Talk:Special relativity/Archive 14

message: Is there a page which discusses tests of special relativity (analogous to tests of general relativity)? - guess not. Perhaps there should be, and it would be a good article for at least 2 reasons: 
* it would collect together the experiments used to test SR, thus making for better organisation. 
* it would be in a more consistent format with the general relativity pages regarding experiments (and there would be some nice overlap too, e.g. Hafele-Keating experiment). There's even a category, :Category:Tests of general relativity.
A useful website that lists papers for experiments in SR is the following: http://www2.corepower.com:8080/~relfaq/experiments.html. MP   (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tests of special relativity page ? 

message: It is not enough to show that there exists a frame where the cause happens after the effect. This is explained in detail here on page 11-13.
The problem is that you can't define cause and effect using temporal ordering. You would have to invoke an "arrow of time" but at the fundamental level there exists no such thing.
You have to show that you can create a situation where the effect precedes the cause and that the separation between the two is timelike. Only then do you have a genuine paradox (e.g. the Tachyonic anti-telephone mentioned in the article). Count Iblis 18:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causal Paradox is not adequately explained 

message: There seems to be no section on the scientific community's reaction to special relativity when it first 'came out,' such as controversy, acceptence etc. Perhaps someone with knowledge on this topic could add it in? --LeakeyJee 04:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people embraced it readily. And others rejected it. There was a lot of controversy at first. That is why Einstein got his Nobel prize for the photo-electric effect rather than for relativity. As the experimental evidence has become overwhelming, the balance has shifted in favor of the pro-relativity faction. But people on the other side still exist and are not hard to find. JRSpriggs 10:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that may have been the case, this topic seems relevent enough to have its own section in the article, any one else think so? --LeakeyJee 03:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could look at Limitations of special relativity. The controversy is really a historical topic which is too big to put into this article (although it would be nice to have a pointer to it). However, an article or section on that controversy would simply attract a large number of cranks and quickly become a worthless article. JRSpriggs 04:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be a section on this, with a brief summary, that links to a longer article like Opposition to the theory of relativity that has a full discussion on the subject.  However, writing such things takes time. -- SCZenz 04:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A cut-and-dried article on the opposition to SR would be nice, but the last time it was tried the article turned into a crackpot-magnet.  Even limitations of special relativity is more of a diatribe than a well sourced and thought-out article. --EMS | Talk 03:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I now started working on a replacement for the "Anti-relativity" article. The new title may be "Opposition to the theory of relativity" but, perhaps better, "Criticism of the theory of relativity" (for how can anyone oppose a theory?). What do you think? It should focus on criticisms by notable "dissidents", instead of on dissidents themselves or on unknown crackpots. I had a look at limitations of special relativity but saw nothing that IMO is worth salvaging. When I get to the point of placing the new article draft, I will immediately (or even upfront) ask for partial protection as a crackpot barrier. Harald88 09:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reaction 

message: Now one has to browse through a long list of "see also" and "external links" before finaly reaching the article's references. I propose to correct that: First the references. Harald88 19:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea is to put the most easily accessed material first. First, links to other parts of wikipedia. Next, links to other things on the Internet. Next, textbooks. Last, journal articles. JRSpriggs 10:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This way of making the less directly related material more accessible goes at the cost of the accessibility of the articles' notes and references. As the notes and references are part of the article and those links aren't, it effectively rips the article apart. Harald88 19:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While the references are needed to support the article, I do not consider them to be any more part of the article than the other links are. The reality is that most readers will not exert more than a limited amount of effort to follow up on the article. So those materials which they are most likely to use, i.e. the most easily accessed, should be first. JRSpriggs 07:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sequence of references etc. 

message: The person bringing this dispute claims to have evidence showing that relativity is false or something, and I thought i'd ask editors here about it, because I don't really know how to respond :/. Dispute is at WP:GA/R at the top right now. Homestarmy 16:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Rather....unique GA review has opened concerning this article