161
edits
Changes
Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 18:38, December 6, 2011
, 18:38, December 6, 2011→Deleted example to releativity
::::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)
::::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)
::::: Nuclear energy has very little to do with either Einstein or E=mc2. It is based on nuclear forces, and not on anything approaching the speed of light. The development of atomic would have proceeded just the same whether relativity had been discovered or not. Relativity is useful for other things, such as GPS. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:07, 6 December 2011 (EST)
::::: Nuclear energy has very little to do with either Einstein or E=mc2. It is based on nuclear forces, and not on anything approaching the speed of light. The development of atomic would have proceeded just the same whether relativity had been discovered or not. Relativity is useful for other things, such as GPS. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:07, 6 December 2011 (EST)
:::::: True, it has little to do with E=mc2, but it has something to do with it. I think it's reasonable to suggest that nuclear fusion would have been discovered in the absence of relativity, and that therefore the famous equation might have been discovered empirically by observing mass/energy conversions in nuclear processes. However, relativity *did* come first, and the equation is used to calculate energy output for a given mass loss. But you're right, there's lots of other much better examples.--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:38, 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)