Comments:General relativity effect confirmed: satellite experiment

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

I honestly think that the two theories of relativity have only scratched the surface of the surface of what there is to discover. I'm very excited about the course of experiments related to them over the next several years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs)

Personally I am unsure how accurate and/or on point the article is. I certainly thought there were some unanswered questions raised by the Voyager trajectory anomalies. -- Cimon Avaro (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, but those will be new physics, not a rehash of old physics. Basically, we know that Relativity is correct... as far as it goes. We also know that it doesn't explain everything, and that it is incompatible with Quantum Physics. Those are the things that they're working on right now: creating new ideas that will incorporate all the things we know, and teach us new things as well. But that won't invalidate Relativity. Just like how Relativity didn't invalidate Newtonian Physics. Newtonian Physics is still perfectly correct... but only under specific conditions (like those that exist in our every day lives). Relativity simply goes one step further than Newtonian Physics. Eventually, the same thing will happen to Relativity. Gopher65talk 15:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Newtonian physics weirdly simplisticEdit

and anthrocentric---time to see the universe with more than 3 dimensions. Ralativity a peekaboo —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Man, scienceEdit

Awesome stuff. Fephisto (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Man, more scienceEdit

"Are you surprised that the weirdness predicted by relativity has been experimentally verified?"

That is a loaded question and harmful to science! Firstly, how is relativity weird? It is an easily observable thanks to both the flesh and blood and mechanical Mr. Hubble. Red Shift is easily explained and understood as the "train whistle of light" by both children and adults alike...once a person understands the rubber-band nature of light, the ability to manipulate and transform space-time mentally naturally follows. Of course all experiments will agree with relativity. The first experiment that doesn't, refutes it and we move onto something better!

Secondly, Relativity is no where near as complex and unpredictable as Quantum Dynamics. Virtual particles? Calabi–Yau manifolds? The mere act of any direct measurement utterly forbidding a direct result?

Gleaning the secrets of light via Relativity is as simple as telling time with a clock...but telling the Quantum time in between the ticks and tocks of our Relativity Clock is as difficult as reconstructing an image of that clock's hands, positioned on it's face, from a snapshot we took from many many miles distant with a long-lensed camera. A moment after that clock was involved in a high speed head on two-car accident....that we orchestrated!

It gets better ... the clock was in the glovebox of one of the cars involved in the accident and now you have to, from that single photograph only, a jumbled images of pieces of car and clock and who knows what else at what angles, tell someone with assurance what time the clock said! That odd description is a repeated analogy of events inside a particle accelerator/atom smasher. Of which relativity must be nearly fully understood to get it to work properly let alone produce meaningful results. The good news in real life is that we can take billions and billions of pictures of those accidents, it's not just a one shot chance...Viva Science!

I strongly disagree that the question is loaded, or harmful to science. Relativity has held up incredibly well to intense scrutiny, and when you start getting to the limits of applying the theory then you do encounter strange predicted behaviours. Testing that these actually occur is advancement of science - either by strengthening the basis of the theory of relativity, or proving that it is an incomplete model. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "I agree with Einsteins opinion..."Edit

I agree with Einsteins opinion on relativity. C squared happens much in nature. A 3 lb cannonball shot, will put a 9 pound hole in the ground, not a 3 inch hole. — (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)