Talk:Theory of relativity

Archives		Antiquity – May 2006

Counter POV

It is a LIE to claim SR is based on only two premises. At the heart of SR is Einstein's definition of time, "we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A, which is vastly different from common sense or Newton's definition and should be included as a clearly stated third premise.

It is a LIE to claim the speed of light in SR has a value, it clearly given by Einstein as the distance traveled from A to A in time t'A-tA in the form 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c which Einstein ASSUMES, claiming it to be in agreement with experience. Reference "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by A. Einstein. The point of view given is not neutral.

Der alte Hexenmeister 23:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read the article. First, SR derives from one assumption, not two. Second, Einstein didn't assume C from nowhere, it came from Maxwell's equations (as stated in article). Third, your definition of time is compatible with Newton's. Fourth, calling some one a liar is in conflict with Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I shall revert your change. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read Einstein's "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper" where he clearly states 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c. Therefore I dispute c as the speed of 299,792,458 meters per second, Einstein clearly states "die Lichtgeschwindigkeit in unserer Theorie physiaklisch die Rolle der unendlich großen Geschwindigkeit spielt." (the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity) I don't know what your problem with the truth is, this is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for you to prat around with voicing your own non-neutral opinions, Price. Nor have I called you a liar, I said the article was a LIE. Der alte Hexenmeister 15:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I cannot accept a translation from someone who screams hysterically that the article is a LIE. Find the quote you dispute at this translation of Einstein's exposition:[1] and we can have a debate. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Better still, try this translation.[2] which shows that Einstein is talking about the addition of velocities and how c cannot be reached. I fail to see how quoting Einstein is going to disprove Einstein  :-) Also you should note that Einstein regarded his theories as extending Newton's, not overturning them.--Michael C. Price ^talk 16:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not interested in debating relativity with you on these pages, Price, my concern here is factual reporting Einstein's relativity, not yours or Schaefer's. Nor am I interested in what you fail to see, that is your problem. Visit an optician if you are having trouble seeing, and when you have new spectacles or contct lenses try this translation: [[3] since you cannot accept mine. It says: "we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A", which remarkably similar to the one I gave. It should be, I copied it. If you want a debate, Usenet is available, and quit screaming hysterically that you cannot accept the translation I gave, I used the translation you suggested. BTW, Einstein devotes a chapter (chapter 7) to the recognised incompatability between his two "postulates" in Relativity: The Special and General Theory. Obviously you didn't read it, you are having trouble seeing, or you may have noticed the incompatability went from "apparently irreconcilable" to "Apparent Incompatability" in 15 years after he was severely criticised but maintained his pet theory. It is a neat trick to claim only one. And a LIE.

Der alte Hexenmeister 21:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

---

From WP:NPOV#Undue_weight:

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

My view is that the view of Der alte Hexenmeister (talk · contribs) does belong to such a limited minority, and that the {{NPOV}} tag is therefore inappropriate for this page. However, IMO there are two proper ways of removing such a tag: Either the poster removes it or a consensus of the other editors has it removed. I therefore call for a poll on removing the NPOV tag and for keeping it off in order to establish that said consensus exists. --EMS | Talk 17:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support --EMS | Talk 17:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Tailpig ^talk The statement made by Der alte Hexenmeister (talk · contribs) that light doesn't have an actual speed I understand to be technically correct. However, for reasons of clarity, the distinction shouldn't belong in this introductory article. The current definition of the speed of light in meters per second is good enough and not worthy of an NPOV tag. 18:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.

Your political shenanigans and pratting around (as User:Connolley calls it) are not science, you are harming wikipedia with vandalism. I have pointed out three LIES above, and lies are considered as vandalism by wikipedia. As Tailpig has correctly stated, and for reasons of clarity, it should be known to the general public that in the Theory of Relativity the speed of light is undefined. The current 4th LIE is a denial of Einstein's own words:

"These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies." The so-called "Lorentz" transformations were derived by Einstein based on his third premise.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm

If necessary the matter will go to arbitration if it cannot be resolved here. I will not casually stand by and see the history of physics rewritten by popular vote. Either this is to be Einstein's relativity or it is to be relativity by popular opinion, and if that is what wikipedia wants then let it go to arbitration and wikipedia can decide. My opinions are not germaine to the facts and neither are yours, gentlemen. Der alte Hexenmeister 21:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

When you learn the difference between a lie and a mistake and stop violating Wikipedia:Assume good faith we can have a debate. Not until though -- although from the look of your arguments at talk:special relativity it doesn't seem as if there will be much point. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you agree to a mediator, or do you admit your mistake and will you voluntarily correct it without mediation? From your tone that seems unlikely, you have yet to show good faith, removing not my edit of the content (for there was none), but my announcement of a dispute as to yours and Schaefer's non-neutral PoV. I am not interested in discussing the rights or wrongs of relativity with you here, Price, that can be done through Usenet if you are interested in learning. I can teach you the subject there. There should be no debate as to facts. Here, the issue is FACTS and you have not checked yours. That is the issue to address. If it was a mistake to claim one postulate/premise/guess/lie-by-Einstein was sufficient, correct it and the matter is resolved. If it was a mistake by you or Schaefer to claim the derivation of the cuckoo transformations Einstein blames on Lorentz doesn't depend on Einstein's personal definition of time, correct it. You don't have to use my words, which have a clear non-neutral point of view, use Einstein's words. If it was a mistake to claim the speed of light is circa 300,000 km/sec, correct it. Other men greater than the pygmy Einstein found that value, giants like Albert Michelson who discovered there was NO aether. This is definitely and unmistakably a lie: "You obviously didn't read the article. First, SR derives from one assumption, not two." -- Price. That is NOT a mistake. I very obviously DID read the article. It's time YOU understood the difference between a mistake, a lie and a personal point of view, and quit taking a combative stance by removing my dispute notice, which against wikipedia policy. We are not hear to discuss Einstein's mistakes/blunders/ignorance/incompetence, we are here to write FACTS as they ARE. Fail and this is the next step: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation It that fails, then arbitration. Failing to abide by arbitration will get you blocked. Your call.

Der alte Hexenmeister 23:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Androcles/Hexenmeister - If you wish to do the initial legwork for the Request for Arbitration, I will be most appreciative of it. Doing all the setup for those things is such a bother, after all, and that is part of the reason why one has yet to be started against you. Just be aware that it is very easy to turn the initial request from you into a request against you. --EMS | Talk 23:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

RfC

BTW - There is an ongoing RfC on Der alte Hexenmeister at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Der_alte_Hexenmeister. People are invited to add their own observations and comments to this document. (It may become the basis of a request for arbitration). --EMS | Talk 17:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"Special Relativity for little kids"

User:Tosayit added to this article a section called "Special Relativity for little kids" which read as follows:

The easiest thing to understand about special relativity is that nothing remains constant...except for the the speed of light. Mass increases with speed, with a mass of infinity for an object other than photons (which weigh nothing when not moving) at the speed of light. Length and time approach nothing when at this speed too.

I have removed this section since it is a distraction. It also over-simplifies the theory to the point of near uselessness. IMO this write-up only proves that special relativity is not for little kids. --EMS | Talk 23:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Your OPINION and tyranny noted. Schaefer's opinion isn't Einstein's relativity. The arbitors will be informed of that fact if it comes to it. Take enough rope, Schaefer. Der alte Hexenmeister 23:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Indian relativity

I have copied the section over from principle of relativity, prior to possibly redirecting principle of relativity to here. I've left a message on their talk page asking what they thought of such a move. If no one objects I suggest we do it in a day or too. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC) I have created a seperate article Indian relativity. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Inertial

There is no record of the word "inertial" in Einstein's paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies." He specifically states:

"If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result:".

Use of "inertial" constitutes original research, which is against wikipedia policy and a non - neutral POV. Der alte Hexenmeister 17:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"Inertial" refers to what Einstein called "uniform rectilinear motion" in that article. It is not WP:OR since many other sources support the interpretation of "uniform rectilinear motion" as "inertial motion". Do note that these other sources are secondary sources, whose use is permitted under WP:OR. There is no need to stick to the original source exclusively. --EMS | Talk 17:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

So are you claiming that Einstein was self-contradictory? I'd have to agree that he was.

No matter, the word "inertial" does not appear in the paper and I have given an example of an instance where It is at once apparent that it is clear, in agreement with experience that we further assume Einstein did not mean "uniform rectilinear motion" in the literal text of his own words I quoted, regardless of second source opinions, don't WE?

The word "inertial" is yours or some other second source's research and violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV, since that is not relativity and wikipedia states that relativity refers to Einstein's relativity -- I would add the word "only" to Einstein's relativity. Relativity according to Schaefer is a violation of WP: OR. Please remove "inertial" from the article, and please do not vandalize wickipedia or I shall be compelled to raise an RfC and request that you be blocked from editting wikipedia. You are more familiar with the procedure than I, but I can learn and I thank you for teaching me.

Let me remind you the issue here is neutrality, not your free education. You only have to ask, I'm available on USEnet to provide you with corrections to your misunderstandings concerning the subject. Der alte Hexenmeister 22:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

---

"Symmetrical Relativity"

There's a new article called Symmetrical Relativity, which I assert is original research and hence unsuitable for Wikipedia. If you have a background in the subject your review and opinions would be welcome on the talk page. Thanks! --Craig Stuntz 17:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

E=MC?

Can someone who know the character map fix Einstein's numbers please its not E=mcQ I don't know who to do the 2 as a squarred to fix it.--Xiahou 00:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Decision time

I would like some sense of whether people prefer the current version or this one. For myself, I am left to scratch my head a bit. I prefer to keep this article very short an "sweet": After all we have articles on special relativity and general relativity already. On the other hand, Dan Pelleg's enhancements are of the type and scale that are acceptable if an expansion is to occur. (I have regularly reverted explansions in the past that were nothing more that a cut-and-paste of the introductions [and sometimes more] of the main articles, but Dan's work is not of that ilk.)

I would like to empasaize that I am looking for feedback on the issues of scope, look & feel, and organization. I am much less concerned about the content. I know that Dan's text contains some misconceptions, but those are fixable. (In fact I have already tweaked the special relativity part, and will soon revise the general relativity part if a consensus to revert does not appear.) So the real issue is one of format and direction as opposed to being a content dispute. --EMS | Talk 04:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the lack of comments, I am now building on Dan's work. --EMS | Talk 16:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Illustrative rather than misleading

First - thank you for embracing my suggested change of structure for this article, my intention was to make it more accessible and palatable for non physicists (since all the more technical, specialized information can in any case be found in the main articles) and to tempt non physicists to learn more about this body of knowledge rather than deter them using terms that for many people are unclear.

As to the illustration "when inside a closed room that is free-falling, you can't distinguish between this state and the state of the room and you floating motionless (or without accelerating) in zero gravity":

Einstein himself wrote: "...it is impossible to discover by experiment whether a given system of coordinates is accelerated, or whether its motion is straight and uniform and the observed effects are due to a gravitational field." (The Fundaments of Theoretical Physics, 1940.) An equivalent statement is: it is impossible to discover by experiment whether a given system of coordinates is in straight and uniform motion not within a gravitational field, or whether its motion is accelerated as the result of a gravitational field (i.e. it is in free fall). Which, in so many words, is what my illustration says. Dan Pelleg 20:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Free fall as inertia

Dan -

After [t]he upshot of this is that free fall is inertial motion, You want the article to include:

the meaning of this can be made tangible using this example: when inside a closed room that is free-falling, you can't distinguish between this state and the state of the room and you floating motionless (or without accelerating) in zero gravity.

The intent of the sentence is reasonable, but as written it really does not work. First of all, it creates the sense that free-fall and weightlessness are different things, but they are not (as you are aware). Secondly, it is not true that free-fall near the Earth is indistinguishable from being in far away in outer space due to tidal effects. (I will admit that this is a trivial point in some respects, but it is true.) Perhaps a sentence noting that objects in free fall are wieghtless may work, but I don't see what you wrote as clarifying the concept of free fall as inertial at all. Instead I see that as a long winded explanation that brings in additional concepts and does not lead the reader to the right place.

The main point of free fall as inertial motion is that objects in free fall are moving that way because they are not being acted on by any force. --EMS | Talk 21:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Length contraction

I feel that the description of length contraction as it is now

Objects are shortened along the direction in which they are moving.

is a bit misleading. I made an edit to it

Objects appear shorter along the direction in which they are moving to an outside observer

which was reverted, no problem with that as I fear my edited version might be equally misleading :) I'm definitly not an expert in the field, but isn't it true that an observer travelling with the moving coordinate system would perceive objects standing "still" as length contracted, in which case we can't talk about length contraction without including the concept of an observer. Izbitzer 21:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I did the revert and I have a number of objections to your wording. First of all, there is the "outside observer" business. This is improper because

1. This implies that the "observer" exists outside of spacetime, something that is physically impossible, and
2. This also implies that there is a prefered reference frame in which the rod has its full length. This goes against the principle of relativity and the fact the rod is at its full length for any local observer at rest with respect to the rod no matter how the rod is moving with respect to any other rod.

Perhaps "Objects are observed to be shortened in the direction that they are moving with respect to the observer" may be a better wording. What do you think? --EMS | Talk 21:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good, thanks for the quick reply! Unfortunately, I wasn't as quick to reply again :) Izbitzer 23:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, "are observed to be shortened" is a perfect grammatical equivalent of "appear shorter to an outside observer", and what it implies (except for a preferred reference frame) is that the shortening is merely an impression perceived by a consciousness, instead of a physical fact independent of the act of conscious observation (which is what it is - a physical fact independent of the act of conscious observation). In other words, it soothes our anxious intuition, reassuring us that the objects aren't really shortened, how absurd, they are only "observed" to be. Izbitzer, please explain why you found the previous description of length contraction, Objects are shortened along the direction in which they are moving, misleading. Thanks, Dan Pelleg 20:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I only felt that it needed to be pointed out that the shortening isn't something that is exclusive to the "moving" reference frame. The reference frame in "rest" is also observed as shortened from the "moving" frame. I think this is a common misconception if you haven't studied relativity. I realise that the current wording might be a little hard to understand. I don't konw how it should be for everyone to be happy :) Izbitzer 10:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)