161
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 587:
Line 587: +
Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 17:24, December 6, 2011
, 17:24, December 6, 2011→Deleted example to releativity
:::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)
:::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)
Actually, nuclear reactors have nothing to do with Relativity, except that Relativity and the initial equation showing that nuclear reactions may be possible, were both developed by the same person. On a different note, not offended, however I would suggest choosing a line of argument with more foundation because, honestly, you looked like an idiot. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 01:21, 5 December 2011 (EST)
Actually, nuclear reactors have nothing to do with Relativity, except that Relativity and the initial equation showing that nuclear reactions may be possible, were both developed by the same person. On a different note, not offended, however I would suggest choosing a line of argument with more foundation because, honestly, you looked like an idiot. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 01:21, 5 December 2011 (EST)
::::Despite [[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]]'s childish approach, I think that it's been established here that relativity has led to useful devices (though we might debate just how useful atomic bombs are). Contrary to [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]]'s assertion, E=mc2 is not simply a separate line of Einstein's work, but a derivation of the fundamental ideas of Special Relativity. In addition to nuclear power, particle accelerators are designed on the basis of special relativity, as are some high-energy cathode ray tubes. Hence I have removed the counterexample claiming that relativity has led to no practical devices. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 12:24, 6 December 2011 (EST)
== Archiving? ==
== Archiving? ==
This page is quite long, and perhaps it should be archived. The downside of archiving is that it can lead to discussions being repeated by those new to the page criticising counterexamples using points which have already been made. To avoid this, I'm willing to summarise the points made, including all points in a non-biased way, as a way to ensure arguments are not repeated. Comments on this suggestion would be greatly appreciated. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 01:26, 5 December 2011 (EST)
This page is quite long, and perhaps it should be archived. The downside of archiving is that it can lead to discussions being repeated by those new to the page criticising counterexamples using points which have already been made. To avoid this, I'm willing to summarise the points made, including all points in a non-biased way, as a way to ensure arguments are not repeated. Comments on this suggestion would be greatly appreciated. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 01:26, 5 December 2011 (EST)