Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Talk:Theory of relativity (view source)

Revision as of 21:51, October 15, 2009

1,204 bytes added ,  21:51, October 15, 2009
→‎Quantum Field Theory/Changes to the Intro: reply
Line 920: Line 920:     
Lastly, a quick perusal of the nobel prizes awarded to work on the Standard Model/Field Theories since 1965- 1965,1967,1968,1972,1979,1980,1982,1984,1988,1990,1995,1999,2004,2008.  Its not rare at all, a bit better than 1/3 of the prizes.  Further, claiming something doesn't make it so- quantum field theories are the most precisely tested theories in all of science.  g-2 of the electron is the most precise measurement mankind has made, and it matches the theoretical calculation to 10 significant figures.  What more could you ask of in a theory?  --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 15:45, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
 
Lastly, a quick perusal of the nobel prizes awarded to work on the Standard Model/Field Theories since 1965- 1965,1967,1968,1972,1979,1980,1982,1984,1988,1990,1995,1999,2004,2008.  Its not rare at all, a bit better than 1/3 of the prizes.  Further, claiming something doesn't make it so- quantum field theories are the most precisely tested theories in all of science.  g-2 of the electron is the most precise measurement mankind has made, and it matches the theoretical calculation to 10 significant figures.  What more could you ask of in a theory?  --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 15:45, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
 +
 +
: Point 1: no experiment has confirmed either of the two basic assumptions of special relativity, or many of the claims that are mathematically derived from those assumptions.
 +
 +
: Point 2: you seem to think F=ma is a hypothesis rather than a definition of force.  Regardless, your argument does not negate Newton's quote or affect any aspect of this entry.
 +
 +
: Point 3: we do consider special and general relativity to be part of the same overall theory, as most people do.
 +
 +
: Point 4: your reference to "significant figures" (the better term "significant digits") is plainly silly and meaningless.  The string of dates for Nobel Prizes counts for even less.  When the prize was genuinely given for quantum field theory, the recipient honestly acknowledged how inadequate the progress has been.  I don't know of anyone who seriously disputes that.
 +
 +
: Look, we can cut through a ton of subterfuge if you would just address my last point, which you avoided:  liberals like Obama (and you?) like relativity for its political ramifications.  Suit yourself, but don't pretend it is based on physical observations rather than unproven assumptions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:51, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
Aschlafly
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,482

edits

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:MobileDiff/710520"

Navigation menu