Talk:Theory of relativity

Source for intro[change source]

There is no source necessary for the first sentences. This ist basical physical knowledge: Einstein did it; there are two theories; they build on the former classical theories (will say: kinematics, dynamics according to Galilei, Newton, etc.); special relativity contains Galileian physics as a border case for v=0. This can be read in any text book. 193.159.161.34 (talk) 12:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Demand for proof now erased as there was no protest[reply]

Criticisms[change source]

Do we need a section on G. O. Mueller? Relativity seems to be scientific orthodoxy at the moment, and the English page on Relativity doesn't mention criticisms, nor does there appear to be a section on G. O. Mueller. Personally, I think it's confusing to include this section, especially as the main section is so brief - giving it a comparable amount of space seems to give the impression that there is a large amount of scientific controversy surrounding the theory of relativity, which I am not aware of.

163.1.176.253 (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Critism of a theory is always relevant. If the enWP article doesn't contain such, it may be a weakness with that article, rather than this one. A theory is not a law, it's what people think is the truth, not what they have proven to be the truth. I see no reason it should be changed. fr33kman ^{t - c} 01:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism section is currently given unfair weight in the article. The previous phrasing was also heavy on advanced uses of language, adding to its weight (the longer it takes to read, the more mental time it receives) given the fact that the criticism of relativity is tiny compared to its support, a shorter criticism section would probably be better. At least until the main section can be further expanded. 94.192.232.74 (talk) 11:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]