56
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 578:
Line 578: + + + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 19:39, December 3, 2011
, 19:39, December 3, 2011→Deleted example to releativity
:Maybe I should cut to the chase. Yes or no. Does the fact that nuclear reactors exist invalidate almost every possible counter example on this page, and every valid example merely represents an aspect of physics that the current theory does not yet accommodate? If so, then surely this entire page should be deleted. --[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 14:16, 3 December 2011 (EST)
:Maybe I should cut to the chase. Yes or no. Does the fact that nuclear reactors exist invalidate almost every possible counter example on this page, and every valid example merely represents an aspect of physics that the current theory does not yet accommodate? If so, then surely this entire page should be deleted. --[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 14:16, 3 December 2011 (EST)
::No. Now stop crying about your example being deleted and do something constructive. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 14:19, 3 December 2011 (EST)
::No. Now stop crying about your example being deleted and do something constructive. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 14:19, 3 December 2011 (EST)
:::Nuclear reactors existing validates that the current theory of relativity. I know that really.
:::Maybe I should come clean, I've been deceptive. While I think it is good to be able to present a conservative point of view freely, I don't like this page because it is just an unfair criticism of a theory that in reality has a very strong foundation and it has many real world applications. Energy generation being one.
:::We don't know everything about physics yet, that is granted. Theories are meant to be fairly challenged, that's the only way we'll increase our knowledge. This page does not present a fair challenge, it's promoting the notion that relativity is not a sound theory and has no application. I thought that if I could coax a senior member into admitting reactors exist. Then I would be able to make the point that this in fact invalidates most of the counter examples and the only valid ones are merely unanswered questions that can only be resolved by fairly challenging the theory and should probably be more correctly listed as "Unsolved issues with relativity", with the pre-acknowledgement of the facts by a senior member. I thought if I could do that, then I could finally get some serious consideration applied to this page.
:::Sorry if my actions have offended anyone. Maybe I didn't go about this the best possible way.--[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 14:39, 3 December 2011 (EST)