 2.000001. But mathematical physicists instinctively oppose the suggestion, just as we've seen here, and moved to relativity theories rather than explore this further. After all, who would expect to win a Nobel Prize for explaining anomalies in orbit with such an inelegant approach!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
:::::If I understand correctly, it is claimed that relativity accounts for the red shift of light from deep-space objects. Would a variation in the exponent do the same? (Tapering off of gravitational wells at a distance would mean that photons would lose energy approaching us, thus drop in frequency) [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:41, 2 October 2009 (EDT)