79
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 502:
Line 502: + + + + + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 12:13, August 15, 2011
, 12:13, August 15, 2011→A point of view on this article
::: Why are you focusing on items so far down the list? What about counterexamples 1-6, and 9-12? I hope you will concede that it takes only one counterexample to disprove [[Relativity]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:51, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
::: Why are you focusing on items so far down the list? What about counterexamples 1-6, and 9-12? I hope you will concede that it takes only one counterexample to disprove [[Relativity]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:51, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: (7) Well, your observation means only that you can't do limits properly. I can teach you if you want. (Have you studied math in college?)
:::: (8) In a certain sense you're correct: "standard" ortogonality breaks down because the metric is not Euclidean but Minkowskian. I made the calculus by myself on the basis of my rational mechanics and special relativity course book (which is in Italian), and I have cited Lorentz (1899, well before Einstein's theory). The same calculus is made [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Force here], but I think you won't accept it ;-) Unfortunately I have not textbooks in english about special relativity dynamics... I'll give you a reference asap.
:::: (13) The acronym LIGO stands for '''Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory''', not '''Laser Interferometer Graviton Observatory'''. I've asked you for ''direct searches''. If they find waves with peculiar features ''maybe'' there is some model that explains these features in terms of gravitons, but it is a quite remote possibility.
:::: (16) Really, I didn't knew it. Neither I care, of course. You are clinging to Nobels while I am saying the relativity is essential in the standard model, which basically explains almost all the particle physics experiments currently made. Remove the hands from your ears!
:::: I'm focusing on these items because I want to make productive discussions and, after that, the '''deletion''' of the points considered. For example, if you think that points 1-6 and 9-12 are sufficient, you can delete all the others. You can surely delete (7-8-13-26-32-33) and merge (1) and (13), we'll talk about (1) later (miracles first!). (no, in my opinion that list does not contain any valid counterexample. But general relativity is far from being safe from this point of view: I told you that not all the points are totally wrong...)--[[User:MM87|<font color="#E56717">'''MM'''</font>]]''[[User_talk:MM87|<font color="#FBB117">'''''87'''''</font>]] 08:13, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
== Attempt at Helping the Consnesus Along ==
== Attempt at Helping the Consnesus Along ==