Talk:Criticism of the theory of relativity/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rename

The article is almost entirely about Special Relativity. Should it be renamed as such? Xxanthippe (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC).

The—rather large—chapter on hype and popular criticism is really about relativity in general^(NPI), and the current title still allows for describing technical criticisms on general relativity, so I think that changing the article title would be counter-productive. DVdm (talk) 10:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Ludwik Silberstein would be a candidate for a section on technical criticisms on GR, also s:The Bad Nauheim Debate between Einstein and Lenard is mostly concerned with GR. I'll try to write a section on this issue. --D.H (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

A section on general relativity (Nauheim, Silberstein) is now included. --D.H (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Page numbers for sources

The sourcing for this article is quite excellent. Some minor quibbles that would make it even better, and would better fortify this article against crank edits in the future:

1. There are quite a few references that refer to books in their entirety. It would be helpful if those were specified by a page range or chapter number that indicates which part of the book discusses the topic in that particular paragraph.
2. The references tend to be clustered to the end of a paragraph or section. This makes the article vulnerable to crank edits, that add something to a section and claim that this is back by the sources provided at the end of the paragraph. It would be much safer, if the individual claims in a section/paragraph where attributed to a source (with page number). This would make it much easier to check if claims added in the future are really backed by the sources.

TR 11:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, although it will need some time to put the numbers in. --D.H (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

At last, I added the page numbers to the historical references (all other sources are based on them, so I think it's not necessary to include the page numbers of Ref-groups B and C as well). As regards the position of the sources, I think we should wait a little bit (at least in the German version there were no problems with that arrangement). --D.H (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Credit German version

Even though you, D.H (talk · contribs), did much of the work on the German version, it appears that there were other contributors. Consequently, you should have mentioned in your first edit summary that you were basing the English version on the German version, so that the contributors to that version get their proper credit. At least mention it in a later edit summary, now. JRSpriggs (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I completely rewrote the German article, starting with (this edit, compare the current version with the former version) and all contributions afterwards (as regards the content and the sources) were made by me. The contributions of others were mostly concerned with style, wikilinks, or spelling, not the content (and the translation is based on the content of the German version, not the style, since I shortened many passages in the translation). That does not mean that I want the "credit" for "myself" (which would be strange for an anonymous WP-editor like me), but it is simply a fact - otherwise I would have mentioned it. However, I left a notice in the "See also" section, and also mentioned it now in the Edit summary. --D.H (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not mean to imply that you were trying to grab undeserved credit. I merely wanted to make sure that the terms of the license CC-BY-SA 3.0 were complied with. JRSpriggs (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Prose

This article reads like it was translated from a foreign language by a computer. GeneCallahan (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It was translated from German by D.H (talk · contribs) who is a native German speaker. His English, while imperfect, is better than that of most people for whom English is their second language.

If you have a specific criticism, please indicate which section, paragraph, and sentence appears to you to be incorrect. Then I, a native speaker of English, or another will try to fix it.

Nonspecific criticism is not usually helpful. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Constancy of the speed of light

I have added a link to the one-way speed of light article but I think it might be helpful here to make clear which aspects of the speed of light are experimentally verifiable and which are conventional. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've included a remark. --D.H (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Secondary Sources

Regarding the edits of Пуанкаре (talk · contribs): WP is based an WP:Secondary and WP:Undue. So critical works can only be included, if there are reputable secondary sources which are dealing with the same problem. --D.H (talk) 09:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a tricky subject as the article is about criticism of relativity. We therefore may need to refer to sources that are not considered reliable. The point is that we should make clear that they are not considered reliable by the scientific community. The stuff being dredged up now is very old and was dismissed years ago, for example we now have a reference to aether drag. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course, it's unavoidable for such a topic to include fringe sources. What I meant (and what was actually done in the article) was to include critical remarks only when there are also reputable secondary sources which clearly show the mainstream-view. But it's not possible to write a section, which is entirely based on fringe sources... --D.H (talk) 10:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like we agree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed inappropriate reference

In the section "Status of Criticism" there is a point made that most criticism was made in the 1920s. Someone had inserted in this section a reference to criticisms "published" in the conservapedia website, which does not contextually belong in this section. As such I have removed this reference. Savlonn (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that that sentence is about the 1920s, rather it is saying what the situation is today and as an aside remarking that it is similar to situation in the 1920s. So mention of conservapedia is relevant, but might mitigate against the aside. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with the way it reads now. The section has been clarified to read "as in the 1920s" so it is clear that the reference to conservapedia is now contextually current. Savlonn (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-criticism of relativity

Is there a home here for statements that are true and are often quoted as criticism or relativity but are generally accepted as not being valid criticism. For example, that there is no experimental evidence for constancy of the one-way speed of light. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC) I have just noticed that I have made a similar remark earlier. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

In that case, the error is implicit. The overt statement that there is no experimental proof of the constancy of the one-way speed of light is true; but it is irrelevant because relativity does not require that there be such proof. The error is in the hidden assumption that such proof is needed by relativity. What you should do is make the hidden error explicit. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly that is what I am suggesting. There are two points that might be made somewhere in the article. The first is that experiments cannot prove a theory they can only disprove it. The second is that in most, if not all, theories of physics some things are purely a matter of convention, such as the constancy of the one-way speed of light in SR. Changing the convention to another one that fits the facts is a philosophical change only. In the case of Newtonian physics the standard conventions are so well established and intuitive that many people do not realise that they exist but the existence of unprovable conventions is sometimes used as a (unjustified) criticism of SR.

Should we say any of that in this article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If we do, we should provide a reference that say exactly that. Otherwise it would appear as editorializing, and invite random cranks to do the same.TR 14:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding falsifiability, we can use Popper as a source (who actually referred to relativity). Another non-criticism would be, that rigid bodies cannot be set into rotation in relativity, which is no problem, because rigid bodies cannot exist in relativity at all, etc.. --D.H (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Reason for (semi)-protection of the page?

Why is this page (semi)protected?--84.232.141.38 (talk) 08:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not semi-protected. You should be able to edit it. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Translated from the native language of Einstein

Does not cover other views. For example, see:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_relativity_theory&diff=prev&oldid=423735550
• Is c=const proved?
• Is the speed of light constant? "Varying constants"
• RELATIVITY AND GPS
• Negation of relativity

Пуанкаре (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

---

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)

• Support. Common name, more natural, and the current title looks ungrammatical to me (should have a "the", surely). Jenks24 (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Yes, certainly more natural. Noetica^Tea? 02:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support but could we not just call it 'Criticism of relativity'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

As can be seen here, it probably doesn't get more wp:FRINGE than this. - DVdm (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

This bibliography is published on that site. - DVdm (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 postulate in science. Why this is not done here is beyond me. 78.68.210.173 (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite, or have multimedia

Either rewrite this page or add The Ramblin' Man as background music to suit. It is just rambling, less than scientific items. Example problems include the fact that the accusations of plagiarism stop in 1904 and fail to mention Mileva Maric. Overall a long, rambling hard to read and useless article. I am not really dead (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

wp:SOFIXIT. - DVdm (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

User's are not obliged to follow Fixit. There s no policy on that. I can just edit and point out problems. Simple. Now if you want to follow Fixit yourself read Einstein's Mistakes by H Ohanian W. W. Norton 2009 ISBN 0393337685. It lists the 7 times Einstein made errors in proving E= MC2. I recall reading somewhere that Okun said Einstein made ten errors in proving that equation and never got it right. So look for that too and add it. I am not really dead (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Uff da. Absurd. This is an excellent article. If you have some specific criticism, then out with it; general complaining is not terribly useful. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

New content

I recently published a paper titled "Challenge to the special theory of relativity" on the march 2016 issue of the international peer-reviewed journal "Physics Essays", in which I have disproved the special theory of relativity theoretically. Will you guys add it to this page? Xinhangshen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages, and sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

Per wp:FRINGE and wp:secondary sources, not unless your work is quoted and referred to by reliable secondary sources, as was extensively explained on your talk page before. - DVdm (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I assume you mean this. Yes, having read the abstract, it is clear that we will need quite some scholar secondary sources mentioning you and your work, before we can take something here—see wp:DUE and wp:FRINGE. You will have to be patient, and it's best not to push it, as that might give the wrong impression—see wp:COI. Let others discover your work. - DVdm (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Pierre Duhem 1914 reference

Can anyone - especially the person who wrote it - specify the Pierre Duhem article or book mentioned in the "Philosophical Criticism" section (3rd paragraph)? ("Based on Henri Poincaré's conventionalism, philosophers such as Pierre Duhem (1914) or Hugo Dingler (1920) argued that the classical concepts of space, time, and geometry were, and will always be, the most convenient expressions in natural science, therefore the concepts of relativity cannot be correct.")

Well, from the list of references at the end of that paragraph, it seems to have been discussed by Klaus Hentschel, on pp. 293-336 of his 1990 book (in German). Anyone care to translate those pages for me?  ;-)

hkyriazi (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hentschel quotes a few passages from Duhem's "Quelques Réflexions sur la Science allemande" (1915), where Duhem complains about math getting more abstract. Hentschel quotes page 136 of that, where Duhem says that relativity contradicts common sense, that the German physicists ignore that in favor of formal rigor, and that they shouldn't. So, pretty superficial. Maybe that helps. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Paradox of an unrolling spool/coil

Unrolling a spool with special relativity

Could we put a small explanation about an unrolling spool/coil in special relativity? 194.209.163.163 (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Not without a wp:reliable source in which this was published before. - DVdm (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Criticism of the theory of 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/20091214132012/http://www.olaf-eitner.de:80/EIGENES/POTSDAM/EINSTEIN/artikel1.htm to http://www.olaf-eitner.de/EIGENES/POTSDAM/EINSTEIN/artikel1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:28, 2 December 2016 (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)

Re "Why does Wikipedia bother...": it is by design—see wp:FRINGE and wp:UNDUE.

And also see wp:Talk page guidelines and the warning on top of this talk page: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Criticism of the theory of relativity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." - DVdm (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• facepalm* he said several times ways it could be made better. If you cannot be bothered to read, that is your issue. 2605:6000:F243:7800:49FC:21B5:C2C5:194A (talk) 06:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Tone of the article not quite right?

This article is obviously written mostly as an emphatic refutation of early scientific (and other) criticisms of Einstein's ideas, but it strongly comes across as "That was then; it's all fine now" (as though relativity is now considered a perfect theory). There is a tiny bit of doubt at the end in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity#Status_of_criticism

Compare that with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity#Current_status which says: "General relativity has emerged as a highly successful model of gravitation and cosmology, which has so far passed many unambiguous observational and experimental tests. However, there are strong indications the theory is incomplete." and then explains. That seems to me to be fair and balanced and more like what we should be saying here.

I'm not really qualified to write this, but I think the current article would benefit from a bit of tweaking alone these lines: relativity is a great theory, but still a work in progress - and there are still some issues.... 82.71.0.229 (talk) 08:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the tone is right here. The fact that general relativity might be incomplete is universally accepted, as it is not compatible with quantum physics. But special relativity is almost universally accepted as a valid model for the world. It is perfectly compatible with every other theory. There's just a marginal number of eternal "dissidents" who have a problem with SR, which is indeed considered a perfect theory. By design, Wikipedia reflects the large consensus, and I think it does so in this case. - DVdm (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, SR is not perfectly compatible with every other theory. If you dive in deep and isolate the dependencies, the root cause of GR1916's inability to agree with QM regarding Hawking radiation is GR's inheritance of SR's flat-spacetime Doppler shift equations, and its application of them to gravity-shifts. That's why GR1916 generates an absolute "Wheeler-type" event horizon rather than a more QM-friendly relative horizon. There's also an incompatibility between the SR equations and cosmology. Spacetime geometry requires gravitational and cosmological shifts to use the same shift relationship, and currently they don't -- Hubble shifts are generally reckoned to obey a first-order Doppler law rather than SR (because the problem is inherently non-flat), while "SR-based GR" requires gravity-shifts to adopt the SR formula. Schild's 1960 paper also presents a rough community consensus that special relativity is incompatible with the general principle of relativity, and the principle of equivalence of inertia and gravitation, applied to rotation. Schild's solution is to say that since SR can't be wrong, we now know that the GPoR/PoE doesn't actually apply to rotation problems (except as an approximation). Moeller says something similar for acceleration: an SR-based model is incompatible with the relativity of acceleration, so if we start from SR, acceleration effects are not to be treated as truly equivalent to gravitational effects, as described by Einstein. And then there's GR's problem with unresisted gravitational collapse to a point-singularities (which Wheeler describes as the greatest crisis ever in theoretical physics), which can be blamed on the absence of indirect outward radiation-pressure, which is again a result of the 1916 theory having absolute rather than relative horizons, due to its adoption of the SR relationships. So the SR laws are incompatible with modern cosmology, quantum mechanics, gravitomagnetism, Hawking radiation, classical field theory, the principle of equivalence, and the principles of relativity of rotation and acceleration. Not exactly a perfect score.

It is true that special relativity is perfect as a geometry, derived for a universe in which spacetime is always flat, in which the Fizeau effect doesn't exist, and in which inertia operates in the absence of gravity. But the very perfection of that fit means that the theory can't be modified or updated to work in a more realistic GR-compatible universe in which inertia and gravity are dual. With no free parameters, SR can't be modified to accommodate particle-curvature or gravitomagnetism without breaking Minkowski's geometry. The perfection is the problem -- it means that the special theory is essentially already in a finished state, and isn't properly extensible. If physics is only a subset of geometry, then geometry must contain correct solutions that are nevertheless not correct physics. In the case of the general principle of relativity, the dynamic spacetime generated by the general principle only reduces to SR as an unphysical solution that applies in the absence of matter, and in the absence of physical massed observers (see: Taylor and Wheeler's statement that SR's validity rests on emptiness). SR and a viable general theory do not have a subset/superset relationship: they are discretely different solutions, with different design rules and laws, that apply within different logical universes. As Feynman said, if you have a perfect thing, you can't improve on it ... you have to go away and find a different perfect thing. ErkDemon (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Good point - but, in that case, do you think more distinction should be made between special and general relativity in the final paragraph of this article? If only briefly? The point - which you have made very clearly and succinctly - doesn't come across to me in the article. 82.71.0.229 (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, to explicitise that point, I have amended ([2]) the last paragraph of the final section Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity#Status_of_criticism. - DVdm (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The basic flaw in the concept of this page is the use of the words "... the theory of relativity ...", in the singular.

Which theory of relativity?

Newton's theory (as outlined in Opticks and Principia) was a emphatically a theory of relativity, but it was wrong: to function, it required the speed of light in glass to be higher than in air, and when experimenters started measuring these things seriously in around ~1800, Newton's predictions (which had previously been claimed to be perfectly in accord with all experimental data) turned out to be wrong. That was the crisis in relativity theory that launched the Nineteenth-Century craze for mostly-non-relativistic aether models. C19th (amended) Newtonian theory then tended to be applied to light in the form of simple ballistic emission theory. This was another theory of relativity, and was also wrong. Fresnel's early C19th light-dragging model was partly an attempt to impose the relativity principle on optics, and is arguably a third class of relativity theory. Then we have fully-dragged dragged-aether models, which, if they are based on the rejection of the idea of a detectable preferred frame, are also relativity theories. Lorentz ether theory is also arguably a relativity theory, and the forerunner of SR.

Einstein himself produced two different theories of relativity (special and general, 1905 and 1916), based on two different sets of initial assumptions about our universe: under special relativity we assume that moving matter has zero effect on the propagation of light, and that it is correct to model inertia in the absence of spacetime curvature, while under a general theory, the relative motion of matter is always associated with gravitomagnetic curvature, and "switching off" gravity also switches off inertia. Some modern theorists would consider that idea part of an outdated "Machian" concept of general relativity, but if they are correct, the Machian view of GR becomes yet another class of relativity theory that's wrong. Einstein's research project that produced the 1916 theory had assumed that GR would be a "simple" extension of SR, but researchers in the 1960s found that the general principle and SR could not coexist in the same larger structure. Some authorities (e.g. Moeller) have argued that the principles of the 1916 theory are incompatible with SR, and are not to be taken literally: that Einstein's 1916 worldview was naiive, and that the general principle should be regarded as a useful (disposable) heuristic tool rather than as physical law: Others have argued that under "modern GR", the "GR" in the name is now mainly a legacy feature, that we have moved on from Einstein, so longer believe literally in the equivalence of inertial and gravitational arguments, and that the subject of "modern GR" is technically not so much about relativity theory as the theory of covariance. Einstein himself, in 1950, wrote that he no longer believed in the "1916" approach of starting with SR and only using GR to model effects not already handled by the SR foundation - all aspects of a general theory ought to be in accordance with the general principle from the beginning, and he no longer believed that it was correct to ask what physics looked like in the absence of gravitation. Einstein's 1950 position would seem to relegate SR's status from fundamental theory, to the provably correct answer to an incorrect question (a geometrically valid but non-physical solution).

In the Twenty-First Century, we also now have acoustic metrics, which seem to allow agreement with the general principle of relativity and with the original Mach-Einstein concept of GR, and are apparently compatible with QM (they support Hawking radiation) ... but acoustic metrics are incompatible with SR. So either SR is wrong or acoustic metrics are wrong ... which means that (regardless of which one is the failure) we can chalk up yet another class of "wrong" relativity theory.

The phrase "the theory of relativity", used to imply that there is only one theory of relativity, is misleading, and seems to have been successfully used by Einstein as a presentational tactic to impose a false dichotomy onto the subject. To accept the phrase at face value is to fall into the trap of assuming that if one is a relativist, one must accept Einstein's theory(ies) as correct, and that if one disagrees with Einstein's approach to implementing the relativity principle, one must abandon relativity altogether. This is a false choice: In reality, there are more ways of implementing relativistic principles than just Einstein's. ErkDemon (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Completely unnecessary

"So in those countries, the Germans or the Western civilization were the enemies. However, in Germany the Jewish ancestry of some leading relativity proponents such as Einstein and Minkowski made them targets of racially minded critics, although many of Einstein's German critics did not show evidence of such motives."

Apart of not linking any sources whatsoever, this guy is claiming they where targets of racially minded critics who didn't show evidence of being racially minded; he just knows I know it's not really saying that but it's heavily implied, moreso because of this next part:

"While Einstein's critics, assuming without any real justification that Einstein was behind the activities of the German press in promoting the triumph of relativity, generally avoided antisemitic attacks in their earlier publications, it later became clear to many observers that antisemitism did play a significant role in some of the attacks."

I'm not actually an editor but i wanted to let you know of this somehow This reads like if it was written by a kid

Come on, man 201.162.233.239 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Citation: [3]. - DVdm (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)