Talk:Relativity
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Complain!
[edit]There already are pages on the theory of relativity and the principle of relativity. The expository stuff in this page needs to merged into those, and then this page moved to relativity (disambiguation). --EMS | Talk 22:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Major revert
[edit]The more I looked at this page as it was, the less and less I liked it. It was full of incorrect claims as to why and how Einstein came up with relativity. The parts about Maxwell's theories is relevant, but belongs in the history of special relativity page or the history part of principle of relativity. (Then again, even that text misunderstands the relationship between the principle of relativity and electromagnetism.)
In the end, I decided that the result of any correction needed is to send it back to the older state in which I remembered it. So I sought it out and have used it as a basis for a much better page. This page works best in its current role: A simple diambiguation page that gives people the essentials and lets them go from there to where they want to go. --EMS | Talk 23:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Are you sure you are not "pratting around" as User:Connolley (Admin) puts it? Would you like me to add a gif showing how the Lorentz transformations were derived? It exceeds 4 Mbyte. You can preview the quarter size version at
I have no objections to disclosing the truth in an encyclopedia to avoid any ambiguity. Der alte Hexenmeister 11:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- You are responding to a message I left here almost 11 months ago! You really need to look at the timestamps.
- As for your GIF: It qualifies as original research in addition to not being NPOV. --EMS | Talk 14:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- You didn't answer my question. Are you sure you are not "pratting around" as User:Connolley (Admin) puts it (even for 11 months)?
- As I understand it, original research (by your opinion) has to apply to all images on Wikipedia, including
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Walschaert_gear_forward.gif
- The gif is indeed my own work, what it represents is Einstein's "research". It is only a diagram, there is nothing original about it. Nobody in the rght mind would give me credit for drawing an original research model of the derivation of the cuckoo transformations, would they?
- It is the claim that only one premise was required that was original research by Price, Schaefer, and more power to him. He should submit that to scientific journal.
- "So long as they don't get violent, I want to let everyone say what they wish, for I myself have always said exactly what pleased me." -- Albert Einstein
- See, you are going against Einstein's wishes.
- Anyway, I offered the gif, not the commentary that goes with my web page, that would not be allowed. Perhaps you'd prefer not to inform wikipedia readers of how Einstein created his linear transformations? (That's a question, Schaefer, not a comment or a personal attack). I do recall you pratting around on USEnet in 1999 when I informed the world that 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c is not a constant velocity. You didn't last long. I'm still there.
- You are probably right, the article is best left as nothing more than a statement that Einstein's relativity was a "theory" rather than be disambiguated, or rather than be torn to shreds by a mathematician.
- You are going to have to learn how to format things properly here. I just had to fix your identation above.
- In any case, to answer your question: I have yet to be blocked here or even warned for that reason.
- In 1999, the USENET had almost lost its usefullness to me. I was working on a theory and had leaned enough about my ideas and what I needed to do to have a genuine theory that those threads ceased to matter to me. I took GR courses at U. Md., and then early in 2002 finally figured out the theory that I am now trying to publish. Go to my home page if you wish to find a link to it. Also do note that I have never tried to impose my views in the article space here. Instead, I have devoted myself to the correct expostion of Einstein's work as it is currently understood. IMO, my work will be documented here by others when its time comes. --EMS | Talk 17:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)