| Revision as of 20:37, 19 July 2005 editGangofOne (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,067 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:44, 19 July 2005 edit undoPjacobi (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,850 edits Gosh, I'm agreeing with GangofOne! What a strange world.Next edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| You say "uses Einstein geometrodynamics as a synonym for general relativity". That was my understanding as well, so I was also disconcerted by the article's claim of abandonment. If you do write something to straighten it out, it would be great. ] 20:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC) | You say "uses Einstein geometrodynamics as a synonym for general relativity". That was my understanding as well, so I was also disconcerted by the article's claim of abandonment. If you do write something to straighten it out, it would be great. ] 20:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
| Gosh, I'm agreeing with GangofOne! What a strange world. --] 20:44, July 19, 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:44, 19 July 2005
Gosh, I tried to add a comment here an hour so so ago, but apparently it didn't take.
I was trying to say that I just added to the article some citations to print books which I think rather decisively show that the article as it stands mischaracterizes the state of geometrodynamics. First, in two books coauthored by Wheeler and published in 1973, 1995 respectively, he uses Einstein geometrodynamics as a synonym for general relativity, which has certainly never become anabandoned domain of physics! Second, one article in the book edited by Butterfield is on quantum geometrodynamics, which is very much alive.
So I think this article needs to be thoroughly rewritten. If no-one objects (is anyone but me "watching" this page?), I'd like to do that in the next week or so.
- I'm watching now, :) --MarSch 13:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, MarSch. I will get some of those books, refresh my memory, and try to rewrite the article in the next few days. --CH (talk) 1 July 2005 03:47 (UTC)
You say "uses Einstein geometrodynamics as a synonym for general relativity". That was my understanding as well, so I was also disconcerted by the article's claim of abandonment. If you do write something to straighten it out, it would be great. GangofOne 20:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Gosh, I'm agreeing with GangofOne! What a strange world. --Pjacobi 20:44, July 19, 2005 (UTC)