79
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 626:
Line 626: + + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 11:30, August 17, 2011
, 11:30, August 17, 2011→Attempt at Helping the Consensus Along
:::::::::: The advance of the perihelion of Mercury (point 6) can be explained in Newtonian mechanics by tweaking the exponent of distance in the basic gravity equation. But no amount of tweaking is possible in Relativity to make the theory fit the data. So the liberals simply ignore the most recent data, and censor any criticism of Relativity based on this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::: The advance of the perihelion of Mercury (point 6) can be explained in Newtonian mechanics by tweaking the exponent of distance in the basic gravity equation. But no amount of tweaking is possible in Relativity to make the theory fit the data. So the liberals simply ignore the most recent data, and censor any criticism of Relativity based on this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::: No, I think too that most of US physicists are liberals. A lot of the are atheists or agnostics, too. But I simply don't see the link between liberalism (or moral relativitsm, or whathever you want) and the physical theory of relativity. I don't see it because it doesn't exist. Physical laws are purely a reflection of nature's laws: if you don't like relativity, well, you don't like the way nature behaves. This has nothing to do with humans behaviour or politics. While in other "sciences" (such as economics and psychology) there are a lot of contrasting paradigms, in physics experiments rules. A lot of paradigms (such as "all is made of matter", "movement is absolute" and things like that) were abandoned in the history of science because of experiments (I don't think this is true for economics, for example), not politics. This mechanism stops when theory is not comparable with experiments, such in the string theory case: in this case, research is driven in the direction of the mainstream thought for non-scientifical reasons (as you was saying before talking about relativity, today - or since some years ago - every young theoretical particle physicist in US had to study string theory to have the chance to have an academic career). But this is definitely not the case for Relativity, since the experimental proofs are '''overwhelming'''.
::::::::::: Ok, maybe. What about the speed of light? And what about the lifetime of particles near the speed of light? (don't forget to answer to the other points with reliable sources... or deleting points 7-8-13-16-26-32-33) --[[User:MM87|<font color="#E56717">'''MM'''</font>]]''[[User_talk:MM87|<font color="#FBB117">'''''87'''''</font>]] 07:30, 17 August 2011 (EDT)