85
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 106:
Line 106: + + + +
Talk:General theory of relativity (view source)
Revision as of 04:30, November 15, 2009
, 04:30, November 15, 2009→Yay! New intro!
:As far as "CP can't explain", I meant this in the sense of "It's out of the scope of CP to cover this at the full postgrad level." I think an encyclopedia ''could'', in principle, give a full treatment, but I doubt that even Britannica does so. Could someone come up with a way of saying "it's out of the scope/charter of CP" without appearing to have CP diss itself? [[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 22:39, 14 November 2009 (EST)
:As far as "CP can't explain", I meant this in the sense of "It's out of the scope of CP to cover this at the full postgrad level." I think an encyclopedia ''could'', in principle, give a full treatment, but I doubt that even Britannica does so. Could someone come up with a way of saying "it's out of the scope/charter of CP" without appearing to have CP diss itself? [[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 22:39, 14 November 2009 (EST)
::I'm really not sure what house style is here; I looked around for a guide briefly but didn't stumble across one. The title of ''this'' article is sentence-case, but that's just one data point. I'm really fine either way, I just like consistency.
::Yeah, I knew exactly what you meant with the "CP can't" part. I just thought it ''could'' be misinterpreted, y'know? I had no problem with the sentiment, just the possible interpretation of it. If we made it more verbose and said something like "Conservapedia is not a textbook," you know, along those lines, I think that could work. But at the same time, a single ''textbook'' can't explain ''all'' of general relativity. (Though I bet Misner, Thorne and Wheeler would slap my mouth for saying that. Or worse, they'd just hit me with their enormous, enormous book.) --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 23:30, 14 November 2009 (EST)