Changes

::::I've been quietly following this conversation today, but Kate beat me to the "Submit" button!  Well, I'll just point out that scientists can and frequently do "intimidat[e] people against criticizing" pretty much any theory, because they think it's right and they don't want to waste time.  It's quite likely close-mindedness, but it exists, and you can't take that as disproof of the theory.  I don't think someone who rejected Mendel or Maxwell would get pretty far today, either.  <small>(Yes, I know Mendel has been amended with epigenetic inheritance, but I think you get my picture)</small>.  It's just a bothersome red herring.

::::I've been quietly following this conversation today, but Kate beat me to the "Submit" button!  Well, I'll just point out that scientists can and frequently do "intimidat[e] people against criticizing" pretty much any theory, because they think it's right and they don't want to waste time.  It's quite likely close-mindedness, but it exists, and you can't take that as disproof of the theory.  I don't think someone who rejected Mendel or Maxwell would get pretty far today, either.  <small>(Yes, I know Mendel has been amended with epigenetic inheritance, but I think you get my picture)</small>.  It's just a bothersome red herring.

::::I don't know anything about the Mercury data, but the most recent data I've seen here says general relativity might work; it's at the border of the range of error, and it's too precise for any of us to extrapolate.  General relativity could be spot on.  Or, a new theory being needed - if you're trying to construct a [[theory of everything]], a new theory definitely is needed to deal with [[quantum mechanics]]!  But, general relativity does predict a lot of things better than Newton.  Newton didn't explain everything, nor does general relativity - but I think you can find better stuff to attack it with than an extrapolation of Mercury orbital data.

::::I don't know anything about the Mercury data, but the most recent data I've seen here says general relativity might work; it's at the border of the range of error, and it's too precise for any of us to extrapolate.  General relativity could be spot on.  Or, a new theory being needed - if you're trying to construct a [[theory of everything]], a new theory definitely is needed to deal with [[quantum mechanics]]!  But, general relativity does predict a lot of things better than Newton.  Newton didn't explain everything, nor does general relativity - but I think you can find better stuff to attack it with than an extrapolation of Mercury orbital data. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 00:37, 15 November 2009 (EST)