Talk:Classical theory and special relativity

I'm still not altogether happy with this page, I may have to consider a rewrite. ErkDemon 05:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not even sure it's an article at all: it reads like a draft for a paper. Encyclopedia articles aren't in first person, and they shouldn't contain original research or original theorizing, which parts of this appear to be. See What Wikipedia is not. - DavidWBrooks 02:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks for the comments: if that's the impression that the page gives, I obviously do need to improve it.

I don't think that there is any original research or theorising here. Einstein talked about the inconsistency of classical theory as part of his narrative when explaining special relativity, and it should be clear from modern SR texts that when they talk about the predictions of "classical theory", they are not talking about most pre-SR theories. For instance, most pre-SR theories (fully or partially dragged aether, moving aether, Newtonian emission theory) predicted that a detector aimed at 90 degrees in the lab frame to a moving object should report a redshift, due to aberration effects. This result was published (Lodge) and should have been pretty well known at the end of the C19th, and even if one didn't know about it, it only takes a little bit of trig to work it out. So, when you see a modern text on SR saying that "classical theory" predicted no redshift in this situation, you immediately know that for that statement to be true, the "classical theory" referred to in SR test theory must be referring to something different. Thanks, ErkDemon 04:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've done a rewrite. Hopefully its a lot better now. Criticisms still gratefully received. ErkDemon 22:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)