Jump to content

Talk:Criticism of the theory of relativity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 78.68.210.173 (talk) at 11:51, 28 May 2015 (→‎Lack of content). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconPhysics: History C‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by History Taskforce.

Translated from the native language of Einstein

Does not cover other views. For example, see:

Пуанкаре (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true; the article complies with WP:Notability, WP:Undue, WP:Secondary, and WP:Fringe. You have to show, that this theory is discussed (positively or negatively) in a reputable, secondary source, 'not written by the author himself. --D.H (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is devoted only to criticism of critics. Пуанкаре (talk) 06:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Each side of the debate must have the opportunity to rebut the arguments of the other side. And where the rebuttal is covered by reliable secondary sources, then it should be included just as the original argument was. However, since relativity is correct, it is inevitable that it will have the last word. After a certain point, any further arguments by the opposition will simply be repeating their earlier errors and thus not worthy of inclusion. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. There are many cases which are not being discussed. Louis Essen himself pointed out that his criticism stands undisputed. People simply ignored him and there is no mention of him on this page either, except for a reference, which disregards him nonchalantly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.72.152.160 (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't prove anything by giving links to unreliable sources, or to a Wikipedia edit by an editor who clearly does not understand the physics involved. Well-sourced criticisms from an informed point of view by people with genuine reasons for questioning are one thing, fringe criticisms with no notability are a quite different matter. It is not Wikipedia's policy to give equal weight to all opinions, and if you haven't done so you should read WP:UNDUE. I may also say that the title you have given to this section has no obvious connection with its content, and, taken in conjunction with your unexplained and apparently irrelevant comment "Monopoly of Germans?" in another place referring to the same issues, this raises concerns about your motivation. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of content

I'm extremely suprised that there is no mention (other than reference) to Louis Essen's paper on critical analysis of the theory of relativity, entitled as such. Also, there is no mention of Nikola Tesla's vast cricism on the theory's mathematical method, its disregard of aether and logical contradictions . These could be put under "general criticism" and "Aether and absolute space" respectively. I have tried to add a reference to Tesla multiple times, but people keep removing it.

- J. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.198.128.179 (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article is based on WP:Secondary sources, necessary for the evaluation of WP:Notability and WP:Undue of those historical criticisms. Are there any reputable third-party sources, which show that their criticism is notable? --D.H (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Several! Tesla elaborated on his criticism in several interviews linked as sources found in [1] of his article. John O'Neill and Marc Seifer also mention his criticism, in their biographies. Tom Bearden has written several books on electromagnetism and angular momentum based on Tesla's assumptions. I.I. Haranas wrote articles about Tesla's "dynamic theory of gravity" and made propositions as to what it might impose. On a second note, Tesla is one of the most influential scientists in modern history, which I think puts weight on his words. - Sooz DK (talk) 09:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have not suggested any WP:Secondary sources (WP articles are not sources) which show that some reputable person or body considers Tesla's criticism of relativity notable. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sources that might or might not be notable enough (People seem to be very confrontational about this topic, which affects their judgment of notability. I'll let others judge.): N Tesla - New York Herald Tribune, 1932 - tesla.hu [in scholar.google.com) (contemporary account); http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=687968&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D687968 (respected journal, but I can't access without spending money; article is short, and might not do more than just give a passing mention?); The Achievement, Legacy, Intuition, and Cosmopolitanism of Nikola Tesla, T Petković - Almagest, 2013 - Brepols Publishers. That's about it. Kdammers (talk) 11:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Critics of anything are by definition reviewing the primary thing. Thus any critic is a secondary source. 78.68.210.173 (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary on the subject criticised, but primary on the criticism itself, which is the subject of this article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All peer reviews are consistent of critique. This is a sub-article. What you are suggesting would be akin to saying that an opinion/review/article on a biography of a person, noting his her or her negative qualities is a subject in itself. Your point becomes moot since it can be applied to everything and in perpetual circles. In most pages here and elsewhere "criticism" (both positive and negative appraisal) is introduced in the parent article and then expanded in a sub-article. Such as for any political ideology or discipline in science. Why this is not done here is beyond me. 78.68.210.173 (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of relativity theory → Criticism of the theory of relativity – "Theory of relativity" is the COMMONNAME for Einstein's theories of special and general relativity, even a cursory check of Google gives the former term, in quotes, a 40x advantage of the other, but we don't even need to do that. Additionally, our article is at theory of relativity, not relativity theory. Relatively uncontroversial, but this is the third stage of bold/revert/discuss. Sceptre (talk) 13:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

question....

Does anyone really understand what the second sentence of this passage means????

Critical responses to relativity (in German speaking countries) were also expressed by proponents of Neo-Kantianism (Paul Natorp, Bruno Bauch, etc.), and Phenomenology (Oskar Becker, Moritz Geiger etc.). While some of them only rejected the philosophical consequences, others rejected also the physical consequences of the theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisman62 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein's denial of a "real world" as the basis for SR

Einstein to Eduard Study, Sept. 25, 1918 (Replying to Study’s defense of realism):

(Quote): “The physical world is real.” That is supposed to be the fundamental hypothesis. What does “hypothesis” mean here? For me, a hypothesis is a statement, whose truth must be assumed for the moment, but whose meaning must be raised above all ambiguity. The above statement appears to me, however, to be, in itself, meaningless, as if one said: “The physical world is cock-a-doodle-doo.” It appears to me that the “real” is an intrinsically empty, meaningless category (pigeon hole), whose monstrous importance lies only in the fact that I can do certain things in it and not certain others. This division is, to be sure, not an arbitrary one, but instead …. I concede that the natural sciences concern the “real,” but I am still not a realist. (EA 22-307, ECP-8-624)(End quote.)

Henry Lindler, "Beyond Relativity and Quantum Theory to Cosmic Theory": “Albert Einstein was a subjective mathematical idealist. ... If we accept the theory that a physical Cosmos exists, and that our sensations and measurements result from our interactions with the Cosmos, then we should not restrict our physics, as Einstein did, to the modeling of our sensations and measurements."

See also Kurt Godel’s article (1949): “The Relationship Between Relativity Theory and Idealistic Philosophy.” I would like to add the above to the "Philosophical Criticisms" subsection of this section, with added comments about idealism vs realism in general, i.e., that SR denies a "real, objective world" independent of differences in observational frames of reference, therefore, for example, insisting that physical objects shrink as measured from relativistic frames. LCcritic (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, per our strict policy wp:no original research, you cannot supply "added comments about idealism vs realism in general", unless these comments can be found in relevant reliable wp:secondary sources. We are not allowed to synthesize comments and conclusions from other sources — see wp:SYNTHESIS. - DVdm (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I removed your addition to the article, because these three quotes are not examples of critisism of the theory of relativity, so they are off-topic. And we don't sign article entries, only talk page comments. - DVdm (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The quote from Henry Lindler is in fact a "criticism of the theory of relativity theory" as being fundamentally based on idealism in denial of "a real world" independent of observational differences. It is reasonable that Einstein's idealism, in his own words as quoted, serve as a reference for Lindler's philosophical criticism. Kurt Godel's article is a relevant reference confirming the idealism upon which relativity is based. If such philosophical criticisms are not allowed in this section, then where? LCcritic (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC) 63.155.162.13 (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at wp:SYNTHESIS again. - DVdm (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer my last question. The section is for criticisms of relativity, and the Lindler quote is certainly that. Can it stand alone without comment? Why can't Einstein's own denial of realism serve as a context for that quote without being considered a "synthesis" drawing a conclusion? Yes, I read the WP:synthesis statement, specifically, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.” Why must this rule exclude the Einstein quote as context for Linder's criticism? LCcritic (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To make it wp:DUE, we need reliable wp:secondary sources that mention Lindner's criticism and Einstein's quote together. Otherwise we are doing wp:original research, which is forbidden. Note that this article is about the criticism of the theory. It is not a place where we can formulate or vent our own criticisms of it. - DVdm (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, since the section is for criticisms of relativity, which the Lindler quote certainly is, can it stand alone without comment? If not why not? LCcritic (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This concludes the opening statements for this section: "Even today there are some critics of relativity (sometimes called "anti-relativists"); however, their viewpoints are not taken seriously by the scientific community." How is this NOT in violation of forbidden editorial opinion? This sets the precedent and WP policy that criticism of relativity in general is not acceptable, therefore excluding the Lindler philosophical criticism only because it is in fact such a criticism. Please clarify. LCcritic (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we have solid sources that establish the relevance and notability of Lindner and his criticism, then perhaps something can be included in the article. Of course, articles and sources by Lindner don't qualify — see wp:primary sources. Per policy, to establish relevance and wp:DUEness, we need sources about Lindner and his criticism — see wp:secondary sources. - DVdm (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I found this website of Lindner's and this bio. If this is indeed the author that you have in mind, a Doctor of Medicine with a hobby, then I'm afraid that this person is not someone whose critisims we should include in this article. On the contrary, so to speak. - DVdm (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any credentialed positive sources "about" Lindler either. However I thought that the fundamental basis of his criticism was at least as cogent (more so, actually) than any other philosophical criticisms included in the section. Again, this is as basic as a philosophical criticism of relativity can get: "If we accept the theory that a physical Cosmos exists, and that our sensations and measurements result from our interactions with the Cosmos, then we should not restrict our physics, as Einstein did, to the modeling of our sensations and measurements." The whole section is prejudiced against any criticism of relativity in the first place and throughout, as the quote concluding the opening statements clearly showed. Basically, any real "discussion" of relativity criticisms is not allowed among editors, just as Larsen's declaration that there is no direct empirical evidence for length contraction is not allowed. The whole subject is 'locked down' in favor of mainstream relativity. So according to SR, Earth does shrink with "how you look at it," etc. Never mind that there is *no physics* to explain such massive physical shrinkage, and that the assertion is obviously totally absurd nonsense! Librarians in defense of absurd pseudoscience (because Einstein said so.) 'There is no real world.!' Relativity remains anthropocentric without a trace of objectivity left. Don't bother to censor this... I give up. LCcritic (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DVdm, you are creating your own context by linking the two together beyond what is. In fact the introduction (the Einstein quote) could be removed and the criticism could stand by itself, as it is notable and secondary. edit: perhaps not very notable78.68.210.173 (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of editorial opinion... not permitted by the rules?

A new year... another look at "criticisms": From the lead: “Criticism of the theory of relativity of Albert Einstein was mainly expressed in the early years..." It is still ubiquitously expressed today (though not allowed in Wiki), therefore that *opinion* is false. "Even today there are some critics of relativity (sometimes called "anti-relativists"), however, their viewpoints are not accepted by the scientific community.” This is another obviously biased opinion. The scientific community does in fact debate some aspects of relativity, though again, the "argument against" (specific aspects) is not allowed here. From the Philosophical criticisms sub-section: “It was characteristic for many philosophical critics that they had insufficient knowledge of the mathematical and formal basis of relativity,...which lead to the criticisms often missing the heart of the matter." Kurt Godel, whom I have quoted before, clearly does not suffer from such "insufficient knowledge," yet he claims the following, philosophically speaking, in “A remark about the relationship between relativity theory and idealistic philosophy”: “Following up the consequences [of the relativity theory...] one obtains an *unequivocal proof* for the view of those philosophers who, like Parmenides, Kant, and *the modern idealists,* deny the objectivity of change and consider change as an illusion or an appearance due to our special mode of perception.” (My **... emphasis on "unequivocal proof" of the validity of idealism as the philosophical basis for relativity??) This is in fact "the heart of the (philosophical) matter"... the claim that there is no possible objectivity because it all depends on "our special mode of perception" as per SR. Policy forbids editorial opinion, yet the above examples are clearly such. Please cite any Wiki policy which allows the above clear examples of quite biased opinion and disallows criticism of the type of idealism upon which SR is based. LCcritic (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The statements you object to are sourced to reliable sources per WP:PROVEIT: "The burden of evidence [...] is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." Further challenges are only admissible if you can show at least one of
  • The sources are not reliable. This requires showing specifically how a source fails the criteria at WP:RS.
  • The sources do not support the claim. Check the sources, all of them are available online or through public libraries. Asking for citation to relevant pages and/or a relevant quotation would be acceptable if done in good faith.
Note that persistently challenging prima facie properly sourced content without providing evidence constitutes WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior and does lead to WP:SANCTIONs. This relates especially to your misinterpretation of the Gödel quote, which has been challenged previously. Paradoctor (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Respected Mainstream Scientist Who Criticizes Special Relativity Is Bryan G. Wallace

It's slightly unfair to say "Even today there are some critics of relativity (sometimes called "anti-relativists"), however, their viewpoints are not accepted by the scientific community" without voicing the opinion of Bryan G. Wallace in his paper http://users.navi.net/~rsc/physics/wallace/farce.txt ,'THE FARCE OF PHYSICS'. See Chapter 5, Light Lunacy: "I told Shapiro that my analysis of the published 1961 Venus radar data showed a much better fit to the Newtonian particle c+v model for light than for the Einstein wave c model. I stated that my analysis would have been far more impressive if I had more than the sparse set of data that was published. Shapiro made no effort to challenge any of my arguments, and promised to send me any data I would require to make a more in depth analysis of the relative velocity of light in space." 176.24.120.51 (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC) Alan Lowey[reply]

Self-published online book. See WP:USERGENERATED and WP:SELFPUBLISH. See also wp:reliable sources and wp:secondary sources. And of course wp:UNDUE. DVdm (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wallace is most emphatically not "respected mainstream", and calling him a scientist doesn't do the term justice. His page at the website of the Natural Philosophy Alliance puts him full center in crank territory, as does his third Google hit, which leads to good old Friebe's lair. Paradoctor (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/ebooks/Mueller-95YearsofCriticismoftheSpecialTheoryofRelativity.pdf is a bibliography of over a thousand articles criticizing ToR, compiled by two anonymous individuals who believe there is a conspiracy against ToR critics.Kdammers (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen here, it probably doesn't get more wp:FRINGE than this. - DVdm (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what that site has to do with this bibliography, which is a grab-bag of opposition rather than presenting only one view (though the compilers seem to believe only one view, reasonably enough). I just mentioned this bibliography so any-one looking for materials would know of it and on the chance that it might warrant being included on the text page.Kdammers (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This bibliography is published on that site. - DVdm (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George F. Smoot lecture

Does anyone know what Smoot actually said? The text on this seems rather confused. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry, I had in my mind that this was an article on aether. As Smoot's comments clearly do not criticise relativity I will remove them Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smoot actually said that some thought that his "new aether drift" contradicts relativity. He showed that this was not the case, therefore I think it's useful to mention this in the article (I've included a description in the section "Aether and absolute space"). --D.H (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aether and absolute space

Should this section exist?

It is clear from the section itself that all viable aether theories must be consistent with relativity and therefore cannot be regarded as a criticism of it. This section does not belong here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but many thought that there might be contradictions to relativity (e.g. Ives), which is now clarified in the article. --D.H (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity&oldid=664404661"