124
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 50:
Line 50: + +
Talk:Essay:Quantifying Order (view source)
Revision as of 02:08, November 15, 2009
, 02:08, November 15, 2009Possible point of miscommunication?
:::Kate, as I said, I don't care either way, but I am going to tell the truth. GR fit the observed data in 1916 (indeed, GR was developed to fit it), but now (due to more sophisticated measurements) the GR prediction is wrong ''by more than the margin of error''. None of your comments above address the margin of error, which must be the scientific focus. A difference between theory and observation is not "ridiculously small" if it is more than the margin of error, as in this case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:47, 14 November 2009 (EST)
:::Kate, as I said, I don't care either way, but I am going to tell the truth. GR fit the observed data in 1916 (indeed, GR was developed to fit it), but now (due to more sophisticated measurements) the GR prediction is wrong ''by more than the margin of error''. None of your comments above address the margin of error, which must be the scientific focus. A difference between theory and observation is not "ridiculously small" if it is more than the margin of error, as in this case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:47, 14 November 2009 (EST)
:::: Perhaps this is what Mr. Schlafly is referring to. The article states that 5599.7 arc-seconds is the observed value. KSorenson is quoting a value of 5,600 (±0.04). 5600-.04=5599.96. From just those values then yes the relativity value is higher by .26 arc-seconds even factoring in the error. The only thing I ask is what is the error range for the observed value? [[User:Ameda|ameda]] 21:08, 14 November 2009 (EST)