User talk:217.43.69.32

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

One Year is One Year for Everybody in the Universe[edit]

This thread moved here from various talk pages

EMS and DVdm, When the Earth completes one complete orbit of the Sun relative to the background stars, one year has passed for everybody in the universe irrespective of what their relative motion is to anything. (217.43.69.32 20:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

That is Newtonian physics. Time dilation is an effect of relativity. --EMS | Talk 20:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually Ed, it is meant to be a relativity issue. For someone moving w.r.t. the Sun-Earth system, as measured on his clock, the time between the two Earth New-Year Events is indeed longer. All observers will say that the time is longer by a factor gamma, depending on their speed relative to the system. Anon seems to think that all these observers take their private version of Sun and Earth with them, which of course they don't. This is a classic Usenet fumble. They usually use the rotations of the Iovian Moons for this. Never mind, he will not get it. DVdm 20:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this is meant to be a relativity issue, but the net result in that this anon is making a statement of Newtonian physics. My guess is that part of the issue is that he is clinging to Newtonian notions of absolute space and simultaneity, with which time dilation is incompatible. In any case, I do agree that he will not get it. --EMS | Talk 21:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

One Year is One Year for Eerybody[edit]

EMS and DVdm, When the Earth completes one complete orbit of the Sun relative to the background stars, one year has passed for everybody in the universe irrespective of what their relative motion is to anything.(217.43.69.32 10:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC))

7 August 2007[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Herbert Dingle. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --EMS | Talk 22:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks[edit]

This is mostly an ad hominem attack, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Please consider revising it, and be warned that similar attacks in the future will be removed. -- SCZenz 12:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

8 August 2007[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to talk:time dilation, you will be blocked from editing. This warning is in regards to your spamming the "One year is one year for everyone" thread. It is not germane to the relativity discussion pages, and your repeated resposting of it is a form of vandalism. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --EMS | Talk 15:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop hand nuvola.svg

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to talk:Herbert Dingle, you will be blocked from editing. Wikipedia is not USENET. Your spamming that absolute time exists is vandalism. --EMS | Talk 19:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:Time dilation for inappropriate discussion, as described here, you may be blocked. Jmlk17 19:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.
Octagon-warning.svg

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and not USENET. The talk pages are to be used only for ther purpose of discussing articles Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Theresa, can you please define these disruptive edits. The comments that I made on the discussion pages were perfectly constructive and relevant to the subject matter of the main article. Who told you that my edits were disruptive?
It seems to me that there has been a gross over reaction to me pointing out the simple fact that one year is defined by the time taken for the Earth to orbit the Sun. Can you please investigate why that question has caused so much upset in this discussion page. (217.43.69.32 21:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC))
Partly because of your personal attack edits...WP:CIVIL Jmlk17 21:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
You were reported here. I looked through your edit history and noted that you are clearly not here to write an encylopedia but are instead here to engage in debate. That is why i wrote that Wikipedia is not Usenet. I blocked you because you keep writing the same thing over and over and keep making swipes at the people who disagree with you. If you agree to cut out the personal attacks and to use the talk pages for the purpose they are intended (i.e. debate the content of the articles) then I, or asnother admin will be happy to unblock you. If however, you want to exchange heated words and flame your opponents then please go to sci.physics or another related newsgroup. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Theresa, thanks for the reply. I think in all fairness that some of my personal attacks were made under severe provocation. If you read through the entire threads, you will see that the personal attacks were not all one sided.

In actual fact, I was trying originally to better the article on Herbert Dingle. I'll give you a brief outline on what this edit war is all about.

Herbert Dingle was a prominent physicist who opposed Einstein's theories of relativity in his later years. I am sympathetic to Herbert Dingle. Others are not sympathetic to him. The article contains many unnecessary opinions to the effect that Dingle was wrong. I was trying to neutralize those opinions.

On the talk pages, we were discussing the arguments for and against Dingle.

Finally, I brought up the issue of absolute time being defined on the basis that the Earth orbits the Sun in one year and that that is an absolute fact, hence supporting Dingle's notion that Einstein's theory on time dilation was illogical.

As soon as I introduced that argument, I was deleted off the talk pages. It was one thing to be deleted off the main article, but something is seriously wrong when they start deleting you off the talk pages.

I will now agree not to make any more personal attacks, but can I please be allowed to discuss this topic of absolute time in relation to the Earth's orbit, without it being deleted. I see no reason why this subject cannot be discussed. If EMS believes that I am mistaken then he should explain his point of view and not take the draconian steps of deleting the question and blocking me from editing. If no satisfactory answer can be provided against the concept of absolute time, it means that Dingle was correct. I am not suggesting that we should then stamp 'Dingle was Correct' all over the main article, but at least Dingle's opponents would then see that it is equally unnecessary to stamp 'Dingle was wrong' all over the main article. (217.43.69.32 22:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

I'm satisfied with your statement that you will not make any more personal attacks so I have unblocked you. I strongly advise you to keep your arguments to the Dingle talk page only and not spread to time dilation, twins paradox etc. I also advise you that to stand any chance of making a controversial change to an article you need to back up everything you say with good references to solid sources and that you insist that your opponents are able to do so too. That way, it doesn't get personal. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 00:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks alot. I will follow your advice and keep to the discussion pages for 'Herbert Dingle'. I will try and press the point that Dingle must have been correct on the grounds of the symmetry inherent in Einstein's special theory of relativity, and on the grounds that time is defined on the basis of counting periodic motions such as that of the Earth orbiting the Sun (One Year), and that as such the implications of Einsetin's theory that two clocks must each go slower than each other is therefore illogical.

And as such, it follows that there is no need to have so many references in the main article expressing the opinion that Dingle was wrong.(217.43.69.32 17:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

Anon - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you continue to press the point that Dingle was right, I will seek to have the block reinstated. Stick to the issue of the contents of the article. After all, Wikipedia is not a provider of truth, nor is it a research journal, nor is it a place to remedy the perceived wrongs of the past. --EMS | Talk 17:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruption[edit]

You are acting like a tobacco comapany executive on the lung cancer page claiming that there is no scientific evidence of a connection between smoking and lung cancer. At the least, you are so anti-relativity that I wonder is WP:COI should be applied here.

In relativity, the Newtonian notion of time is totally overthown, to the point the events which are simultaneous in one frame of reference can happen at different times in other frames of reference. It is one where the Lorentz contraction and this relativity of simultaneity exist and a self-consistent whole along with time dilation. It is a theory that blows many people's minds at first, and many of those prople either get out of physics or go into discuplines like engineering or grade school teaching where it does not matter. I would assume that some of those people were your lecturers. Obviously mutual time dilation is one of the things that blow people's minds. That does not make it wrong, but I do agree with you attitude that a good explanation should exist for it. (Obviously I feel that sais explanation does exist, and have briefly stated that case just above.)

One more piece of advice: "Know thy enemy". You need to learn relativity from the foundations up. Unless you can speak to people likw me, you will only be dismissed as a "crackpot". Right now, you are only showing us ignorance (which is bad) and determination (which is good, but not when you are pushing a strong POV in Wikipedia). --EMS | Talk 03:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverted your last edit[edit]

Wikipedia is not usenet. You cannot use it to make speeches about your personal views. -- SCZenz 12:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)