SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 13:
Line 13: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 03:12, March 17, 2012
, 03:12, March 17, 2012→Removal of "talk-page-like" material: new section
:As far as the question of whether scientists prefer relativity for reasons of faith, my guess would be that relativity is simpler, because it doesn't postulate the existence of something that is completely unnecessary. I have no idea about people's reasons beyond that. My guess is that it's Occam's razor. I've never met anyone who embraces the Lorentz theory, and can't find an explanation of it in any of my textbooks or encyclopedias.
:As far as the question of whether scientists prefer relativity for reasons of faith, my guess would be that relativity is simpler, because it doesn't postulate the existence of something that is completely unnecessary. I have no idea about people's reasons beyond that. My guess is that it's Occam's razor. I've never met anyone who embraces the Lorentz theory, and can't find an explanation of it in any of my textbooks or encyclopedias.
:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:37, 31 January 2012 (EST)
:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:37, 31 January 2012 (EST)
== Removal of "talk-page-like" material ==
I have taken the liberty of moving two comments, made and signed by Andy Schlafly, from the essay page itself to this talk page. It was my intent, when creating the page, that it be kept "professional" and "scientific" and "dispassionate". (Complete with the use of the editorial "we".) This means that back-and-forth arguing, and signed comments in particular, should be here on this talk page, and that disputes on the actual essay page be carried out in a dispassionate-sounding manner.
My actual vision, since it was inevitable that arguments would occur, was that, to use a military metaphor, the two sides lob shells at each other from behind the ramparts of their respective fortresses, rather than coming over for had-to-hand combat. :-) That is, issues with this rebuttal page would be made by tightening up the arguments on the counterexamples page, would might lead to tightening up the arguments on the rebuttal page, and so on.
These comments were removed and folded into the narrative:
:(1) "This is because the experimental capability to do so doesn't exist." - if that were true, then [why] were the costly experiments done if relativists were going to ignore the negative results?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 26 February 2012 (EST)
:(2) So? That wouldn't change the fact that this is a counterexample to Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 26 February 2012 (EST)
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:12, 16 March 2012 (EDT)