Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 508: Line 508:  
:::: (16) Really, I didn't knew it. Neither I care, of course. You are clinging to Nobels while I am saying the relativity is essential in the standard model, which basically explains almost all the particle physics experiments currently made. Remove the hands from your ears!
 
:::: (16) Really, I didn't knew it. Neither I care, of course. You are clinging to Nobels while I am saying the relativity is essential in the standard model, which basically explains almost all the particle physics experiments currently made. Remove the hands from your ears!
 
:::: I'm focusing on these items because I want to make productive discussions and, after that, the '''deletion''' of the points considered. For example, if you think that points 1-6 and 9-12 are sufficient, you can delete all the others. You can surely delete (7-8-13-26-32-33) and merge (1) and (13), we'll talk about (1) later (miracles first!). (no, in my opinion that list does not contain any valid counterexample. But general relativity is far from being safe from this point of view: I told you that not all the points are totally wrong...)--[[User:MM87|<font color="#E56717">'''MM'''</font>]]''[[User_talk:MM87|<font color="#FBB117">'''''87'''''</font>]] 08:13, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
 
:::: I'm focusing on these items because I want to make productive discussions and, after that, the '''deletion''' of the points considered. For example, if you think that points 1-6 and 9-12 are sufficient, you can delete all the others. You can surely delete (7-8-13-26-32-33) and merge (1) and (13), we'll talk about (1) later (miracles first!). (no, in my opinion that list does not contain any valid counterexample. But general relativity is far from being safe from this point of view: I told you that not all the points are totally wrong...)--[[User:MM87|<font color="#E56717">'''MM'''</font>]]''[[User_talk:MM87|<font color="#FBB117">'''''87'''''</font>]] 08:13, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
 +
: I've been patiently addressing your questions, but you didn't fully answer mine: do you concede that it takes only one counterexample to disprove relativity?
 +
 +
: Your response to point (16) speaks volumes.  The Nobel prizes are heavily politicized ... all of them.  To claim that one prize is politicized but another is not is unpersuasive.  Anyone who publicly criticizes relativity can forget about ever winning a Nobel prize in anything, or even getting tenure anywhere.  That's politics, not science, and that's the reality.  Hopefully you can at least admit that.
 +
 +
: On point (7), I think there is circularity in your argument, assuming what it is at issue by insisting that E remain constant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:05, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
    
== Attempt at Helping the Consnesus Along ==
 
== Attempt at Helping the Consnesus Along ==
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,569

edits

Navigation menu