Talk:Criticism of the theory of relativity

Bias in this article

... The thrust of such allegations was to promote more traditional alternatives to Einstein's abstract hypothetico-deductive approach to physics, while Einstein himself was to be personally discredited. ...

This section does not have a neutral point of view at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.49.204.54 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 9 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Relativity of simultaneity at different altitudes

Why not adding: "Since experimental evidence, it is well known that a desynchronization of clocks appears between different altitudes on earth (simultaneity is relative). However, simultaneity (absolute for the sky) of the sun or the moon (since million years for example) proves that the concept of relativity should be questionned."??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by N738139 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussed at length at Talk:Relativity of simultaneity. VQuakr (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Victorious articles for science?

Why does Wikipedia bother writing neutrality when it clearly is going to take a side. Some of the text is flavored too much in favor of relativity. I am nonrelativist, and a non-aehterist, both much for the same reasons argued...Lack of logic that is real, tangible proof, etc. But more to the point, as a writer and better arguer than the lot of the Earth, I can spot a tinge or taste of any bias a light year off. There is some phrasing in favor of Einstein that is nonfactual. It is fine to have the counter points Einstein used...However sick and twisted arguing common sense is different now than before is really, but some of the language in between points is supportive of the theory and not derogatory. No. The article does not appear lambasting towards the notion of objecting relativity, but is definitely put in the light of relativity being correct and victorious in all of these debates...Which even a hardcore relativist would not agree on since there was some backlash to relativity, as recorded here even from its supporters, due to the counterarguments. I think how the point in the article about the argument of Spacetime being the Aether replacement is well handled. Admitting that scientists fought back against other scientists when Spacetime was called Aether, and Einstein despite all objections did admit it was much like Aether, yes. That is unbiased. But the fact there is a "Status of Criticism" section is too akin to the other articles on evolution and so forth, very much of the modern mind, in a fashion of being correct and noting how correct and victorious you...Not plain dead information...But YOU, the editor who believes in these things, are right! And must be! And other humbugs...

The point is simply stating that the current status of debate is that Relativity won is dead wrong in even what we call a scientific method, which in the end means the last "truth" is able to be broken by evidence...And this theory is still a HARD Theory, and has way too little evidence. Even being objective, which may make you biased, or biased, which may make you objective, still would leave you with the fact that there is some question, assumption, and scrutibility to whether relativity is real since ninety percent of relativistic discoveries are realistically theoretical extensions that there is a spacetime and a constant speed of light, which are assumptions calculated at best. That is not an argument, that is barebones fact. The only fact you add to change any of that, is the one where the scientists wants relativity to be right. It is still a theory with few experiments, interpretive questions, and some assumptions assuming one set of mathematics is right over a million other sets of equations one could, has, or will one day impose to be real without reality caring for our number crunching since it is already all worked out and suited to its own real quantities and processes.

I can bust in six seconds the current "status of crticism". Constant speed of light repeatably measured different and at lower and lower speeds. A creationist, backed by secularists, has argued, and the secularists confirmed...Not that any of that means anything since both were scientists using the scientific method...Not that method means anything since scientific method can fail too...And a fact is a fact...And evidence...And things...Literally, things, not people, matter, and are what matters are made from! But it has been argued in recent times the speed of light is not constant. So creationists object to relativity? The idiots?! No. You idiot. They choose relativity still, but have a different theory to explain quantitized redshift, which I just look and laugh at as a nonrelativist for simply not getting there is no expansion of spacetime.

Point? A million theories and not enough time to get everything. But aether theorist are alive and arguing. Those who askew both continue to fight. LIGO is questioned by some. Even Black Holes have been subject to doubt. By Relativists even. The point of this article is failing to document the criticism and debate, instead assigning a victor in the end. And as a nonrelativist hater of spacetime, big fan of Star Trek and Star Wars...Just drop that tagline. Document the fight. And note that one side is still more popular today overall, even as criticism was more popular formerly, and aether theory long before relativity. Note the popularity, not the "rightness" of scientific thinking. It will save you edits in the future, for any subject. These theories change pretty much always.64.109.54.132 (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)