Talk:Whitehead's theory of gravitation

message: At present, this is a stub since I haven't yet added material precisely describing Whitehead's theory or explaining the effects mentioned in the article.---CH 00:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub

message: I created the original version of this article and had been monitoring it for bad edits, but I am leaving the WP and am now abandoning this article to its fate.
Just wanted to provide notice that I am only responsible (in part) for the last version I edited; see User:Hillman/Archive.  I emphatically do not vouch for anything you might see in more recent versions.  Alternative theories of gravitation attract many cranks, so it is possible that at least some future versions of this article might contain slanted information, misinformation, or disinformation.  I'd also urge students to be cautious in using any material from websites found by following external links from this article, since these may be cranky.  Note that cranks may attempt to portray fringe science or pseudoscience as belonging to the canon of well-established scientific belief, which would be seriously misleading.
Good luck in your search for information, regardless!---CH 20:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Students beware

message: It seems to me that the first several sentences describing the principle features of Whitehead's theory are quite false. According to Dean Fowler (from the academic journal Process Studies), "Whitehead, while maintaining a uniform geometry, did not claim that the geometrical structure is prior. Whitehead, in fact, emphasizes that geometry is an outgrowth of the relationships among actual events. That is, actual occasions are ontologically prior to geometry." This first sentence claiming otherwise is parroting the arguments of Will and Synge, who clearly did not understand Whitehead's philosophical reasons for criticizing Einstein's version of relativity. In point of fact, at least according to Whitehead, it is Einstein who makes abstract geometry more real than or prior to actual nature. http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2373 footnotes2plato.com (talk) 07:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor interpretation of Whitehead's philosophical point 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Whitehead's theory of gravitation. 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/20130108210539/http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2373 to https://www.religion-online.org/article/disconfirmation-of-whiteheads-relativity-theory-a-critical-reply/ (moved from http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2373)
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) 06:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The tone of this article is a little bit too much WP:FALSEBALANCE. The critical statements made by physicists are put up against supportive statements by a philosopher, and a 50 year old study. This really is not a live theory anymore, and the article shouldn't imply there is a serious debate.
The closest thing I can find to current scientific support for Whitehead's theory is papers like this, which is published in a questionable journal, and yet is talking about an extension, meaning it still acknowledges that Whitehead's theory has been proven wrong:
There may be proposed extensions to the model that have not been proven wrong, but we should clearly specify those are modified proposals, and not (as the article currently says) a "new interpretation" of the same theory. \langle Forbes72 | Talk \rangle 19:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue weight in body