Talk:Woldemar Voigt

Single source problem

This page contains a number of errors, as it heavily leans on a paper by Ernst and Hsu which is easily shown to be misguided. However, I don't know another paper that correctly summarizes Voigt's undertaking and if there isn't another one, I guess we'll just have to wait for someone to do the effort, while some additional facts may be added to compensate a little. It would be helpful if another peer reviewed paper is known that discusses Voigts work on "Doppler" in detail. Harald88 12:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Harald, why don't you easily show Ernst and Hsu to be misguided and publish your argument. At the moment we have a refereed paper (Ernst and Hsu) and your assertion, so at the moment it is no contest, as you realise. It is easy to critize and ask others to prove you are right, but is it going to happen? Have you checked if someone else has already refuted the "easily shown to be misguided" paper? E4mmacro 13:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Harald, I wrote the article page and I wasn't aware that I relied heavily on Ernst and Hsu. I mentioned them because they give an English translation, but I see that I did take the following from them "he stated the universal speed of light and demonstrated that Maxwell's equations are invariant under his transformation". I checked (perhaps my check was wrong), that the speed of light was preserved. I first saw Voigt's paper probably 23 years ago in German, probably didn't understand it. I worked from the transformation itself, those few lines in the article page, and if I erred it was in accepting Lorentz's opinion that the transformation could have been important in special relativity if it had been known earlier. Didn't Lorentz mean by this that they preserved Maxwell's equations, something I haven't checked? At the time I wasn't aware of your contrary opinion that the transformation has nothing useful to say about relativity (if I have understood you correctly). Even if I had known of your opinion, it would have been your opinion versus Lorentz and also Ernst and Hsu, hardly enough to stop me writing something I thought interesting. I treated it as just another form of the Lorentz transformation. If, as you say elsewhere, it is only about acoustics, then it is even more interesting that Lorentz said what he said about it. Maybe the LT is not as mysterious as is sometimes thought, no more mysterious than acoustics. I wonder what Lorentz was getting at? E4mmacro 13:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi E4mmacro, Maybe I should write a critical note about that paper but then, there are dozens of such papers that I know of, all poorly researched. I don't want to waste my time on such matters.

Voigt treated light and sound on the same basis, and provided preliminary solutions for both, using his transformation as an intermediate calculation tool. In essence, he obtained that wave velocity is not independent of the source velocity, but just as Lorentz he neglected such second order effects. As such, reporting the claim that "he stated the universal speed of light" can be immediately debunked for intelligent readers by the factual statement that his calculations were for waves in general, including sound.

I'm afraid that Lorentz didn't think much farther than Ernst and Hsu: he used it as a mathematical tool, without carefully analysing what he exactly calculated, even not grasping the essence of what Poincare talked about, until he finally understood it from Einstein. But we shouldn't be hard on him, as he achieved a whole lot and while he was developing his theories, Poincare and Einstein pondered about the consequences. Harald88 14:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

E4mmacro 22:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC) Hi Harald, I think we are getting somewhere. I think the point for me and Lorentz is this. If when we moved through air, our clocks ran slow by the factor $\gamma ^{-2}$, and our rulers expanded in the direction transverse to the motion by the factor $\gamma ^{-1}$ and were unchanged in the direction of motion, and if our clcoks were syhchronized by the exchanging sound waves assumed to travel with the same speed in the out and back directions, (and if air were an inviscid fluid, there were no boundary layers and separation and hence no aerodynamic drag and lots of other things) then everything would be consistent, the Voigt transformation would hold, and we couldn't detect motion thru air by accoustic experiments. But let's not talk about air and accoustics too seriously. What Lorentz meant, I think, is that, if, when we moved through the ether, the clock rates and ruler dimensions changed as above, and we used the time transformation of Voigt (established simultaneity by Poincare/Einstein light exchanging procedure) then Lorentz (and I) thought that everything would be pretty much the same as in SR, except of course now experiment would show the time diltaion in the Voigt transformation to be wrong. In other words it is an argument about what transformations could hold for light, and at the time (1909) when Lorentz said what he said, there was no experiment to decide one way or the other. You could say it is now useless speculation, but I think the following point is worth thinking about:

What puzzled me a bit about Ernst and Hsu, if they are correct about Maxwell's equations being invariant under Voigt transformations, is why Larmor and Einstein, when finding the transformation that made Maxwell's equation invariant, did not hit upon Voigt's version, if what Ernst and Hsu said about invariance were true (can you forget about their other statements and accoustic etc and verify or refute this purely mathematical argument by doing the maths, I have only checked quickly that the speed of light is isotropic under the transformation and your maths would be better than mine).

I happen to know a practical answer to that question: As measurement of the lateral coordinates cannot be affected by speed, their transformation must be unity; otherwise the POR could be broken for a bullet that one shoots through a hole. But I now see below that you also discovered that, thus I didn't understand the question. For the speed of light to be constant, any transformation of that kind would do; that was also known at the time. Harald88 04:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Lorentz in 1899 had his transformation with the RHS as now multiplied by an undetermined factor, say $\ell$, and I think he was open to the possibility that $\ell$ might be a function of velocity. If $\ell =\gamma$ then Lorentz would have had Voigt's transformation. Lorentz apparently spent from 1899 to 1904 before deciding that $\ell =1$. I think he had a proof, but I can't remember what it was. You will notice on the time dilation page there is the familar derivation/demonstration of time dilation by bouncing light transversely between two mirrors. This implicitly assumes that length transversely is unchanged, something required by the principle of relativity I guess since it would be detectable, at first glance, if it happened. Anyway, assuming transverse length is unchanged, you get time dilation of the Lorentz factor, not the "Voigt" factor (I use the terms "Voigt" tranformation or factor without saying anything about Voigt's opinions or ideas or motives)). So I certainly wonder now, if Maxwell's equations can be invariant under a transformation which does not satisfy the principle of relativity. E4mmacro 22:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I had not thought about it but I suppose that you already gave the answer here above, from alone those equations apparently the factor $\ell$ is undetermined (if wrong, please someone else correct this!). Harald88 04:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that for the convenience of Wikipedia readers the following references should be added: A.G. Gluckman, "Voigt Kinematics and Electrodynamic Consequences", Found. Phys. 6, 305 - 316 (1976); Alfred O'Rahilly, "Electromagnetic Theory" (Dover, 1965), Vol. I, Chap. IX; Oleg D. Jefimenko, "Electromagnetic Retardation and Theory of Relativity" (Electret Scientific Company, Star City, 1997). Referring to the paper by Ernst and Hsu, yesterday I sent a letter to Prof. Hsu, pointing out that I don't agree with his interpretation. In my opinion, Voigt's eq.(2) is the general form of the Galilei transformation, which accounts for both a constant time delay and a rotation of coordinate axes (compare the Wikipedia article on the Galilei transformation, please). Since the Voigt transformation is said to be equivalent to the Lorentz transformation, there should therefore be no basic contradiction between the Galilei transformation and the Lorentz transformation. 62.245.207.10 14:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)KraMuc 10:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I had sent a copy of my letter (to Prof. Hsu) to Andreas Ernst, Heidelberg, Germany. I received today a written reply from Mr. Ernst, in which he confirms that my interpretation of Voigt's equation (2) is correct (which implies that the interpretation in the paper by Ernst and Hsu is incorrect): Voigt employed the general version of the Galilei transformation, which accounts also for rotations and for a constant time delay. The general Galilei transformation used by Voigt is the equation (1) on p. 73 of the following recent review article: C. Lämmerzahl, "Special Relativity and Lorentz Invariance", Ann. Physik 14, No. 1 - 3, pp. 71 - 102 (2005). Physicists should read articles and comments on the Voigt transformation with some caution, especially if they are written by mathematicians. An example of a well written (anonymous) comment on the Voigt transformation, in which the Galilei transformation used by Voigt is not interpreted correctly, may be found in the Internet in the "MathPages" ("Reflections on Relativity", Sec. 1.4: "The Relativity of Light"). I like the "MathPages", however, and I recommend to male physicists, who are not yet married, to read in the Chapter "Probability & Statistics" the instruction "Optimizing Your Wife". Let me come back to Woldemar Voigt and be serious again. In the literature sometimes the impression is given that Voigt's work of 1887 on the Doppler effect had been forgotten around the turn to the 20th century. As a matter of fact, this conjecture is highly unlikely: I found Voigts paper cited on the front page of an article on the Doppler effect by E. Kohl, Ann. Physik 11, 96 (1903). His article is cited there together with articles on the Doppler effect by Mach and Michelson. 84.154.86.135 18:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC) KraMuc 18:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

What was known about Voigt

In his interesting article "Henri Poincaré: a decisive contribution to relativity" (available in the Internet), C. Marchal states on p. 5: "In 1895 Lorentz noticed that the first-order of Voigt transformation preserves the first-order of Maxwell's equations. Larmor gave the second order a little later". However, no reference is given, so that it is not clear to me whether a) Lorentz actually has cited Voigt in some publication, b) this information may be found in the correspondence of Lorentz with other physicists, such as Poincaré, or whether c) this is the author's personal interpretation. 84.154.76.78 16:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)KraMucKraMuc 10:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

We have Lorentz's testimony that he (Lorentz) did not know of Voigt's paper until 1906-1909, see the footnote in the article, so I guess (c) is the your answer. Lorentz 1895 in a book "Versuch ..." had first order Lorentz transformations. You can find some info on Larmor in the article cited in the footnotes (Brit J Phil Sci)E4mmacro 20:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

From the paper by Ernst and Hsu and from the Internet article "A Brief History of Special Relativity" by O'Connor and Robertson it is known that Lorentz had corresponded in 1887 and 1888 with Voigt on the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1886. In the year of 1887 Voigt had published in the Göttinger Nachrichten not only his famous paper on the Doppler effect, Göttinger Nachr. No. 2 of 10 March 1887, p. 41 ff. (originally presented at the session on 8 January 1887) but also a second paper entitled "Theorie des Lichts für bewegte Medien" ("Theory of light for moving media"), Göttinger Nachr. No. 8 of 11 Mai 1887, pp. 177 - 238 (originally presented at the session of 10 July 1886), where he discussed both the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1886 and the Michelson experiment of 1881. When Ernst and Hsu wrote their paper, they had been unaware of the existence of Voigt's second article of 1887. At the end of the latter article (p. 233 ff.) Voigt had arrived at the conclusion that the Michelson experiment, in the way in which it had been carried out, must necessarily give a null result, independently of whether the light aether is at rest or moves. Lorentz had not been cited in Voigt's lengthy second paper, although Lorentz had worked on the same subject and published a similar review article (in French) of about the same length in 1886. Apart from his well known apology to Voigt, published as a footnote in his book on electron theory (1909), Lorentz stressed the priority of Voigt also in Chapter 3, p. 52, of his book Die Relativitätstheorie für gleichförmige Bewegungen (1910-1912), Vorlesungen über Theortetische Physik an der Universität Leiden", Band IV, Leipzig 1929.KraMuc 15:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)KraMuc 13:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting! Could you send me a copy of that article, or at least provide a reference? Harald88 16:12, 8 April 2006

Sorry, but I thought that we were discussing Voigt. I have some of those papers by Lorentz, but I'm interested in that less known paper by Voigt. That reference should next also be added to the article. Harald88 20:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The less well known paper by Voigt is the second one mentioned in my message of 7 April 2006. All details of the reference had been stated there. The article may be ordered from Göttinger Digitalisierungszentrum (GDZ), Göttingen State and University Library, 37070-Göttingen, Germany; e-mail address: gdz@www.sub.uni-goettingen.de. Publications by Lorentz on the same subject in the year 1886 and before might be of historical interest in this context, since Lorentz had not been cited in Voigt's second article. Lorentz's "testamony" (compare footnote # 4 and the message of 26 March 2006 by E4mmacro) obviously implies that also all of his research students as well as his closer scientific friends (and their research students too), such as Henri Poincaré (who spoke German as Lorentz did), had over decades continuously "overlooked" Voigt's work on the Doppler effect as well as all papers on the Doppler effect, in which Voigt's article of 1887 had been cited, such as the article by E. Kohl in Annalen der Physik of 1903. It can perhaps not be excluded that C. Marchal's view is more realistic.KraMuc 14:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)84.153.99.195 16:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

What view of Marchal's? From the quote given it is hard to tell what Marchal meant, and there is no indication on what evidence Marchal bases whatever he thought. Is this a "Lorentz and Poincare were plaigarists" argument? E4mmacro 22:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Salve, E4mmacro. In his paper available in the internet, Marchal pleades for the priority of Poincare and implicates that Einstein must have known Poincare's paper. This is, in fact, a realistic view - in any case more realistic than the naive assumption that nobody had known anything. The same view takes A. A. Logunov in his book Poincare and Theory of Relativity, Nauka, Moscow, 2004, which is also available in the internet. Logunov had in addition put an English translation of a paper by Poincare put into the Internet. I can't find it anymore, and it may be that he has taken it out, after I had sent a copy of Voigt's paper of 1887 to him. Lorentz and Poincare have not been plagiarists, certainly not. but I think they both cheated a little bid by not admitting that Voigts paper had been known to them. You should not forget that at that time Göttingen has been a stronghold of theoretical physics. To mention an example, Voigt's paper was cited on the front page of a paper on the Doppler effect by E. Kohl in Ann. Physik of 1903. If this, what you think, is true then, obviously, it must also have been true that nobody knew what the Doppler effect is about and all "overlooked" everything as it were. Of course, they all knew Voigt's paper on the Doppler effect! Therefore, Marchal's view is more realistic, but he forgets that also Poincare knew Voigt's work.KraMuc 10:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi KraMuc. There is plenty on the Einstein-Poincare connection on the Poincare, and relativity dispute pages. So the new bit in your suggestion is that Poincare and Lorentz knew of, and knew the significance of, and should have credited Voigt's 1887 paper. I am glad I have got that clear. I am willing to take Lorentz's word (in the footnote) that Voigt's paper had escaped his attention. I see no reason why Poincare would not mention Voigt's paper if he knew of it - what difference to Poinacre if he took the transformations from Lorentz or Voigt? E4mmacro 21:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Salve, E4mmacro. I had given here yesterday a detailed explanation, but once again an administrator, who does not share my opinion and who obviously got into excitement, has deleted what I had been writing. I had explained it already in the article 'Anti-relatity'. As far asd I am aware, Poincaré 'deduced' the Lorentz transformation with the help of a thought experiment which involves moving clocks synchronized by light pulses. This deduction contains a circulus vitiosus. You know probably that in connection with the GPS system it came to the daylight that in fact the Lorentz factor must be observed whern clocks shall be synchronized. From which theory can this be known in beforehand, if not from the Lorentz transform whivch shall be deduced! I have never studied Poincaré's synchronisation procedure, because in the framework of European space projects I have been involved in spaceborne laser ranging projects so that I know in advance that this is nonsense. In order to avoid misunderstandings, I am not talking of betrayal. But self-betrayal will be involved: Poincaré himself will have been very much convinced that his 'deduction' i logically sound and that it is really a quite independent deduction. But unless Poincaré has still some other 'deduction' to offer, the final result, the Lorentz transformation, must have been known to him in advance. I think that over the years this became clear also to H.A. LOrentz. His 'testamony', asd I see it, should merely be regarded as a noble and generous lie, invented to protect a close scientific friend: Henry Poincaré.KraMuc 07:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course the Lorentz transformation was known in advance to Poincare. He says he got it from Lorentz and doesn't claim anything new for himself. If Poincare knew of Voigt he could just have easily said he got it from Voigt. But none of this is about the Voigt article, so is pointless here. E4mmacro 08:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia, I would be glad if you would re-install 'my' version of 'Anti-relativity'. I shall then do my best to weaken the nessage of 'betrayal' considerably and say this more indirectly, as I did it here in the message to user E4mmacro. I do not need much more time, since in June I leave most probably for Italy, where I usually stay several months during summer time. Your luck: There are no PC's on the beach .... KraMuc 07:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Salve, E4mmacro. I am neither an historian, nor do I want to become one. If I were one, I would, after what you just said here, try to find out how Lorentz 'deduced' the Lorentz transfomation. Why did Poincaré try to find an 'independent deduczion', if Lorentz's deduction - or 'deduction' - had been logically sound? Strangely, Lorentz reacted in 1887 instantly on Voigt's judgement on the null result of the Michelson experiment of 1886 - a judgement which was contained in Voigt's second article in Göttinger Nachrichten of 1887 and which Voigt, after a correspondence with Lorentz in 1887 and 1888, corrected in Annalen der Physik und Chemie of 1888. But Voigt's work on the Doppler effect, which was published in the same volume of Gött. Nachr. of 1887, Lorentz will have "overlooked"?. And all his research students also "overlooked" Voigt's paper on the Doppler effect? On the one hand, I don't want to prescribe people what they should believe, and I can only say that I am not prepared to believe everything. On the other hand, I do not want, of course, that the Dutch don't sell tomatos to me anymore.KraMuc84.152.252.106 16:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: the articles by Voigt can simply be downloaded from the site you mentioned, http://www.sub.uni-goettingen.de . Thanks KraMuc! Harald88 18:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

PS he discusses M-M in his second 1887 paper on p. 233 and 234. I'd say that this is one of the most covered-up parts of the history of special relativity! At the same time, it's rather obvious that his theory and that of Lorentz are mutually exclusive. Harald88 19:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Harald88, why do you not add the Göttingen link either to the reference list (Voigt) or to the other links? Behind the reference Ernst/Hsu I wanted to insert a link to the German Wikipedia article 'Galilei-Transformation' (which is more thorough than the English version). KraMuc195.179.95.173 12:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Could you send me a copy of his 1888 note? Harald88 20:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Even more than that could be done: Instead of being called "Harald the Mutton" you could earn the aristrocatic title Harald de Mutton. The "de" Philipp Lenard put to my deposition again, sfter he had rejected it. Precondition: You edit the article 'Anti-relativity' (or what has been left of it) so that it becomes compatible with Wikipedia's neutrality prescriptions. You know how this can be done, I assume. (Examples: "Some dissidents defend the viewpoint that ... "; "There are not few nonconformists who are convinced of ...", etc. Your address?195.30.184.97 10:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That article doen't exist anymore. I can be emailed through "email this user" in the lefthand column of my User page (accessible by clicking on my signature here) Harald88 21:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Harald88, I have left a message behind for you on your talk page. You yourself voted for delete, didn't you? You seem to regard a scientific dispute as a kind of election campaign. A long time ago, philosophers attracted considerable attention with the announcement "God is dead". I am the cruel person who will bring your sacrosanct cult figure down to absolute zero. I don't like it very much, but it has to be done, because SRT has hampered now the normal development already for a whole century. When I say: "The cult figure Einstein is dead", then I do not make jokes, but I speak the truth.KraMuc.84.154.91.86 14:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Harald88, an heavily reduced version of 'Anti-relativity' is still there, but the corresponding Editing PAGE is at present no longer accessible to all users. You should perhaps contact Mr. S.C. Zens and ask him to make the Editing PAGE accessible for you. If you manage the editing task I defined you will be awarded the title Harald de Mutton.

I have seen now that E4mmacro has inserted a link to Voigt's 1888 paper: it may be downloaded too from GDZ. So, I don't need your address anymore - unless you want to reveal to me things which nobody else shall hear.KraMuc.84.154.116.222 17:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

OK I'll have a look... But I don't see it!

I moved your message to my Talk page,

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Harald88&action=edit&section=16

and added a reply. I look forward to receive that article, thanks in advance! Harald88 19:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Harald88, I have seen your message. At the moment I have no time because I have an appointment for tennis. I shall study that later and then you will get your copy.84.154.116.222 08:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Harald88, I have added at the end of "Single source problem" a comment which actually should have appeared at the end of "What was known about Voigt". Could you move the comment, please?KraMuc 15:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, unclear why you couldn't do it yourself but here folows your text now. Harald88 21:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the question of how H. A. Lorentz first had arrived at the Lorentz transformation (i.e. concerning his 'testamony', as E4mmacro calls it), I found now a relevant remark in K. F. Schaffner, Space and time in Lorentz, Poincaré and Einstein: divergent approaches to the discovery and development of the special theory of relativity; in: Machamer, P. K., and Turnbull, R. G. (eds.) (1976) Motion and Time, Space and Matter, Interrelations in the History of the Philosophy of Science, Ohio State University Press, Chapter Seventeen, p. 465: "Lorentz thought that Einstein had arrived at experimental results that were in essential agreement with those that he, Lorentz, had obtained, and that Einstein had 'simply postulated' what he had 'deduced, with some difficulty and not altogether satisfactorily, from the fundamental equations of the electromagnetic field.' " Schaffner's citation is taken from p. 230 of Lorentz's The Theory of the Electrons of 1909. How is it possible to "deduce" a correct result in a "not altogether satisfactory" manner without knowing the final result in advance?KraMuc 15:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The same applies to Maxwell and his equations I'd say. I see no relevance to Voigt; nor do I see that suggested in the literature (see also WP:OR. Harald88 22:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Kramuc, you appear to be on some anti-Lorentz crusade, but I might have mis-understood you. Lorentz means he deduced length contraction, time dilation etc as consequences of Maxwell's theory when combined with his (Lorentz's) view of the matter - as point charges, seperated by empty space (or ether), which is unaffected by the motion of the matter through it. He also deduced other effects from this combined Maxwell-Lorentz theory, in much the same way - see Poincare's praise of Lorentz's theory on the Lorentz page - dispersion of light, Zeeman effect. I agree with Harald that this all has little to do with Voigt. E4mmacro 22:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

E4mmacro, I was referring to the Lorentz transformation, not to the Lorentz's theory of the electrons. I am not on an "anti-Lorentz crusade", although I confess that I regard the concepts of 'length contraction' and 'time dilatation' as highly artificial and as not being compatible with physical reality. I guess that Lorentz later on accepted Einstein's 'explanation' of 1905 of the Lorentz transformation, according to which a light sphere generated and observed in Galilean frame $\Sigma$ should also be observable as a light sphere in Galilean frame $\Sigma '$. In my opinion, this 'hypothesis of the bi-centric light sphere' reveals that up to the present day the Lorentz transformation has not been properly understood. Clearly, the laws of physics should be the same in all Galilean frames. As an example, if a light sphere is generated in $\Sigma$, then with the help of the same light source and under otherwise identical conditions it should be possible to generate also in $\Sigma '$ a light sphere, but the precondition for this is certainly that the light source itself is transported from one frame to the other. A light sphere is a physical effect and to assert that the same physical effect should be observable in all Galilean frames, if the effect is generated in one individual Galilean frame is not the same as saying that the laws of physics should be the same in all Galilean frames.

As concerns the 'transverse Doppler effect' you should look at the drawing provided in Krause's paper in Existentia of 2005 mentioned in the Wikipedia article "Modern Galilean relativity" and in the deleted article "Anti-relativity". The transverse Doppler effect is known since 1842 and has nothing to do with 'time dilatation'. Apart from this, the time dilatation type of explanation advertised in textbooks on SRT leads to an inconsistency, because for lateral observation under an angle of 90^o the Lorentz contraction is non-zero. If you don't have Krause's article in Existentia then you should perhaps try to contact Andreas Ernst in Heidelberg (he has a Homepage). Perhaps he can send to you a copy by e-mail. I have tried to clarify the matter in the Wikipedia articles mentioned, but because of current monkey-like behaviour of the immature administrator SCZens (from reasons unknown to me - probably from personal reasons - he somehow seems to feel obliged to behave like a monkey) and because of incompetent interference also by other self-nominated 'relativity experts' I have meanwhile given up to contribute to "Modern Galilean relativity". If you have understood Krause's article in Existentia (Harald88 has not, but believes that he has), you will realize that the main discrepancy between optics of moving bodies and SRT takes place for collinear relative source and observer mation. This discrepancy, however, can easily be traced back to the transverse character of electromagnetic waves. Some tiem ago I had tried to contact you by letter, but I have not received any reply. I cannot be reached by letter before the middle of August 2006. I am not inclined to fool around but I am rather aiming at a revolution. I assume that this revolution will take place in the near future, because in Germany my articles apparently have been understood by open-minded scientists and students. I don't need Wikipedia for this revolution. Emilia Romagna, 6 July 2006, KraMuc.

User Kai666 Banned from Editing without Reason

Probably because of some misunderstanding I have been banned from editing. Could the ban be lifted, please?.Kai666.195.179.95.173 08:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Voigt's 1888 paper

Looking through that paper without really studying it (it's a big nut to crack!), I find the following:

1. The footnote in his 1888 paper seems to accept Michelson's conclusion that the earth entrains the aether; it's unclear to me if he revised his theory or if he had simply not noticed that his 1887 theory does not correspond with Michelson's analysis.

2. Apart of the footnote on p.390, Voigt makes the following remark on p.550, after showing that the polarization in quartz should rotate notably in case of a translational speed relative to the ether:

"Marcart's observations may be regarded as a confirmation of Michelson's observations from which followed that the aether is approximately at rest relative to the earth's surface." (loosely translated)

Perhaps someone else here can clarify why Voigt apparently accepted Michelson's analysis?! Harald88 12:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)