115
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 111:
Line 111: + + + + +
Talk:Theory of relativity (view source)
Revision as of 18:49, November 27, 2009
, 18:49, November 27, 2009no edit summary
:::::: You are guessing that "Newtonian and relativistic gravity are essentially the same in this range." I doubt they predict identical results for this Pioneer data. Does the Pioneer anomaly contradict only the theory of relativity, or Newtonian gravity also? Are the data closer to one theory than the other? If this were science, then the Wikipedia article would say. Of course, this isn't really science, and Wikipedians won't expressly admit the data conflicts with relativity. If you inserted mention of the theory of relativity into the Wikipedia page, then I bet it would be erased.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:44, 26 November 2009 (EST)
:::::: You are guessing that "Newtonian and relativistic gravity are essentially the same in this range." I doubt they predict identical results for this Pioneer data. Does the Pioneer anomaly contradict only the theory of relativity, or Newtonian gravity also? Are the data closer to one theory than the other? If this were science, then the Wikipedia article would say. Of course, this isn't really science, and Wikipedians won't expressly admit the data conflicts with relativity. If you inserted mention of the theory of relativity into the Wikipedia page, then I bet it would be erased.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:44, 26 November 2009 (EST)
:::::::I would expect that the results at that range would be in the margin of error for both theories. General relativity only starts to become significant in extreme gravitational fields and the earth does not have an extreme gravitational field.
:::::::As for Wikipedia covering up evidence regarding relativity to suit a liberal bias, let me make a comment about that. I happen to also be active on Wikipedia, and from my experience the kind of people that edit the science pages are not the same kind of people who generally edit the political/philosophy pages. I have noticed a great deal of political bias in the people who dominate the latter pages, but not at all the former. I really don't think they did is -if they did it at all- for political reasons. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]