Siteadmin, 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
125,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 934:
Line 934: + + + + + + Line 946:
Line 952: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Theory of relativity (view source)
Revision as of 23:43, October 15, 2009
, 23:43, October 15, 2009→Quantum Field Theory/Changes to the Intro: 2 replies, including "If you give up, then it is because your mind was made up."
:: The progress in quantum field theory has been huge. Who said it was inadequate? If so, I dispute that, and all those Nobel prizes dispute it.
:: The progress in quantum field theory has been huge. Who said it was inadequate? If so, I dispute that, and all those Nobel prizes dispute it.
:: What are the politics of relativity? Maybe you should spell that out. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:08, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
:: What are the politics of relativity? Maybe you should spell that out. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:08, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
:::: The politics driving relativity is self-evident: moral relativism, curvature of values, no fundamental frame of reference, no action at a distance, and an implicit denial of the arrow of time. Read the famous Tribe/Obama paper if you want detailed application to specific political issues, such as abortion.
:::: Name one productive advance made possible by the "huge" progress in quantum field theory. There aren't any.
:::: General relativity, which is the main component of relativity, certainly was developed before physical observations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:43, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
Point 1: Now you are essentially restating the problem of induction- it is a problem with ALL of science, not just relativity. Also, Michelson Morley DOES essentially test the constant speed of light postulate.
Point 1: Now you are essentially restating the problem of induction- it is a problem with ALL of science, not just relativity. Also, Michelson Morley DOES essentially test the constant speed of light postulate.
But, I give up. I wanted to add my expertise as a particle physicist to your educational resource. If you don't want what I have to offer, I have more productive things to do. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 19:12, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
But, I give up. I wanted to add my expertise as a particle physicist to your educational resource. If you don't want what I have to offer, I have more productive things to do. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 19:12, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
: Point 1: No, the Morley experiment comes nowhere near confirming the postulate of relativity about the speed of light. And it's absurd to tar all of science with the sweeping, unproven assumptions on which relativity depends.
: Point 2: Your answer is unresponsive. Nothing else in physics depends so heavily on broad, far-fetched assumptions as relativity does.
: Point 3: Your answer is disproved by the name "general relativity" itself. It is the general theory, of which special relativity is a special case.
: Point 4: Your claim that something "makes the most precise/accurate prediction of any theory of all of science" is a familiar and silly assertion made by liberals. You haven't explained why that claim should be meaningful, and it isn't. High school-level electromagnetism can make ''completely'' precise predictions. If you think there is a striking insight made available by only quantum field theory, then let's hear it. But pretending it is great does not make it so.
: On your last point: you're plainly wrong in claiming that "[w]hether or not liberals can twist something to fit their ideology is irrelevant," because you studied in school what liberals like and haven't even heard with an open mind contrary viewpoints. If you received a good grade for the reciting liberal viewpoints, then it becomes even more difficult for you to reconsider.
: We want open-minded talent here. If you give up, then it is because your mind was made up. I urge you to open your mind more, but that's obviously up to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:43, 15 October 2009 (EDT)