30
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1,110:
Line 1,110: − + Line 1,135:
Line 1,135: + + + + + +
Talk:Theory of relativity (view source)
Revision as of 04:35, November 16, 2009
, 04:35, November 16, 2009→Comments on Newtonian Mechanics
It seems like the article is defending an incorrect prediction by arguing that the predicted value is still up for debate. But this is wrong; we know what the predicted value was, and should honestly accept that it does not match observation.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]
It seems like the article is defending an incorrect prediction by arguing that the predicted value is still up for debate. But this is wrong; we know what the predicted value was, and should honestly accept that it does not match observation.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]
:Thanks for taking the time to find two specific areas for improvement here. This article was first on my list of those to improve — i.e., repair — when I signed up, but I've been working my way up to it because it's just so daunting. You've put the spotlight on a couple specific points, and that really helps.
:Thanks for taking the time to find two specific areas for improvement here. This article was first on my list of those to improve — i.e., repair — when I signed up, but I've been working my way up to it because it's just so daunting. You've put the spotlight on a couple specific points, and that really helps.
:I'm in the middle of expanding [[general theory of relativity]] and won't finish it until tomorrow. Would you be interested in collaborating with me on this article? I think moving much of the detail of the special and general theories to their respective pages will help clear out some of the junk on this page. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 18:43, 13 November 2009 (EST)
:I'm in the middle of expanding [[general theory of relativity]] and won't finish it until tomorrow. Would you be interested in collaborating with me on this article? I think moving much of the detail of the special and general theories to their respective pages will help clear out some of the junk on this page. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 18:43, 13 November 2009 (EST)
::Basically the question of how light and gravity interact has been bounced back and forth like a ping-pong ball for the past thousand years. Only in the past century has a consistent model of light and gravitation emerged. Some discussion of this exists already [[black hole|here]]. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 12:20, 15 November 2009 (EST)
::Basically the question of how light and gravity interact has been bounced back and forth like a ping-pong ball for the past thousand years. Only in the past century has a consistent model of light and gravitation emerged. Some discussion of this exists already [[black hole|here]]. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 12:20, 15 November 2009 (EST)
: RSchlafly, there were indeed people a couple centuries back who predicted light deflection under Newtonian mechanics. But this was only because 200 years ago, light was thought to have mass.
: Newtonian mechanics only predicts the deflection of an object's path if the object has mass. Lose the mass and you lose the deflection. For that reason Newtonian mechanics has not predicted the deflection of light for a very long time. Surprisingly, the article already cites a source, citation no. 32, that says this in so many words.
: It is thus incorrect for the article to state that Newtonian mechanics predicts deflection (or that the deflection of a mass's path is "up for debate.") It seems to me that both of these claims are made in order to argue that relativity isn't necessary, in keeping with the article's apparent negative attitude toward its subject matter.