Talk:Relativity
I bet it's not nearly as exhaustive as this one, though. We'll see, won't we? -Smyth 11:17, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
- Okay, yeah, that's better. Thanks for the great article Gauss. -Smyth 14:22, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
- Excellent work, Mr. Gauss! If only our speed of light article were as clear and well written... humanbe in 15:29, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
Contents |
[edit] Goal / principles
My goals in this article are
- Make something that is actually accessible, understandable, and useful to High School or Junior High (or equivalent home-schoolers) students, and interested lay adults.
- In other words, what Conservapedia wants its articles to be, but can't possibly do because they poison themselves.
- Avoid using calculus, if possible.
- Avoid using any of the following buzz-words and phrases, if possible:
- Covariant
- Tensor
- Metric
- 4-vector
- 4-velocity
- 4-momentum
- x2+y2+z2-c2t2
Gauss 17:37, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
Should there be a more technical page on GR somewhere? i.e. One that uses your Seven Dirty Words? ;)
And what is wrong with the last one...? (How do I indent on here....?!)--Andy Frankinson (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Meaning of "theory"
"In the early decades of the 20th century, it was called the "Theory of Relativity", because it was so revolutionary that the scientific world was still tentative in its acceptance of it. Now it is just called "relativity"."
This tends to reinforce the popular understanding of "theory" as "wild-ass guess", and does not really add anything to the article. I suggest that it be deleted. — Unsigned, by: 136.160.250.253 / talk / contribs
- If the statement remains unsourced, then I support the removal of it. In the meantime, I have tacked the {{fact}} template onto it. --
Radioactive Misanthrope 12:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
- I agree it should be removed. It makes the same mistake we accuse anti-evolutionists of making regarding the meaning of the word "theory". Rational Edperception 12:06, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
- Now that three people support the statement's removal, I'll got ahead and remove it now. --
Radioactive Misanthrope 12:09, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
- Now that three people support the statement's removal, I'll got ahead and remove it now. --
- I agree it should be removed. It makes the same mistake we accuse anti-evolutionists of making regarding the meaning of the word "theory". Rational Edperception 12:06, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
[edit] Parsing
The sentence as it currently is mixes the "ordinary" and "scientific" meanings for the word "theory". It was called "relativity theory" because it was a "theory (scientific)". The way it parses out (to me) suggests the writer may have (assuming "good faith") been confused themselves as to what "relativity" in a scientific context means, or conversely, it's parody.
It was called "relativity theory" because it merged a bunch of raw data with new research and (eventually) observations and made predictions. CЯacke® 13:03, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
- Bollocks!
ContribsTalk 13:08, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
- It could be written more clearly, to imply how Susan described it in section above - when it was the T of R, it described what we had seen but made some "strange" predictions. When those predictions were observed, the phenomena became known as relativity/relativistic effects. As far as the numbers on paper, it's "still" the T of R, really. That T of R, of course, explains a whole bunch of things now. human
13:20, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
- The sentence is incorrect. The fact is, it is formally known as the Theory of Relativity, and is often referred to in the short-hand as merely "relativity" (just as we have the Theory of Evolution which is often referred to as "evolution"). Rational Edperception 09:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
- That's what I meant, I think
ContribsTalk 09:50, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
- Yeah, I was just adding my two pence. Rational Edperception 12:17, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
- Anyway, it looks fine now. Rational Edperception 14:50, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
- Yeah, I was just adding my two pence. Rational Edperception 12:17, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
- That's what I meant, I think
- The sentence is incorrect. The fact is, it is formally known as the Theory of Relativity, and is often referred to in the short-hand as merely "relativity" (just as we have the Theory of Evolution which is often referred to as "evolution"). Rational Edperception 09:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
- It could be written more clearly, to imply how Susan described it in section above - when it was the T of R, it described what we had seen but made some "strange" predictions. When those predictions were observed, the phenomena became known as relativity/relativistic effects. As far as the numbers on paper, it's "still" the T of R, really. That T of R, of course, explains a whole bunch of things now. human