Talk:History of general relativity

message: :In fact, the viability of any approach that changes the field equations is doubtful due to a proof published in the 1990s that only the Einstein Field Equations can provide both self-consistency and local consistency with special relativity.
Can whoever added this please provide a reference? It seems doubtful. –Joke137 13:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is something that I learned about in a relativity class.  I do not recall that exact reference, and my initial searches have come up empty.  Feel free to remove it if you like, although I will ask Chris Hillman about this.  It may be that this proof has been disproven in the last 5 years.  --EMS | Talk 04:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa, I guess I haven't been paying attention, but I agree with Joke137 that this claim is certainly not correct as stated.  There 'are' lots of theorems to the effect that GTR is uniquely nice in various ways, but they tend to be a bit tricky to state correctly, and they certainly should not be stated without giving good citations.  EMS, can you find the citation.  Maybe ask your former Professor for help?  Or ask in sci.physics.research?  I am guessing you might have garbled some remarks which can be found in Weinberg. ---CH  (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Chris - I asked you about this after Joke challenged me on it, and you also came up empty.  So it got tossed.  I would love to know what that professor was talking about, but he has left U. Md and I am not longer able to contact him.  I should have taken my previous inability to document this as a red flag, but thought that the source was trustworthy.  Now I know better.  --EMS | Talk 04:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proof?

message: The development of general relativity began in 1907 with the publication of an article by Albert Einstein on acceleration under special relativity. 
Do we know why Einstein was dissatisfied with classical mechanics?  Was there an observation that he couldn't explain?  Was classical mechanics unnecessarily complicated? The article doesn't make clear what motivated his investigation; it just says it began with a publication which is not very satisfactory. Pgr94 (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've included a few words on the motivation of Einstein. --D.H (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why develop a new theory when classical mechanics was fine? 

message: However, general relativity and quantum mechanics (a theory that has been experimentally verified more than GR) are known to be inconsistent.
What does it mean to be "verified more"? Can you provide a source for the statement that GR is inconsistent with QM? In my understanding, it is a different type of theory, hence the statement should possibly be altered to "quantum field theory corresponding to GR has not been found yet". --J.A  —Preceding undated comment added 18:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GR and QM 

message: How is it possible that this article DOES NOT CITE Einstein's original papers???
Risible. (I came here looking for them).  I also see reference 5 is to this article, and that many of the references have no dates.  Whats up with that?  How is it possible that Wikipedia allows such slop?
Additionally, devoting an entire paragraph to a false story of a conversation Eddington did not have is inappropriate, imho.
..
OK. I went to princeton.edu and found the following:
“Zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie”
Königlich Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin). Sitzungsberichte
(1915): 778–786 [Vol. 6, Doc. 21, 214–224; trans. 98–107]
Dated: 4 November 1915
and
“Zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie (Nachtrag)” ← [I think this translates as glossary (?) ]
Königlich Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin). Sitzungsberichte
(1915): 799–801 [Vol. 6, Doc. 22, 225–229; trans. 108–110]
Dated: 11 November 1915
Sequentially published.  If anyone can confirm that these are indeed the critical 1915 papers, please feel free to add them - or - if appropriate where I got them: http://press.princeton.edu/books/einstein11/e_biblio.pdf
Thanks. (If I were sure that these are the correct citations, I would do it myself...)173.189.75.158 (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  References??? 

message: As a result of an earlier discussion, the contents of Golden age of general relativity were pasted into this article, but the source article was not removed. Part of the cut and paste was the timeline, which only covers a couple of decades and looks out of place here. I propose to finish the merger, but add the timeline to Timeline of gravitational physics and relativity and remove it from this article. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: General relativity is alive and well as a branch of modern physics; reference to a golden age connotes that its time has come and gone. As stated at Golden age#Present-day usage:
:Invariably, the term "Golden Age" is bestowed retroactively, when the period in question has ended and is compared with what followed in the specific field discussed.
Though a reference has been given for this usage, perpetuation of an ill-founded phrase detracts from credibility of this Project. — Rgdboer (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Retro

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of general relativity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060209205126/http://www.physics.unr.edu/faculty/winterberg/Hilbert-Einstein.pdf to http://physics.unr.edu/faculty/winterberg/Hilbert-Einstein.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: According to the Wikipedia page on him Clifford came very, very close to anticipating general relativity yet he is not mentioned in either the special relativity or general relativity page on Wikipiedia. IMO his contributions merit more than this and should be included in either of those two articles but I am curious what other Wikipedia editors make of the man before I go ahead with anything.SQMeaner (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Kingdon Clifford