Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, protect, rollback, Administrators
27,336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 600:
Line 600: − − == Split Special Relativity into two sections == − − I figured it would be helpful to split the special relativity section into two sections as it was kind of long and the material fit into two different subtopics. Currently there's a section on the physical foundations of special relativity, and another on criticism of special relativity. I figured it would help organize the section better. − − Pax, James --[[user:apophis|apophis]]
Talk:Theory of relativity/Archive 1 (view source)
Revision as of 17:33, November 25, 2009
, 17:33, November 25, 2009Reverted edits by Apophis (Talk) to last version by JacobB
:: If the Theory of Relativity is so commonly accepted among physicists (meant to write that in the last post but the wrong word came out of my fingers) how could it be that the Theory of Relativity hasn't gained Nobel recognition, which is voted on by a commitee made up of the same scientists who support said theory unless it is possible for a subject (person, theory, etc.) to be extremely important but not Nobel Prize worthy? In which case it makes perfect logical sense that both Dicke and GR could be a great person/theory respectively but not gain recognition from the Nobel committee.
:: If the Theory of Relativity is so commonly accepted among physicists (meant to write that in the last post but the wrong word came out of my fingers) how could it be that the Theory of Relativity hasn't gained Nobel recognition, which is voted on by a commitee made up of the same scientists who support said theory unless it is possible for a subject (person, theory, etc.) to be extremely important but not Nobel Prize worthy? In which case it makes perfect logical sense that both Dicke and GR could be a great person/theory respectively but not gain recognition from the Nobel committee.