161
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 525:
Line 525: + + + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 13:50, December 2, 2011
, 13:50, December 2, 2011→Reversion explained
The "The observed lack of curvature in overall space" is not an "unobserved" phenomenon. Accordingly, it has been reverted along with the others. Looking for something that should be there under a theory, but not finding it there as predicted, is a counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:50, 30 November 2011 (EST)
The "The observed lack of curvature in overall space" is not an "unobserved" phenomenon. Accordingly, it has been reverted along with the others. Looking for something that should be there under a theory, but not finding it there as predicted, is a counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:50, 30 November 2011 (EST)
:[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], sorry, yes, I was being a bit overzealous on that one. However, I think the principle holds - many of the concepts listed are not counterexamples. Starting with number one: relativity predicts gravity waves and predicts that they will be extremely difficult to detect. Now I hear you say that's a pretty lousy kind of prediction - and you're right - but it still doesn't make it a counterexample. The same goes for the entry on gravitons (additionally, they're a prediction of quantum theory, not relativity, but that's for another phase of editing).
:It may be that further categorizing is necessary. For example, issues like the Twin Paradox and the Ehrenfest Paradox are not strictly unobserved phenomena either. Item 37, failure to solve the equations, is a problem for mathematics, not necessarily for relativity.
:Perhaps a simpler solution would be to rename the whole article, perhaps to 'Counterarguments to Relativity'. That way the article doesn't look silly by listing things that clearly aren't counterexamples, and also is open to inclusion of a broader range of criticisms of the theory. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:50, 2 December 2011 (EST)