1,792
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 118:
Line 118: + +
Talk:Theory of relativity (view source)
Revision as of 19:20, November 27, 2009
, 19:20, November 27, 2009→Jfraatz's comments: The Pioneer anomaly is not known to contradict either relativity or Newtonian gravity
::::::::The results are not within the standard of error. You're in denial: the results contradict the theory of relativity. And Wikipedians will never allow that truth on their pages. The Wikipedians who edit the science paiges there are just as liberal as those who edit the other pages, and it's implausible to suggest otherwise. Check out the global warming pages on Wikipedia, for example, if you doubt this. (My response to your earlier comments are below).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 27 November 2009 (EST)
::::::::The results are not within the standard of error. You're in denial: the results contradict the theory of relativity. And Wikipedians will never allow that truth on their pages. The Wikipedians who edit the science paiges there are just as liberal as those who edit the other pages, and it's implausible to suggest otherwise. Check out the global warming pages on Wikipedia, for example, if you doubt this. (My response to your earlier comments are below).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 27 November 2009 (EST)
:::::::: The Pioneer anomaly is not known to contradict either relativity or Newtonian gravity. Contradicting gravity is just one of several possible explanations, and no one is accepted. If it contradicts one then it contradicts the other, as the two theories say the same for Pioneer data. The gravity on Pioneer is extremely weak, and far outside the range where relativity would make any difference. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:20, 27 November 2009 (EST)
== Reply to Johanan Raatz ==
== Reply to Johanan Raatz ==