Talk:Timeline of gravitational physics and relativity

	Physics portal This 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by History Taskforce.

Text and/or other creative content from History of general relativity#Timeline was copied or moved into Timeline of gravitational physics and relativity with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Note: Copyright Permission to modify and distribute this and other timelines originally developed by Niel Brandt have been granted to wikipedia. See Talk:Timeline of transportation technology

A lot of this article appears to be gibberish, specifically the additions of Revision 07:56, 2004 Feb 19. For example, the Tolver Preston bit is decidedly kooky. I am not a historian of physics, tho, so I'll leave it untouched. Just voicing my concern.

Xerxes 23:37, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)

Basically those contributions from that anon editor were anti-Einstein stuff probably taken from a single website [1] about Einstein being a plagiarist. The contributions listed in the timeline may in fact have merit, but as stated, they are probably far too generalized and simplified to be accurate. The person who added them to the timeline didn't bother to create a single biography article or describe any of the particular achievements in the links they created. Certainly there overlooked accomplishments in physics, but it is very easy for disgruntled people (with whatever particular agenda who are usually not physicists) to say "so and so invented this, really" when in fact they may have come close or suggested it, without really elaborating a coherent theory, or any other reasons. I'm not interested in researching this, as I'm a physicist, and not a science historian, but without more nuanced descriptions, these things do not belong on the timeline in my opinion, and are misleading. -- Decumanus 01:08, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hello all, I have an idea about this and other timelines. I'm a big fan of source documents -- how about if we figure out a way to put in references, and, ideally, links to the original research papers. Would it be too cluttering to put in references and links in the main part of the timeline? Or can we put hashmark-links into the timeline and then have a separate refs and external links section? I'll noodle on it some more and try to come up with some examples. Happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 17:26, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Speed of gravity[edit]

Leading experts on general relativity like Clifford Martin Will and Steve Carlip say that Formalont and Kopeikin misinterpreted the results of their measurements. See speed of gravity. Therefore I deleted the Formalont/Kopeikin passage. --D.H 08:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]