Difference between revisions of "Talk:Theory of relativity"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Special and general relativity) |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
This article seems to combine the two. They are different ideas and need to be distinguished. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:21, 24 February 2007 (EST) | This article seems to combine the two. They are different ideas and need to be distinguished. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:21, 24 February 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Agreed. Separate articles would make more sense. I don't have time to do the necessary work right now, but if no one else does it I'm sure I'll get to it eventually. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:11, 25 February 2007 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 15:11, February 25, 2007
Great article
1) Superb avoidance of difficult science in a scientific article. Best not to be confusing. 2) Nice attention on Eddington rather than the theory itself. 3) Good mind reading regarding Eddington's dreams. 4) Nice work ignoring the facts about things that have been inventing using GR such as GPS
And rather than simply be sarcastic, I will work on a better article over the weekend. One that actually discusses the science.
Special and general relativity
This article seems to combine the two. They are different ideas and need to be distinguished. JoshuaZ 19:21, 24 February 2007 (EST)
- Agreed. Separate articles would make more sense. I don't have time to do the necessary work right now, but if no one else does it I'm sure I'll get to it eventually. Tsumetai 10:11, 25 February 2007 (EST)