User talk:Ems57fcva/archive 5

Heavens!

Hi EMS, I've seen you and Pervect show superhuman patience in explaining STR to Rod.

If you want some variance, I can recommended you another misguided editor -- or perhaps even a group of them. See Herbert Dingle, especially the essay I've just thrown out [1]. Some of the same at Luminiferous aether.

His/their theory goes like that:

• GTR disproved STR
• GTR requires absolute space
• GTR is Luminiferous aether v2.0

Or something like that. He/they even have the nerves to post their ideas at Motl's blog...

Would be glad, if you do the occasional revert. Or try to channel this into something productive (which I judge next to impossible).

BTW: Regarding Magnetospheric eternally collapsing object I've asked User:Joke137 for help, but we only came to the conclusion to ignore the article but deny discussion MECOs in the mainstream articles.

Pjacobi 21:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have put a watch on Herbert Dingle and Luminiferous aether. As for the MECO business, I will go along with your decision. The other option is AfD, if we can make a case for that. I may chat off-line with one of the editors who supports including Einstein's odd GR-has-aether quote. He means well, but needs to be oriented a ways. --EMS | Talk 04:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for your efforts. --Pjacobi 08:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. --EMS | Talk 13:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: it was me who asked the help of Peter there, and you are of course also very welcome to help keeping it under control. Harald88 21:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"Aether" in physics

Someone added "luminiferous" to "aether" in order to distuingish the "ether" as concept in physics from other uses in Wikipedia. If you think that that limits the scope so much that some ether(physics) concepts don't fall under the descriptor, please provide well-sourced evidence on the article's Talk page, thanks. Harald88 06:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The idea that spacetime is filled with a "field" defined by the local curvature parameters is valid in GR. Whether this is an "aether" is debatable. However, the luminiferous aether is a very specific concept which is totally at odds with relativity. Eisntein most certainly eliminated any need for a luminiferous aether in the classical sense. What remained was a need to explain how the observed speed of light changed as a matter of potential. Overall, I think that the quoite itself, if read carefully, argues against its own inclusion. This concept that the curvature field acts as an "aether" also fell out of favor quite quickly, as evidemced by the fact that 1920 seems to be the only time period in which Einstein pushed this concept. (However, there is an Einstein-aether theory around these days whereby spacetime is postulated to be subject to a 4-parameter "field" which must be accounted for in the field equations for gravitation.) --EMS | Talk 13:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The subject of that article is not limited to aether models or concepts "in the classical sense" (whatever that may be). Einstein explicitly mentioned that, in his opinion, some kind of ether is necessary for light propagation - which is the very definition of "luminiferous".

If you can come up with a later citation where he changes his mind a second time, that may be worth including. Cheers, Harald88 22:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject General Relativity

Hi EMS. CH seems to have left and it looks like he's taken Wikiproject GTR with him. I still think his idea of a GTR project here is a good one and I would like to resurrect it, but with my own version. I will ask other people at Wikipedia if they are interested before I embark on this quest. That will save having to recruit people later and they can help in the project too.

I invite you to take part in this endeavour. If you are interested, perhaps we can discuss how to proceed, or maybe you'd prefer to see a draft of the project and then make comments. For starters, I intend to make the project pages much, much shorter than CH's versions; there will be considerably less pages in the project too (I already have some ideas from other users about how to do this). MP (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

M - Do go for it. Yes. I will be happy to participate. I do think that you are right in that the scale of what Chris was doing is one of the things that hampered the project.

As long as we are starting over, there is the issue of what the scope of the project should be. GR is a fine but somewhat niche area. "Gravitation" or "Relativity" (or even "relativity and gravitation") are other possibilities. Admitedly GR will be a major part of any such project, and that may in and of itself justify a seperate GR project. Thought? --EMS | Talk 16:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear that I have the support of at least one other Wikipedian who I know will be an asset to the proposed project.

I did think about a general project covering gravitation (or gravitation theories), but felt that this might be beyond my scope. However, you rightly mentioned that GR is a niche area. Therefore, I propose that we start off with something fairly general and in which it'll be easier to tempt many people to join - something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Relativity, which would presumably be a subproject of Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics. Instead of starting off with a GR project and subsuming SR articles into it, I figure it's better to have a relativity project and have GR and SR as subtopics. So, if I have the energy, I'll create a separate GR project from there. I also intend to keep the project 'strictly classical', meaning no articles on quantum gravitation etc. (unless you think there are good reasons for including such articles).

To summarise, I want to create a relativity project with no quantum stuff and a GR project can be created afterwards, if required. I'll wait for your response before I start to collect some ideas together and create the project page. MP (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, some 'bridge articles' on relativity and quantum mechanics would actually be relevant, if the project is to contain up to date information on relativity (this is an encyclopedia). MP (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that you are on the right track here. Quantum gravity can be another project in so far as I am concerned. You are right that we will have our hands full with the classical stuff. --EMS | Talk 00:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Relativity

Hi Ed.

I've made a tenuous start at creating WikiProject Relativity at User:MathPhys/WikiProject Relativity. I copied the format from Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran. I plan to work on the relativity project page before I introduce it. Feel free to edit the page as you see fit. MP (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I've got the project page into the general shape that I want. There are still a lot of empty sections etc., but the WikiProject Guide suggests not to invest too much effort into a wikiproject before announcing it. If you want to look at the page and make any comments about it (and perhaps add your name to the participants!), that would be greatly appreciated. Then I will make any changes and formally announce it. Thanks. MP (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I haven't been spending much time at Wikipedia as I used to, but it's a pleasant surprise to find that people have been writing technical articles on GR such as, cosmological perturbation theory, globally hyperbolic, Gravitation (book), The Large Scale Structure of Spacetime, Komar mass etc... . It's motivated me a little more to contribute to the GR articles. Anyway, got to go - other commitments ! MP (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

science nutters

Why is the internet filled with these nutters who believe they and only they have the absolute truth? I just removed links to a website and a book that claimed the speed of light isn't constant. On other forums, I met someone who believes the speed of light is zero (actually an interesting idea until you meet his math: 1km + 1 sec = 1km/sec), and a person who believes atoms are made out of mini-spaceships, inhabited by microorganisms, who themselves are being made out of mini-mini-spaceships ad infinitum. With his theory he claims to be able to prove the existence of God, and therefore claims to be the new Christ. How do we ever get rid of these people? Sorry for the rant, I just had to blow some steam off. Errabee 18:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not too sure what to say. When I started my own original research over a decade ago, I was also doing a variable-c theory and thought I had the real truth. However, I had seen certain people making fools of themselves back then with their own "you mainstream people are fools" attitude. That was enough for me steer clear of that kind of behavior and to keep in mind that the experience of scientists actually means something. However, I seem to be very lucky to have avoided that trap of meglomania that most of these independent researchers fall into.

BTW - It occurred to me after a year or so that if I was right about variable-c that astronomers should have already found the evidence. So I looked for the appropriate studies, found them, and found that they showed that I was dead wrong about c being variable. The net result was that I ended up picking up the pieces of my resaerch and found that they could fit together in a different manner, and that launched me onto the research path that I have followed ever since.

When the recriminations start, the science stops. These are people who could be on the first step of Nobel-prize winning research, but they will spend their days stuck with a false theory based on their good insight because they cannot take "no" for an answer. I will admit that it is no fun to eat crow, but my own experience with original reaseach shows that those are the times when you learn the most. --EMS | Talk 20:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with your research; and I sincerely hope you succeed in getting it published. After all, new theories often originate from investigating errors in existing theories. That is why Einstein wrote his special relativity paper in 1905, to address the problems with Maxwell's electrodynamic theory. But one has to do the math, and do it correctly. One has to prove that under normal circumstances, the equations from the hitherto accepted theories appear (like the Lorentz factor with the limit for v $\rightarrow$0 becomes 1, which transforms Lorentz' transformations into Galilean transformations). And only under special conditions your theory is correct and the previous theory is not. Unfortunately, all these megalomaniacs seem to not understand this principle, and just plainly state that generally accepted theories are false, at best providing a flawed proof why this is so in their eyes. Errabee 21:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Look: There is real excitement when you think that you are on to something, and it is then a major slap-in-the-face to be told that you are wrong. It is hard to control your emotions when that happens, and these people don't know enough to even try. Even earlier this year I was quite bitter at first about some fairly flippant-looking rejections. OTOH, after I and calmed down and studied the comments that I was given they became the basis for improvements to the article and research that has given me several significant breakthroughs with my theory. I chose over a decade ago to treat those who would reject my work as my friends instead of my enemies, and the more I use the viewpoint the better it serves me. It really is too bad so many others choose to treat the world as full of enemies, as that only will fill your world with enemies. --EMS | Talk 04:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Link syntaxis

I copy and paste from User talk:_Cleonis

Cleon - Please check the last article link in General_relativity_resources#Special_topics_2. I cannot get it to work. --EMS | Talk 04:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I googled and found I had to remove the 'www' in order for the link to work. I am not familiar with such niceties in URL-syntax. --Cleonis | Talk 09:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Indian relativity

Regarding the article, Aryabhata's relativity principle, check out this one - Indian relativity. Im putting it up for deletion as soon as I write this message. MP (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

moving and merging articles are part of the regular editing process and often much easier than putting things on AfD - this is a classic example, I would support just rewording it and merging it into Aryabhata, no AfD vote necessary, where the article has to sit for a week and invite comments by all sorts of clueless passers-by :) dab (ᛏ) 18:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Until user:MarcAurel came by with his silly claims, that AfD was very much under control. Personally I would prefer that this article be removed and that silly, improperly sourced "relativity" claim dispensed with. Otherwise, removing the indiscipherable Indian writing and merging the reamins in the Aryabhata article is a reasonable fallback position for. It would also be nice to see that put forward as evidence that Aryabhata was aware of frames of reference instead of being a relativity principle (either that or a note making it clear that Aryabhata's writings do not consitute a relativity principle).

BTW - I did try to {{prod}} this article, but the tag got removed. --EMS | Talk 18:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

to be fair, the "boat" example is really crying for comparison with Galileo. Although we agree of course that Aryabhata did not make Galileo's crucial step. In the 5th century, I suppose even recognition of relative motion itself is worthy of a reference to "relativity", since "frames of motion" themselves do involve that notion. It is of course impossible to discover that natural laws are the same in each frame of reference at a time when the concept of "natural law" itself was unknown. As an afterthought, seeing your handling of the situation, would you be interested in being nominated for adminship? dab (ᛏ) 18:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Aryabhata puts in place the foundation that the principle of relativity is built on. It is not beyond possibility that he was aware of it, but none of the writings so far presented demonstrate that. Was Aryabhata aware of how objects fall? That is the issue. Knowledge of how the planets move is impressive, but that was the domain of Copernicus and Keppler, not Galileo. What Galileo did in coming up with the principle of relativity was totally revolutionary, and resulted in the revolution of physics known as Newtonian physics.

As for adminship, that is tempting, but I am not going to do much with it other than muscle out the occasional crank from the relativity pages. I'm not sure that the current situation doesn't work just as well for me. --EMS | Talk 19:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

that's as you wish. muscling out the occasional crank is as good a reason for admin powers as anything, as long as exercised wisely. I'm not exactly spending my days on AN/I myself. But it is fair enough for you to stick to editing without the mop&baton, just let me know if you like to be nominated at some point. dab (ᛏ) 22:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Flat Backround GR and black holes

Hi Ed,

There is a good news and a bad news. The good news is that you are right that the physical spacetime, as opposed to mainstream's spacetime, is flat and there are no black holes. Just like Einstein thought intuitively.

The bad news is that it turns out that the flatness is implied by the principle of conservation of energy and the mainstream doesn't believe that energy is conserved. The issue can't be even discussed in sci.physics.research since it was already discussed and mathematicians over there decided against concervation of energy. I was told it by Prof. John Baez, a moderator over there: "Jim, you are wrong. Energy is not conserved".

It makes the chances of publishing your results practiclly zero. Unless you know how to prove that the principle of concervation of energy is valid which I doubt. Luckily the mainstream can't prove neither that energy isn't conserved despite it is much easier task since they need only to supply one piece of evidence that energy can be created out of nothing to prove their case. So they are on a better position than you. And also as me since I'm on your side.

But there is a hope: energy might be conserved after all. I argue for it for over 20 years by now. And why do I believe that it is conserved (except for millions of experiments up to date that provided evidence and none to the contrary)? Because, I accidantally found out that from this principle one may derive that for a homogeneous space (like Einstein's universe) ${\frac {\partial ^{2}\tau }{\partial t\partial r}}+{\frac {1}{R}}=0$, where $\tau$ is proper time, $t$ is coordinate time, $r$ is radial coordinate, $R$ is radius of curvature of space (radius of Einstein's universe), and so for stationary Einstein's universe $H_{0}={\frac {c}{R}}$, ${\frac {dH}{dt}}={\frac {H_{0}^{2}}{2}}$, acceleration of space probes Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 is $a_{0}={\frac {c^{2}}{R}}$ which for the density of space $6.5\times 10^{-27}kg/m^{3}$ they are respectively: $H_{0}=73km/s/Mpc$, ${\frac {dH}{dt}}=2.7\times 10^{-36}s^{-2}$, $a_{0}=7.3\times 10^{-10}m/s^{2}$.

Since the last number is only half of standard deviation off the observed value and the mainstream stil consider it anomalous then those results might be additional evidence that energy is conserved. To bad that these results can't be published. But there is a hope that mainstream gets into bigger trouble with its cosmology than it is now and starts looking for solutions outside the mainstream and in 30 or 100 years (one astronomy professor says it may be more like 300 and refused to be my PhD promoter, so I got one who doesn't care about such things) they are allowed to be published, the principle of conservation of energy will be restored, and than your name becoms famous. Jim 19:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand my theory. I say that a background spacetime defined by the view of an observer is flat. They "physical" (or foreground) spacetime (in my venacular) is still curved. It just is not curved in quite the same way as it is in raw GR.

As for the conservation of energy, it is true that energy is not globally conserved in GR. Whether my changes "fix" that remains to be determined, and that is a secondary consideration for me anyway.

With regard to publication, I am 100% sure that it is coming in due time. What I say is that the article will be published when it is correct. I am currently in a period where the demands made by the last review has resulted in changes not just to the article but also to the theory itself! That is wonderful and at the same time also frustrating and stressful. In any case, let me make it very clear to you that most of the stuff that does not get published in scientific journals is rejected because it is junk and not becuase it is revolutionary. It takes a lot of work to both create and properly present a sound scientific theory. That goes double in the area of gravitation theory as a lot of work is needed to gain a proper understanding of metric theories of gravitation. Most independent researchers have no idea about that stuff, and for that reason produce works that editors are happy to reject without a review.

My submissions are reviewed these days. Even though I am not yet published, that in and of itself is an accomplishment, and I am proud of it. --EMS | Talk 19:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right that I didn't understand it. I thought that you mean "background" as a background for the behavior of matter and that it is such that the curvature of space compensates for the "curvature of time" (Feynman term), which I found as what is really going on in the curved spacetime with conserved energy. My idea is that curvature of space plus "general time dilation" vanish identically. This "general time dilation" is a tensoral entity and so it is not the same as gravitational time dilation which is just a term in the general curvature of spacetime. This is what I found in Einstein's gravitation so it is not mine. I've just shown how it is implied by conservation of energy.

I don't understand the business of having two spacetime metrics ("background" and "forground") since I see only physical part of it and math for me is always only a more or less exact model of physics. E.g. I did my calculations of metrics with Newtonian formalism and had it to provide the curvature of space, which is surely not exact math but physics came out exact :-). Energy came out conserved exactly despite that it is not "conserved in GR" as they say (which I don't buy, since there is no good argument to convince a physicist -- you can just read what John Baez writes about the lack of energy conservation in GR: as Feynman once said about the applied mathematicians calling themseves "gravity physicists": "bad math, bad physics").

One can have as many models of reality as one wishes and they don't need to be exact (again as Einstein once said something like: "math is good only when it is not exact since when it tries to reflect the physics exactly it is cetainly wrong"). I just thought that your metric is "physical" and I missed the "forground" one, and I still don't know the diff. So I guess I have to "shut up and calculate" (Feynman?).

When they refuse to publish my papers it is not because they are bad papers (with errors that referees can point to). The referees say "formally OK, but no one is interested in Einstein's stationary universe any more", the one I believe we live in since there are no data yet (except some illusions) that show otherwise. Jim 05:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Jim - In GR, energy is conserved locally but not glabally. I find that to be odd too. Now if your solution correponds to Einstein's static universe, then indeed there is little interest in that, as observaions have shown that the universe is really undergoing an accelerating expansion. It never helps you to be going against accepted observations. --EMS | Talk 06:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You should rahter say "accepted interpretations of observations". But what to do if interpretations are wrong since observers didn't do their homework? What they negleced to do is to calculate first how much redshift photons have in a stationary space of density of our universe. They say "almost" nothing, not even worth to calculate. So I took Feynman's advice "shut up and calculate" and it turned out that in our space if it were stationary the redshift would correspond to Hubble constant 70 km/s/Mpc. You can calculate it yourself. Take a sheet of photons in homogenous space of density 6E-23 kg/m^3. Move it by dx, calculate the gravitational energy the movement creates and subtract it from the energy of photons, set a simple differential equation, solve it, get Hubble constant. The result you already know. So where is the expansion? And my calculations were checked by math professors, they are OK, except that "no physicist is interested in a stationary universe". So cosmologists have their cosmology and I have mine, with global consevation of energy, and without dark energy. Jim 11:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Jim - Claiming that professional astronomers and physicists "didn't do their homework" doesn't cut it with me, and more importantly it will not cut it with any editor worth his salt. You are dealing with a large body of evidence which supports the current interpretation and which has been regularly challenged. More importantly, you seem to be claiming that spacetime is really flat instead of curved in spite of there being a whole lot of evidence that Einstein is correct in assuming a curved spacetime. You have to realize that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and thouroughness to gain publication. Just placing an odd idea on the table is not sufficient.

BTW - I don't understand how your density of space can account for the Pioneer anomaly. A universally unifom mass field cannot exert any net acceleration of anything within itself. --EMS | Talk 18:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ed - Actually I was refering to applied mathematicians who consider themselves "gravity physicists" but didn't know about the effect called in astronomy "dynamical friction" (which apparently is responsible for the cosmological redshift) so they left it outside of their brand of GR (the one with the expansion) and ended up with symmetric metric unable to provide the cosmological redshift in stationary universe. This way they shot themselves in foot and now they can't recover. Too many errors too early in the process. Feynman writes about them in his book. Here is a fragment about them: http://www.geocities.com/wlodekj/sci/feynman.htm

The "flatness" of spacetime is such that both space is curved and the time is dilated but not in a trivial way since it turns out that this way isn't possible in Newtonian physics. So most likely that's why it was missed: because of Newtonian way of thinking.

If you want to understand read my rather short and simple paper and I provide explanations if needed. The paper is at http://www.geocities.com/jim_jastrzebski/sci/3263.htm

Jim 21:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

With regard to Feynman's letter: I have seen that myself at the gravity meeting that I have attended. There is a lot of bad research in this field, but to some extent that is because these people are "pushing the envelope" of gravitational theory. Even so, knowing what does not work is a valuable in research as knowing what does. In my own research, I find that I learn more from my failures than my successes. In fact, my greatest breakthroughs have occurred in dealing with the previous failures.

To be quite blunt about it, I find it to be a very bad sign when someone starts making a case of what idiots the mainstream scientists are. Without some respect for what has gone before, you cannot speak to the field and make your case. In addition, taking this kind of attitude removes all incentive that you may have to keep work out your ideas so that they can either become published or yourself become satisfied that your scheme will not work. I like to say that once the recriminations start, the science stops. I have chosen to avoid that trap, and strongly counsel you to escape it yourself.

Once final note, all of us independent researchers have our own personal take on reality. In my case, I cannot accept a static universe as it is one where the circumnavigating twin paradox requires that a reference frame exists with respct to which absolute time dilation occurs. That is an anathema to the relativity principle, and so I reject all such models. --EMS | Talk 00:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ed - First, let me move our discussion back to the left margin becase: second, I agree almost 100% with what you just have said except for the twins which is a "frame dragging problem" and is not as bad as you think. So we need more space for the explanations and we could save a few colons in the process.

Doing my PhD now in a university environment, physics department, where I studied astronomy for a while, I see a lot of scientists at all levels of sophistication and I talk to them so I know them a bit. And I'm not a scientist myself but an engineer (MS in electronics, working in computers for more years than I care to admit).

About 20 years ago I found inconsistencies in GR that I think I solved and I wrote a paper which no serious scientist ever read up till now since it can't be published, not because it's wrong but because of its unpopular subject (the lack of expansion). The scientists are just too tired of talking to thousands of idiots who all know for sure how to create energy from nothing. I'm just of opposite opinion but in this case it's even worse :-) and despite that as it turns out that mostly the amateurs push the science forward and only because knowing too litle about it they don't know all these things that professional scientists "know" but they ain't so. So all scientists say that they don't have the time for reading my paper. But at the same time they don't mind talking for hours where I might be wrong while it takes only minutes to listen to my point (it is an interesting psychological fact).

E.g. I talked to the chair of the World GR Organization, from MIT, and wanted to take him to lunch to explain to him my point (living in Boston). He didn't have time for that (because "he's traveling a lot"). Instead he spent hours calling me on the phone and trying to explain to me where I might be wrong (about stationary universe) not even knowing that I was going through all those silly things years ago and so I know exactly why they are silly. Finally he advised me to model the universe on my computer to see that it will collapse within a few billion years. Which I did (what took me a few months since as it turned out it's not a trivial thing) and the universe didn't change a bit for 300 billion years. Then when I told him that, he told me that for the universe to collapse I have to introduce some arbitrary damping (as if I were an idiot and didn't know that it will surely collaps after that) "which is not there in the universe, but without it, it won't collapse, as the theory requires it to do, so we have to assume that it is there". What would be your reaction to that? :-) Among sane people it is known as "the victory of a theory over the observational data". He was a famous physics professor from MIT, expert in GR.

Playing with my model I found out that average velocities of galaxies stabilize after a few billion years after starting with all of them from zero velocity, at some level of order of hundreds of km/s, depending on the density of the universe. So I asked astrophysicists what is the average velocity of galxies in the real universe and what is the variance. It turned out that there are no such data.

So I gave up on talking and started studying astronomy myself and that's why I'm doing this PhD now hoping that at least someone will have to read my PhD thesies and supply a reasonable critique of Einstein's universe that I think is the place where we live. And of course I don't mind any critique since I also found out that learning on errors is the surest way of learning (a long though). I doubt whether professional scientist ever learn this way. They seem to have everything given to them in a ready form and only the amateurs learn this way.

As for me, after 20 years of all those failed attepmpts to explain to me where I might be wrong, I started thinking that I might be right on all accounts. And that's my problem now :-). So could you read my paper and explain where I goofed? As you see I don't mind any critique, since this is I keep asking for, for over 20 years. BTW, just yesterday I wrote to Ned Wright and ask him to debunk my paper. Which I also did about 10 years ago but he didn't answer then. Now it was afer he supplied me with a way of translating observational data to dH/dt and this observational factor happen to be 0.45 and my theoretical prediction is 0.5 that is about 10% off which is not bad for astronomical observations (some astronomers call it "perfect agreement" while "good agreement" is when the diff is less than 2 orders of magnitude :-)). It is the next piece of data which Einstein's stationary universe predicts with no investment beyond a piece of paper, a pencil, and a sane mind. Jim 11:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to put a bunch of time into refuting your ideas. I have my own to work on! In fact that is the case for most physicists. If they answered every challenge they got, they would do nothing but answer them. Go the USENET if you want commentary from willing scientists. I have given you my refutations:

1. That there is conservation of energy in general relativity, but it is local and not global. (In other words, you can gain energy through appropriate interaction, but you cannot create it from nothing.)
2. Your computation on the Pioneer anomaly is corrupt since you are only accounting for the mass-energy of spacetime below the object and not the mass-energy of spacetime above it.
3. Any static universe is subject to the circumnavigating twin paradox, and that is not a frame dragging problem.

Good luck with your Ph. D. It will give your ideas more visibility. At the least, you now have to get them past a thesis review at whatever university you are studying at, and that means that the gravitation professors at your school will have to consider it and how it can be debunked seriously. --EMS | Talk 20:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanx for the wishes. I hope they will want to debunk it instead of just ignoring it, which one astronomy professor already predicted :).

1. In physics if you can neither create nor destry something it is "conserved".
2. I'm not touching the mass-energy of spacetime (my calculations are purely Newtonian and in Newtonian formalism spacetime has no mass-energy (neither in Einsteinian physics where all the energy is contained in masses: $E=mc^{2}$ but Newtonian sufices). The anomalous acceleration is just $c^{2}/R$ where R is Einstein's radius of the universe. So there is only curvature of space involved. I have no idea why it comes out this way, I just follow Einstein's logic. Accidentally it is within one standard deviation from observations so I'm providing the number as a curio. It may be completely accidental.
3. I said frame dragging because this is what provides the reference frame for inertial movement. Known also as Mach principle. It is described in any textbook on general relativity. E.g. "Garavitation" by MTW.

I don't hope that you would debunk the article since it is not an original stuff but just conclusion from Einstein's theory and I doubt that Einstein was wrong in guessing the mechanism for gravitation. So actually he discovered it and if this is so you better adjust your theory to a stationary universe. So far all the maeasurments agree with Einstein;s theory and none with the big bang hypothesis. There is even no explanation of accelerating expansion, and Einstein's theory handles it easily, as an illusion, predicting apparent acceleration within one standard deviation of observations. And in physics one can't debunk a theory when it is Einstein's and it provides all predictions as observed. Even if one is a professor of physics :). Besides in astronomy, unlike in civil engineering, even if one is 100% wrong no one is hurt. So we don't need to worry if I'm wrong. Jim 22:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Twin paradox and 12.30.216.138

12.30.216.138 is ruining the talk page for this article, unnecessarily splitting up others' responses and editing other users comments. Despite your friendly suggestions to get a user name, 12.30.216.138 has refused. For these reasons, I have no desire to address 12.30.216.138 directly. I have some comments about the NPOV tag, but I am reluctant to post anything to the article talk page at this time. Tim Shuba 03:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Triangle inequality

Hi EMS,

I don't understand why have you removed my edit. I think that the mathematical model of special relativity is Minkowski space. The reversed triangle inequality is a very simple relation and it fully describes the twin paradox. If the readers of Triangle inequality item do understand the relation between the reversed triangle inequality and the twin paradox, then the readers of Twin paradox why not? XCelam 21:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I would advise putting this note in the talk:Twin paradox. After all, you are also up against Moroder and not just myself. However, I will tell you right now that this does not merit a section on its own. It may be helpful to reference this in the initial description of the paradox. Also the inclusion of a link to triangle inequality (if not to Triangle_inequality#Reversal_in_Minkowski_space) is essential.

OK XCelam 06:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that I can't edit the talk:Twin paradox page. However I note that the solution with reversed triangle inequality of Minkowski spacetime has an important methodological interest. Namely, the phenomenon of beeing the travelling twin younger is observer-independent. Inspite this, the solutions on this page all are observer-dependent, because they use spacetime coordinates. The formulation in the terms of Minkowski spacetime does not require coordinates, i.e. this solution is observer-independet such as the phenomenon itself. So, I think that the most adequate and the most clear approach is this. Especially when we consider the Occam's razor. XCelam 07:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

H'mmm. Let me see if I can do something about the semi-protection on talk:twin paradox. It was needed to handle another editor's excesses. You will be able to edit semi-protected articles in a couple of days anyway, but I think that the situation with other editor is under control enough so that it is not unreasonable to remove the semi-protection now. --EMS | Talk 17:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Your "relativity community" approach

I saw you claim the following, in line with some other comments by you:

"Harald mistook the Unnikrishkan article as evidence of an alternate view within the relativity community on the twin paradox. it is unfortunate, but he lacks the tools to judge the content of the articles that he is finding. He also does not know what he does not know, which is even more of a problem. --EMS | Talk 18:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)"

EMS, We already know that sometimes it is you who doesn't know what you don't know (e.g. Ehrenfest paradox and and the "GRT" explanation of the Twin paradox.

But more importantly, please don't confuse the scientific community with what you call the "relativity community". From your remarks I conclude that it is you who lacks the tools to judge the content of the articles that you are finding, in particular for the purpose of Wikipedia which NPOV policy forbids a partisan approach.

For example, if someone could show that the POV that black holes don't exist is a notable point of view in the scientific peer reviewed literature, then that point of view should be given short mention in the article on Black holes - and now that I verify this, it turns out that that is indeed the case. Of course, someone could round up a bunch of narrow-minded people to delete that part with the claim that it is "not notable" or "not an alternative view within the cosmology community". But Wikipedia readers want to be well informed, and the NPOV policy is meant to assure that they are.

Regards, Harald88 21:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I will stand by my remarks, Harald. Even "CG" sided with me and against you the first time we locked horns on the SR page, and later you cussed at myself and the other GR editors for standing by our guns that GR is a theory of gravitation. It is very hard to respect someone with that kind of history. Once again: You don't know what you don't know.

You need to realize that all kinds of alternate views exist on subjects like relativity, and that most of then are held by what would be considered to be an "extremely small minority" under WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. The view that Einstein was mistaken about the 1918 resolution is one of those cases. I am happy to give way if I should learn that I am wrong on an issue, as the examples you cite above actually show. I have not seen the same from you.

IMO, it is your job to show that experienced physicists like myself and Moroder are mistaken (or biased) in the issue of opposition to Einstein's 1918 approach. If you can demonstrate the existance of a substantial minority opposing it, I will most certainly give way because the reality of opinion of this issue is more important here than the physical reality. Kindly note that this is the same basis on which I support GR here instead of hyping my own ideas on gravitation and black holes. --EMS | Talk 23:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

EMS, I fully agree that it is my job to show to the other editors that WP:NPOV forbids our opposition to Einstein's 1918 approach to affect fair mention of it in Wikipedia, and I stand by my attempts to explain that. As a matter of fact, there is much confusion because many articles fail to point this out. I will follow your good example of the Allais Talk page and directly cite the relevant of parts of the Wikipedia NPOV policy that forbids to only present a single POV when more POV's are known; moreover, I also agree that it was up to me (or one of the others such as green or Tailpig) to confirm the notability of the different points of view, and I will provide that in more detail -just as was done in Black holes.

Harald88 13:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Harry, yes I agree that people look up to an encyclopedia for a source of information. The problem is that you are trying (without succeeding) to pervert the NPOV into a system of inserting fringe ideas that "happen" to be antirelativistic without exception. How do you explain this? Under the guise of presenting "alternative views" you are trying to produce confusion about issues that have long been settled.Why are you doing that? Moroder 08:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Moroder - Please assume good faith. It makes everyone's life easier. --EMS | Talk 17:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I will, when you stop reinserting the reference to the Allais paper lifted off the Anti-Relativity Forum. The so-called Allais paper is not even published in a peer reviewed journal, why is it in the article? Moroder 17:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The Allais article is not peer reviewed, as such, the whole paragraph should not even exist. Here is the proper reference [2]. Pretty embarassing. Moroder 15:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Moroder - Now yuou are talking more sensibly. As I like to say: "Either you do or you don't". Either the paragraph exists ot it does not. If is exists, and if that work is covered, then you must cite the study being discussed whether it is in a peer-reviewed journal or not. It simply is not fair to the readers not to point them to the article that is being discussed. OTOH, if that study is not usable in Wikipedia since it does not come from a reliable source, then it should not be discussed in the article at all.

Beyond that, I wish that I could get it through your head that for articles on "cranks" like Allais the goal is to let the subject hang him-or-herself. You cannot blatantly tear them down under WP:NPOV, and IMO that is totally appropriate. (Look at it this way: If I should ever earn an article here due to my work, that is the basis on which I would want it written.) Instead, the trick is to arrange the article so that the facts that the subject is most proud of and happy to defend are the ones that show that person to be a crank. That is one reason why I prefer to include the restudy of Miller's data. IMO, that study shows that Allais has a history of creating useless data. --EMS | Talk 17:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for help

Someone just created an article about the velocity of Black Hole infalling observers at German Wikipedia, see de:Schwarzschild-Metrik: Fallgeschwindigkeit. Even without reading German, you should be able,to guess what is is about from the extensive list of references.

Can you guide me to sane and competent discussion of the subject? My first impression is, that the "controversy" about the correct solution is mostly bad math and/or not getting the definitions straight.

Pjacobi 10:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the article is already gone, and I assume that there is a good reason for that. Lacking more information, I will consider this issue to be resolved. Please advise if I am mistaken on that count. --EMS | Talk 23:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Physics cranks

Hi EMS,

From what I've seen so far of cranks, telling them to "go away" usually has the exact opposite effect. There obviously nothing that we can write that will make this guy consider the possibility that he may be wrong, so I have decided to not participate in the discussion anymore, in order not to fuel the fire. This guy has

1. Admitted that he has never even "bothered" to look at the relevant equations in Cartesian coordinates himself.
2. Read your entire user page (well written by the way!) without getting the point.
3. In all likelihood also read the page on William Connolley, so he knows he's accusing a well renowned climatologist with a Ph.D. in numerical analysis of "delusion" etc.

I wouldn't exclude the possibility that we're dealing with a troll, but even if his intentions are good his language is getting quite rude, so I don't think he deserves any more help. I suggest we stop debating with him, at least until he gets himself a talk page so that the debate can be moved away from the article talk space. --PeR 17:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm largely on your page here. My last posting was a "shot over the bow" on the issue of rudeness, and I am willing to ask William to semi-protect both the relevant article and talk pages. Once this editor is bottled up he will either get an account or quit the scene, with the most likely result thankfully being the latter. --EMS | Talk 17:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My point is, if we stop talking to him, then not even semiproteciton will be necessary. He might stay for a few days adding comments to the talk pages, then get bored, declare himself the winner and leave. Anything he cares to put in the article space will be quickly reverted, so no harm done. --PeR 18:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Book query

EMS, what's the best book to buy that describes or originates this topic: "Gravitons do exist in general relativity. They do not transmit gravitation itself. Instead gravitons transmit information on changes in the gravitational field." Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 15:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sadi - I am not quoting any one book here, but anything from general relativity resources can help you here. My books are Wald's "General Relativity" and Ohanian's "Gravitation and Spacetime". My reasons for this statement are:

1. Gravitation is not the result of a force in general relativity. (See equivalence principle.) So there is no need for a quantum to transmit it.
2. Gravitation waves (which under quantum mechanics must be composed of gravtions) and not generated by stable mass configurations, such as an oscillating star or a spherically symmetric rotating object. (Under Birkoff's theorem, the oscillating mass does not change the shape of spacetime outside of the object.)
3. Dynamic mass configuration, such as co-rotating masses, do create gravitational waves, as well as change the topology of the spacetime.

I have also run across other statements to the effect that gravitons are needed to transmit information about changes in the gravitational field. As a practical matter, the real transmitter of the changes are the gravitational waves, but in either Ohanian's or Wald's book there is a statement that the associated math is consistent with a spin-2 quantum particle (which must be the graviton). --EMS | Talk 16:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

EMS, thanks for the outline behind your statement. Interesting. I still have to do more reading in this area before I can make any constructive comments. I’ll put those books on my reading list. Talk later: --Sadi Carnot 14:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand. I am certain that this statement is correct and that it is accepted by the field, but I have never been able to find a single explicit statment that makes this point. Mind you, I have not made a project of looking for the appropriate documentation either. So while I would be surpised to find that this is novel, I am not putting that statement in the article due to a lack of known support in the literature. --EMS | Talk 15:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, I’m just curious about gravitation, like we all are, and happened to have found your statement interesting. Talk later: --Sadi Carnot 22:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A question re: Formation and Evolution...

Recently a lot of unsourced material has been added to that page and I was wondering if you could guide me as to which information is sourced by your references at the bottom and which isn't, so I know which material needs citation. Thanks. Serendipodous 20:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

My references deal only with the formation of the moon (the first two) and the period of plantary migrations (the second two). Much of the other material I added based on stuff that I have read both in the past and more recently in respected sources, but I have never been a good bibliographer. There is a recent article in either Science or Nature on how Triton may bave been captured by Neptune that would make a good reference. Otherwise, someone needs to use Google Scholar to find the references to back up much that is there. --EMS | Talk 20:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

'Disprove of General Relativity'

Hi EMS.

Can you help me to ungarble this rant from an anon on the GR talk page ? I honestly have no idea what the anon is trying to say. At best, it looks like nonsense, though. Thanks in advance. MP (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

M - I have done what I can with that one. I am fairly certain of what the issue is, but I don't think that the anon has a clue as to what I am trying to tell him/her. Overall, the best thing to do with items like this is to ask the person to take their concerns elsewhere. Their posting really is an abuse of the talk page. --EMS | Talk 21:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You have removed my edits and I think is wrong

Recently I added to the Theory of relativity page the following:

"Special relativity was developed to handle the observations in an inertial reference frame, and therefore accelerated reference frames were considered out of scope, and therefore included in General Relativity (GR). Nowadays there is a trend that considers as GR only the part that deals with curved spacetime. From this point of view, accelerated frames in flat space-time are considered inside SR"

You did remove it with the argument that "this level of detail was not relevant at that point". This was added in a point in which a separation has to be stablished between SR and GR, and I think is relevant and necesary, because relativity of accelerated frames will be included in one or the other according with the criteria used. And both criteria have been used.

Therefore I still believe that this paragraph or something similar should appear at this place, and I would like to hear your arguments against it.

Regards, --Juansempere 01:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You remarks run afoul of me for a number of reasons. One really is that I feel that the theory of relativity article as it now stands does an excellent jobn of describing what relativity is without impinging on issues better covered in the individual special relativity and general relativity articles. In addition:

• Einstein was using SR to ascertain the effects of being in an accelerated frame of reference as early as 1907. It is interesteing to note that at that time, Einstein inferred the existance of gravitational time dilation and gravitational redshift using SR alone.
• That the defining feature of the general theory would be the use of curved spacetime became known to Einstein sometime in 1912. Note that Einstein did not find the field equations (the event which completed teh development of GR) until late in 1915.

So your remarks are actually reflect a common misconception about the relationship between SR and GR. I assure you that I work with the contributions of others whenever possible. However, there are times when a can of worms is being openned that I really would rather not deal with, and I regret that this is one of those times. --EMS | Talk 01:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that I agree totally with you, and for me accelerated frames are SR, but you are trying to hide that in some texts SR restricts to inertial frames, and I still thing that this should be explicitely said, along with the reason we do not adhere with that.--Juansempere 10:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You can argue this at talk:theory of relativity if you like. However, I will oppose it as being over-the-line for what should be a breif overview article. --EMS | Talk 15:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Stablepedia

Hey EMS!

I've seen your comment regarding vandalism on WP:VPR, another user has pointed out that what you are suggesting has already been done on Stablepedia.org. I have developed that website, and i currently run it. I really appreciate feedback from wikipedians, so if you have any comments or suggestions, please feel free to contact me. Thanks! -- Sinan Taifour 08:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit some curiousity about the algorithm. As I stated, the "stable version" should be the most recent text that has been present a majority of the time over a 3 day period. Note the I write "text" instead of "version". A new edit creates a new version, even if you are going back to a previous text. So I hope that you are comparing versions to see what is what. (A suggestion: Once you get the history, you should see which recent "versions" have been around the longest, and retrieve them first to decide what the stable version is.)

I also see your "Stablepedia" as being a testbed for the automatic stable versions concept, which is very, very good. My only concern is that this will do little to discourage vandals: They still get to see their "work" appear in Wikipedia even if Wikipedia uses the stable versions concept, although the reduced visibility will make doing so somewhat less attractive. --EMS | Talk 21:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your reply. The algorithm is still under development, i will consider your comments in the next few updates to the algorithm. Regarding your suggestion of a 3-day-period. Orignally i intended to do something similar, but then after some testing it turned out that it wouldn't work perfectly. Highly active pages most likely will never be unchanged (even text-wise, not version-wise) for 3 days. Very unfamous articles might be vandalized for longer than 3 days. Thus, setting a certain period doesn't work. Currently the algorithm studies how often the page gets edited, to specify its activity level, and sets the limit accordingly. I am also working on making it faster, and using less bandwidth from Wikipedia.

If you are interested, you could always add the Stablepedia Bookmarklet (more info about it on the stablepedia homepage) to your links :)

Thanks again for your reply. Sinan Taifour 19:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"The majority of internet sites..."

Thanks for co-watching Herbert Dingle.

BTW: This edit comment of our adversary was such a fitting motto.

Pjacobi 19:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. BTW - I wonder if this is not a blocked or banned user's sockpuppet. --EMS | Talk 19:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks

my friend was just illustrating the editing function of Wikipedia. your warning has been noted and no such edits will be made. thanks for you contributions.Pburghsapper 05:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

favor?

As you know I wrote a long statement for Rednblu on the "truth" discussion page, to try to get him to see things from a different angle. I ended up rewriting this as an essay. I respect your views and would appreciate it if you took a look at the essay - if you feel comfortable, you should make any changes to it that you think would improve it; otherwise, if you have any reactions you can put them on the talk page. Thanks. Wikipedia:The role of policies in collaborative anarchy Slrubenstein | Talk 12:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Let me know if my latest edit satisfies you (or if you would do more/something else). Slrubenstein | Talk 16:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Frame-dragging, again

I'll bet it's on your watchlist, but Talk:Frame-dragging... Maury 21:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Not you!

I was whining about Gravitom's flippant dismissal of the process, not your post. :-) Maury 14:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am fairly sympathetic with Gravitom on that issue. The semi-protect really should have treated them both equally, but the other editor had that old account. --EMS | Talk 15:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sanity check

Are you sure that adding vandalism warnings to User talk:Enormousdude is wise? While I fully agree that he has a severe attitude problem, I think the most recent warning is going to deter further cooperation, rather than encouraging it. I also think AN/I won't back you up on the warnings. The universe won't end if ED's version of the page is up for the day or so it would take to verify or refute the references, and you'll look a lot better refraining from action than taking overly-aggressive action if it does come down to an RFC or mediation or what-have-you. --Christopher Thomas 22:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I will warn AN/I that there is a content aspect to this, and if they don't back me up then so be it. In that case I will let it be known and chalk it up to experience.

The issue with the references is not their validity. My concerns are:

1. They are at User talk:Enormousdude instead of talk:special relativity.
2. By their titles you can tell that these are general physics texts.
3. I can produce refuting references.

This editor is seriously off-base. He is like a mild Carl Hewitt, who edited here for a while and left behind a trail of frustrated editors wherever he went. He was a true genius, but thought that he knew everything about everything and had a right to do as he pleased whether anyone else liked it or not. --EMS | Talk 01:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, if he can produce texts that state this, and these texts are bona fide university textbooks rather than vanity texts, it has to get mentioned, per weighting guidelines in WP:NPOV. If there are other texts that explicitly state that this argument is invalid (vs. simply stating that there are two postulates), the conflict between primary sources gets mentioned. At least, that's my reading of the rules. --Christopher Thomas 03:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

First, see the response to those references by User:Alfred Centauri at user talk:enormousdude, and my post on the matter on talk:special relativity. Secondly, there is the matter of whether this is notable enough to merit mention in the special relativity article itself. The emerging consensus is that this is a secondary issue that is more appropriate to the postulates of special relativity article. In other words, the issue is not whether to mention this but where. --EMS | Talk 03:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, EMS. I've come here after noticing your comments at User talk:Enormousdude. I agree that the 2-postulate derivation of SR is canonical, but I would recommend that we might do best by considering ED's comments seriously. There is a subtle issue involved here about the relative importance of the two postulates, and I think we owe thoughtful consideration of how to present them. It's true that ED's editing style can be frustrating, but he may also have valid points. I'd suggest we try a little more to cooperate with him. Full disclosure: I have previously suggested simply reverting ED's edits as vandalism. However, independent of the reasonableness of his editing style, ED seems to be at least somewhat informed about the physics, and most importantly, he has found citations to back up his point of view. At the very least, one must find valid citations if one would like to disagree with him. I hope we can resolve the issue amicably for all involved parties---let's do our best to avoid fights. Just my 2 cents. Gnixon 04:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"ED" is very informed. Ironically, that is the problem: He knows he knows more than the rest of us (and he may), and therefore thinks he knows better than the rest of us. What he really is is very opinionated.

Please be advised that this is an issue that has cropped up before. The existing consensus on the SR article is that one-postulate approaches do not get you all the way to SR, and I believe that this is a scientific consensus too. Even ED's one-postulate approach is assuming by definition that Maxwell's equations are laws of physics under the first postulate, but as a practical and historical matter Maxwell's equations gained that status because of relativity!

ED's view of philosophers and philosophy says a lot about him. He is seeking to define relativity as true, instead of dealing with it as a potentially falsifiable theory (not that there is any good reason to believe that it is not true). Even so, do feel free to listen to him, but please be aware that I am not the only editor who is not impressed by his stands. --EMS | Talk 15:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Points taken. I know how frustrating it can be to communicate with someone who relies on their real-world credentials to push their side of an argument. I'm also aware of ED's pattern of behavior. He's certainly very opinionated and forceful with his opinions, but I'm still holding out hope that he can be reasoned with. Perhaps by showing that we respect his opinions (which seem to be somewhat reasonable if we assume good faith when interpreting them), he can be convinced to show respect for the opinions of others. Even if the issue of one or two postulates has come up before, a review of sources shows that it's a sticky issue, so we should at the very least be extra patient with those who raise the issue. Perhaps a FAQ for the page would be useful, or better, a clear and concise explanation of the issue within the article itself. Again, this is only my take on the matter, and others can reasonably disagree. Gnixon 18:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Given any backing off on ED's part, I am happy to more than reciprocate. However, it seems to me that ED's moniker says something about the size of his self-image which is not good in a place like this.

I do not see respect for ED's opinions as being helpful, as he expects that and more from us. (Read his talk pages entries and note his considering those of us who disagree with him as being "ignorant editors".) It may be that if he finds that he is being given a hearing he will be more willing to work with us. However, in the end he has to realize that any respect has to go both ways.

My only promise it to not get in your way of you should start to establish a working relationship with ED. However, do be aware that I am totally opposed to the changes he wishes to make such that I will stand against then unless a consensus appears which favors them. --EMS | Talk 20:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Gnixon 20:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Special relativity

Heya. Although I'm happier with the new version of the commented out note in the postulates section, it still comes across as a bit confrontational to me. There's already way to much of a confrontational attitude on that article for my liking and anything that can be done to soften the edges can only be a good thing. I'm going to leave the article as it is, myself, but if you can think of anything that says essentially the same thing in a friendlier way, I think it would be an good step forward! GDallimore (Talk) 15:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I hear you one this, but feel a little caught between a rock and a hard place on this. You were not around when there was a big edit war over that section. If you go back into the talk page archives you can find the discussions easily. Suffice it to say that it was no fun. The original warning was there to let people know that the secion is sensitive, and since it was put up the amount of trouble we have been given on it has been way down.

On the issue of "yelling", you very much have a point there. That is why I only recapitalized the word "NOTE". I saw that as needed to get people's attention, but then let the text speak for itself. Beyond that, a warning like this is not aided by a reminder to be bold. We are asking people to be careful about editing this particular section, and if it is to be present then that point should be made as directly and forcefully as reasonably possible. It may sound odd to you but when you make a point calmly, clearly and directly, you often end up being both freindly and forceful at the same time. --EMS | Talk 16:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I did go back over the history to see when the note was added, and who added it to see who I might have been upsetting! I almost changed it to intimate (but not say) being bold but that, without commenting on the talk page, edits are likely to be reverted. I guess there is no way to be friendly and to the point concisely on a matter like this. The only thing to be careful of is to not make the warning sound like "we've had loads of idiots come along and mess this page up and we're fed up with it."GDallimore (Talk) 22:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be more or less on the same page now. I do admit that the original note was created in a "... we're fed up with it!" environment, and that said environment is long past. Even so, those of us who went through that and are still around do not want the postulates being played around with unilaterally for the most part. If you want to experiment with that warning some more, you certainly may. As long as we are converging I for one don't mind the back-and-forth. It's not an edit war when each side is using the other person's edit to obtain something better than what existed before. --EMS | Talk 02:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Testatika AfD

"the sources are irrelevant when reliable and not reliable when relevant". Damn, I wish I had thought of that wording; it sums it rather up succintly. Regards, — BillC ^talk 16:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ski Resort Discussion

I have been humbled and forced to change my position on several of the resorts I put up for AfD. Please look at [[3]] discussion page to see my reasoning for not assuming every Ski Resort is notable. C5mjohn 02:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Consensus is not an easy thing to determine, but I have agreement from two other editors regarding the redirect (at least, as long as the redirect sticks). The revert was done by notoriously problematic pseudoscience-pusher User:Reddi who is well on his way, IMHO, to another community sanction. I redirected the article under the precedent of rotating magnetic field was redirected. If you want to revert for an AfD, be my guest. I was hoping to avoid the headaches of that route as the article is so much junk. Cheers, --ScienceApologist 14:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have prefered your joining the discussion on the talk page before redirecting again, especially if you wanted to declare it to be a "consensus" action. AfD is a bother, but I for one wonder if that title should exist even as a redirect. I think that my basic request for the future is that you establish the consensus before you declare one. --EMS | Talk 14:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically, there was discussion happening on my talkpage and on others' talkpages. I read the discussion at the article talkpage and found a lot of commentary that looked to me like there was general consensus that the article was problematic. I didn't see any argument that the title itself needed to be excised from Wikipedia and since the action was done by a known problematic editor, I just reverted the change. Since this is Wikipedia, we can always go back if you have a problem. I just didn't have anything to add to the discussion. --ScienceApologist 14:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Editing during a dispute

(Moved from user page to talk page by Count Iblis 16:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC) )

You changed the text at Special relativity back after a 3x reversal (3RR rule) infringement by CI. It should be the other way around. Further, I believe it would be better next time to discuss any changes in the talk page first, since you clearly saw that there was a dispute in place. Please revert your change, which is also incorrect. For questions, please see the article's talk page. Thanks. Edgerck 10:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:BITE

You and Ed seem to be having a little dispute. I think this might be a case of WP:BITE. I would hate to see this conflict escalate. I also left a small note regarding your comments on Ed's page. Remember as an established member here that you are supposed to be courteous and helpful to new users. thanks!--Cronholm144 07:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Perhaps we can be a bit more friendly, but when an editor comes along and starts saying "this must be done my way" a real problem exists. If the edit or activity of the new editor is unacceptable, the best thing to do is to stand against it and force that editor to back down. (In other words, WP:BITE sometimes has to take a back seat to WP:IAR.) Often we do lose the editor, but that usually is for the best.

As for edgerck in particular, he is already adjusting to the situation. Given that he is not blatantly "biting" us at this time, I am happy not to "bite" him, and to help achieve an amicable settlement.

Do be aware the edgarck is a Ph. D., and that at the start he made a common mistake of thinking that he could just come into Wikipedia and impose his own views on it, with the other editors being obligated to get out of his way becuase of his credentials. It is regretable that he had to learn the hard way that you don't act like that here, but unlike some other Ph. D.s he seems to already be adjusting to the reality here. So I will work with him as best I can and we will see what develops: When people with doctorates settle down and work with the group, they can often use their knowledge to move the group consensus and in that way help to produce improved articles. --EMS | Talk 14:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I read WP:BITE and I would recommend it. You may be simply generalizing what you have seen before, when you talk about me above. That's not my attitude and I have been online in discussion groups, much raunchier than WP, for probably a while longer than you have. So, I 'll give you the benefit of this doubt and assume you are not too much prejudiced. Tolerance is important both ways. Further, you can see that I never claimed my credentials in any editing dispute, while you have claimed yourself to be an expert more than once -- and this is a matter of public record. So, let's please tone down the rhetoric, leave aside prejudices, and don't think I am making a "common mistake" when I am just following Be BOLD WP policy; and I do like to also use Wikipedia:Consensus and the need to discuss things on the talk pages. But, right now, after all that, I mostly want to leave the matter in your hands and in the hands of the community. Thank you for your help in my project page as well. Hope this is useful. Edgerck 20:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Your talk page announces you as a Ph. D., and that is a claim of "expert" whether you like it or not. I will point out that some of the worst problem editors that we have had have been highly accomplished in academia, but that is also because they mistook their expertise for gospel. Also keep in mind that you really got off on the wrong foot with me on the SR page as you tried to protect your edit. When a Ph. D. starts acting like that, it usually is the first sign of real trouble ahead. Instead it has turned out to be part of an experiment, and not a fair indication of they type of editor you will be.

As for expertise: That is a powerful card here if it is demonstrated as well as asserted, and not over-used. People are willing to give way for a well-expressed argument from a respected editor. I won't claim that you can get free reign here, but repsect will take you a long ways here. However, it is earned and not given on demand.

As for WP:BITE: I am happy not to bite the newcomer as long as he/she is not biting me and/or Wikipedia. As in this case, I have often found it worthwhile to give an errant newbie a kick in the pants: It gets their attention, and often their respect. It also acts as an experiment: their reaction quickly tells you whether this is a well-meaning person who will likely be a good editor (an in this case), or whether the person is probably going to be an ongoing problem. --EMS | Talk 20:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

edit war

Thanks for your input on my talk page. First of all, your agreement is not required for something to be right. If you understood general and special relativity you would know that they contradict each other. One assumes that the laws of physics never change and another assumed the laws of physics always change. That is not two cases of the same assumption, those are two diametrically opposed positions, but this discussion belongs on the talk page for the article.

Regarding your comments on my talk page about an edit war, I happened to notice you didn't leave messages on the talk pages of the other users involved in this so-called war. Am I in an edit war alone? And if you'd care to take a look at the talk page for this article, you will see that there is not a consensus with respect to the current article. Are you simply choosing who is right and who is wrong based on what you agree with? Perhaps you should take a break from editing for a while, I think your neutrality is in jeopardy.

Regarding your threats to ban me if I edit the article again, I can only say that I find your behaviour to be rude and boorish. Is it your contention that threatening people is the best way to build a consensus? If all wikipedia admins acted the way you do, no corrections would ever be made to any articles. Everyone would be too afraid of being banned for changing information that any admin disagrees with.

On a personal note, where do you get the gall to simply declare the subject closed? Look at my comments on the talk page, they explain precisely why I made the changes I made. Why don't you read over them until you understand them. And while you're at it, explain how special relativity and general relativity are not contradictory. Then after that you can go to the article on space where it is amply noted that there are some people who believe space is something real and there are other people who realize that in fact space is an imaginary coordinate system. The reason we as human beings know that space is an imaginary coordinate system that can not be bent, warped or manipulated physically in any way is because WE INVENTED IT, along with all languages and mathematics and art. We invented it, we define it, and it is defined as an imaginary coordinate system invented by human beings. Perhaps you need some remedial lessons in English and logic, especially since you think "the laws of physics always change" is a special case of "the laws of physics never change".

Thank you for your time and attention, now go away. SteakNShake 07:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ed and SNS

Do you really think that they are the same person? This would hurt me deeply, after I went out of my way to help Ed... for him to say such rude things to me as a sock puppet would be unconscionable. Have you done a checkuser on either of them? Please keep me informed. Thanks--Cronholm144 16:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I need more information here, as I am not sure what comment you are refering to. Please provide a diff and/or talk page reference so that I an zero in this "SNS". BTW - You can look at user contributions to get a better sense of things. Also, I am not an admin and do not hae access to checkuser. --EMS | Talk 20:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry SteakNShake is SNS, I shouldn't have abbreviated.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 20:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Getting a little bit paranoid, fellas? I think you need to step away from the computer for a while, you're seeing enemies on all sides. Perhaps you could just stop editing wikipedia until you and your therapist sort things out. I am not "edgerk". SteakNShake 22:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have little reason to doubt "SNS" on this. Ed is working through an odd issue on mass, and is showing no interest in GR. He also has shown some sense of how Wikipedia works and both respect for and curiousity about it. "SNS" is not raising questions but instead is imposing answers. Also do be advised that sockpuppets usually are identifiable because they strongly reflect their master's tendencies. However, the tone of Ed's remarks are nothing like the tone of SteakNshake's remarks.

You can still contact an admin on this if you like, but I am comfortable in predicting that the result will be that they are not the same person at all. --EMS | Talk 00:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I see where I got confused, and have stricken the remarks that started this thread. My apologies to Ed and "SNS". --EMS | Talk 00:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

GR - protection

I removed the protection as you requested, if a problem occurs drop me a note or list at WP:RFPP and/or WP:AIV Gnangarra 00:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternative options include WP:RFC which I suggest is the next step. Gnangarra 03:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

(in reponse to the first part ofthis thread) Action will be taken, I assure you. My goal is really to let SteakNShake slit his own throat. He is being uncivil and disruptive, and given a little time and inability to have his edits stick will soon either be gone of his own accord or banned. I do appreciate your willingness to stop the edit war, but in this case all that you have done is frozen the conflict in place. Please see my most recent posting at talk:general relativity and you will see the dimensions of this dispute. Overall, we see the edits of SteakNShake as being as valid as he thinks the current article is. Just please do be advised that the broad consensus of the editors of the general relativity page support the current version.

As for WP:RfC, I have my doubts about using that given that SteakNShake has now made it clear that he will impose his POV "come hell or high water", but if you think that the RfC is a helpful step, it can be tried. (I expect SteakNShake to earn a block or two in short order anyway, and those always give the editor pause for thought as well as time to try an avenue like RfC.) --EMS | Talk 03:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:SCIENCE

HHO gas meets number 5, "Press and fiction" and also somewhat meets number 7, "Popular belief". Here are some of the many mentions in the press:

• CNN/WTVT - Craig Patrick - May 23, 2006 - [4] [5]
• Fox 13 "Bay area" (WTVT Tampa Bay?) [6] (2 videos)
• Craig Patrick reporting. Water Power (Youtube video) (Television newscast). Fox 26 News. Retrieved 2007-04-15.
• "Maxing Your Mileage (transcript?)". Fox News Chicago. 2005-08-16. Retrieved 2006-05-29. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Rogers, Will (Nov 27, 2005). "Clearwater Man Puts Technology To Work". Tampa Tribune. Retrieved 2005-11-29.
• Adams, David (October 12, 2006). "Florida's very own water fueled car". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved 2007-03-01.
• "Water Could One Day Replace Gas". KSBI-TV 52 Oklahoma. May 23, 2006. Retrieved 2007-03-01.
• "Somebody's Got To Do It". East Texas News KTRE 9. 05/31/06. Retrieved 2007-03-01. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• "Cars Running On Water?". KXAN, Austin, TX. May 24, 2006. Retrieved 2007-03-01.
• Channel 2 News in California?
• Wave 3 News - Louisville, KY
  • "Water Car has its Critics" - added to YouTube June 30, 2006
  • "Water-powered Car Technology Attractive to Many" - added to YouTube June 30, 2006
  • Flack, Eric (July 12, 2006). "Big Names Interested in Water Powered Car". Wave 3 News. Retrieved 2007-03-01.
  • Flack, Eric (Sep 6, 2006). "Car Powered By Water A Reality". Wave 3 News. Retrieved 2007-03-01.

Just look at all the idiots in the Youtube comments for number 7.  :-) — Omegatron 23:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, you said "this article", but you're voting for the deletion of two separate articles. Please read both Brown's gas and HHO gas before voting to delete. — Omegatron 00:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Your user page

A review mechanism is needed for anonymous edits. Most vandalism is done anonymously.'

What do you think of this? — Omegatron 00:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

High-Frequency Gravitational Waves

An editor has asked for a deletion review of High-Frequency Gravitational Waves. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Csblack 19:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please check: Original Research only - and kindly revise RV

We copy our text herein to enable you a good examination and you can even selectively add something worthy, o.k?:

• We are a German group of Astronomers, using distributed computing (sorry: IP changes, I can do nothing).
• We read that you hate Black holes? A joke or really?
• We hate meanwhile (!!!) all singularities in the space.
• We thought we could at least initiate a help for your intention:
• We have an old astronomer, fighting with mathematics since 25 years, offering 25.000€ if anyone find a logic fault and...
• We linked for this EINSTEIN 1905 Original [7]!
• We found there calculation of Einstein: Infinite universe collides with Black body radiation by an infinite potential!
• We linked this original German Einstein paper also to show quite seriously that not only BB produces a 2.7°K temperature!!!
• We linked it also to show that not only BB - as one GR-solution only - can produce a "redshift" related to distances.
• We added - here nowhere found(?) but rather "old news" - to article Antigravity as a reality, s. there in first section.
• We added here crucial in WIKI partially - but nowhere found in total - published(?) GR-solutions and effects.
• WE PUT AFTER:

The Einstein field equations

...Einstein introduced an alternative form of the field equations to accommodate a static universe solution in his theory:

$G_{ab}+\Lambda \ g_{ab}=\kappa \,T_{ab}$

where $\Lambda$ is the cosmological constant and g_ab is the spacetime metric....

NEW ADDED HERE:

Mentioned cosmological constant (Einstein's constant) was initially added to have a constant (not stable!) universe to prevent

• a collapsing universe by gravity of masses,
• an expanding universe by a kind of "interstellar gas pressure",
• both together, producing a cosmologic oscillation.
• singular solutions: Black holes or Big bang with a quite different Einstein constant adapted to visible redshift.

GR-solutions and effects

The two first solutions of GR by Schwarzschild astonished Einstein [[8]]

• 1. The first Schwarzschild solution uses singularities, interpreted as:
• - a) a big sink like Black holes (in 3 Dim.),
• - b) or as a source like Big bang, beginning always in time and space in 4 Dim.
• 2. The second Schwarzschild solution is the most simple volume-integration within a huge shell (r=R or D) with equally distributed gravity masses (charges).
• 3. A more general solution of GR is an oscillation within two extremes:
• - a) Maximal huge universe, finally imploding by gravity with initially minimum gas-tension,
• - b) Minimum space, by a maximal compressed interstellar gas exploding.
• 4. Exponentional solutions as proposed by de Sitter.
• Each superposition of a solution is another valid solution of GR!

Einstein effects

• Gravity influences photons. The gravity of a sun produces deviations (Gravitational lensing)
• It also diminishes centripetally the potential energy emitted by any kind of a gravity centre.

Gravitational redshift

• Einstein's calculations implied Gravitational redshift by masses by integration of the potential in mainly equally distributed interstellar material (s. dark matter), increasing with R (masses increase by R², gravity diminishes by 1/R). This would maen an imploding space in the original GR solutionas and was nowhere desired: While velocity of a photon remains c, loss of energy produces less frequency (see pict. "Graphic representing the gravitational redshift of a neutron star" in Gravitational redshift). A huge shell of Gauss' theorem simplifies the potential: “The sum of all sources minus the sum of all sinks within the surface of any Volume gives the net flow out of the considered region... applied to a gravitational field we get that the surface integral is -4πG times the mass inside, regardless of how the mass is distributed, and regardless of any masses outside”.

• Fritz Zwicky calculaed in "On the Red Shift of Spectral Lines through Interstellar Space" [[9]] p.775ff such a loss of Gravitational Potential by masses: Differentiation of the Potential by dt gives the momentum of a mass (m*v) within a sphere of a diameter D of an universe; then he took v=c and the Planck-mass of photons as valid in a Potential-field m = h $\nu \$ /c² and calculated for redshift: “Light travelling a distance L then would lose the momentum... = l.4πfpDL/c².". His theory was at his time the Cosmological standard. Even Hubble wrote in a letter to Dr. Robert Andrews Millikan, 15 May 1952: “Personally I should agree with you that this hypothesis (Tired light) is more simple and less irrational for all of us" (e.g. [10] - p.33).

Einstein's redshift for an infinite radius of the universe

Einstein, Albert Ueber einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt 1905 [11] shows (by Line integral until infinity) that an infinite universe would provoke the physics: Black body radiation defines the limit of calculations for redshifts at f=0. Thus the Planck law limits the radius by a lowest possible radiation of 2.7°K. This would mean that such a Minimum of Cosmic microwave background radiation is a general limint for photons, not only for Big bang.

Negative matter

Antigravity by negative matter would complete Einstein's theory (s. Application of the GEM theory of Gravity-Electromagnetism Unification to the problem of Controlled Gravity, Theory and Experiment - lit. [12]):

• A negative gravity could accelerate the speed of far objects in the universe, demanded by De Sitter space or dark energy.
• Negative matter shows negative gravitation effects (calculations by Gauss' theorem).
• It weakens the positive gravity field by a negative mass.
• If there exist no real mass in a volume, the perturbed gravity field should lead to a negative mass layer and a lifting force in space.

German Astro Group 84.158.252.188 22:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

---

First of all, it is my advice that you people put this stuff on talk:general relativity and get more comments there. However, this does not appear to me to be mainstream general relativity, which is what the Wikipedia general relativity article is intended to document. Please realize that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original throught, nor is it a research journal, nor is it a bulliten board. I could just as easily hype my own ideas in the article space, but I don't.

You will not get much help from me due to my anti-black hole views. I make a strong distinction between my personal views and those of the scientific community as a whole, and have great respect for the later even if I do not care to agree 100% with it. I see my work on the GR article as laying the foundation for a good article on my own work, if and when it should become a serious part of the scientific body of knowledge. Because of that, my goal is to present general relativity theory as it is currently understood and not as how myself or anyone else would like it to be understood.

If there is something in your writings that can be a useful addition to the article, I will gladly incorporate it. As-is I see a lot of minutia, some of which is covered in the article, some at other articles (such as Schwarzschild solution and tired light), and other stuff that seems original to yourselves and is therefore original research and inadmissible. --EMS | Talk 22:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks EMS! Sorry, one problem was to adapt our text into a given structure

(Remark: Tried to read your "Flat background general relativity" - hard stuff...) Correct is: no mainstream! But old GERMAN EINSTEIN-ORIGINAL-GR 1905, indicating even the most simple, forgotten but important (singularity-free) solution! Please read it very slowly (not easy to read! Easier than yours?) or colleagues. It is pure old wine, obviously forgotten GR founded - crucial for our ORIGINAL RESEARCH and our main ground for nearly all previous text; reminder as most important and normally to be put previously:

Einstein's redshift for an infinite radius of the universe

Einstein, Albert Ueber einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt 1905 [13] shows (by Line integral until infinity) that an infinite universe would provoke the physics: Black body radiation defines the limit of calculations for redshifts at f=0. Thus the Planck law limits the radius by a lowest possible radiation of 2.7°K. This would mean that such a Minimum of Cosmic microwave background radiation is a general limint for photons, not only for Big bang.

German Astro Group 84.158.213.70 23:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply from EMS

I thank you all for grasping that original research does not belong here. All to often the people pushing their own ideas think that Wikipedia is here to promote the "truth" instead of to describe that which is generally known (or currently believed) to be true.

I will look over you stuff when I get a chance, and thank you for looking at mine. I agree that my article is "hard stuff", which is kind of unfortunate, but I do keep trying to improve on my theory and its presentation. In any case, I am in a revision cycle for now, and am hoping to get the article onto arXiv.org soon. --EMS | Talk 02:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

THANKS, we put it really better as GR-solutions

• 1. Here related linked article solutions of the Einstein field equations was mainly a stub, stopt already at necessary 20 conditions but had not any real Integral solution! We could hardly understand it...

• 2. HERE you should at least consider not only original Einstein but also (best found?) links to "negative matter" because this could be a significant WIKI-improve, also generally to try to declare Dark energy by one kind of Antigravity by negative matter to complete Einstein's theory (s. Application of the GEM theory of Gravity-Electromagnetism Unification to the problem of Controlled Gravity, Theory and Experiment - SPRINGER-LINK [14]):

• 3. Trying to help a bit (also to understand better your "hard stuff"?) we suppose to consider an incredile FEYNMAN CALCULATION with 7 coordinates (we understand it as two 3D-spaces 3D + 3D + ct?) with incredibly simple results in [[15]]

German Astro Group 84.158.247.66 17:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

GR solution page reverted - Please stop spamming

Please stop trying to put your write-up in the article space. It is a poorly worded and poorly formatted text that either covers issues already dealt with in Wikipedia or is original research. Wikipedia is not a bulliten board. Wikipedia is not USENET. This is not the type of stuff that people are looking to find in an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is and encyclopedia. You continuing to put a set text into the article space constitutes wikispam and is not appreciated. --EMS | Talk 18:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Please be fair! where is any SPAM?

84.158.218.63 20:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC) and where are found in WIKI all mentioned GR-integrations as solutions? 84.158.218.63 20:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Response on spamming

The way that you are placing this text is spamming. Note that the issue is your behavior, not the contents of your post. As for the solutions, there are articles on many of them, but you are correct that solutions of the Einstein field equations, which should be a comprehensive overview of these solutions, fails to provide one. However, your text covers a lot of ground and the solutions of GR is only a small piece of it.

If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, then you need to hunker down and find ways to add value to the articles. That means writing in good English prose, placing content where it is most needed, and working with the existing content. Instead you are often seeking to insert new wording on items that are already covered in Wikipedia (susch as you description of black holes). To make matters worse, the fact that you all are not fluent in English means has resulted in a text that is very hard to understand, and therefore diminishes the value of the articles that contain it.

Once again, if you want to get anywhere here in Wikipedia, then you need to place your contested text in talk:general relativity and let the overall community work with it, as this includes a number of people who are fluent in both German and English. I will warn you now that you will not get this stuff past me by keeping it on this user talk page. However, I will step aside for a consensus to place all or part of your text somewhere in Wikipedia (assuming that you are somehow able to obtain said consensus). --EMS | Talk 21:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much but let this part be a (last?) discussion - s. 6.:

• 1. We try to do what you say; since "our" - for old theories highly competent - French Prof. (>85 y.o.) returned after visits over here, we "swim" (a bit? or too visible? so unable to publish without help)...

• 2. You are right! But as "ghost-writer" I only try (with not enough English; who can help? really Talk-page?) to make a for me (too) "huge" compression of what we got, mainly from too roughly indicated sources hardly to find and meanwhile rare becoming phone discussions with the old Univ-Prof.; He worked close with "Annalen der Physik" (French HP).
• - We encountered him 2006 at an Astro-fair where DOBSON spoke officially for a here well known German Scientific Newspaper, both hating mentioned extreme "singularities" as BHs or BB (remark: both "healable").
• - He knows rather nothing about PCs and WWW but says that he got tired to argue about gravity related GR, frustrated "like FEYNMAN" ([16]).

• 3. With (too much?) efforts we tried to get informations at 2 visits here and there as a part of his "old fashioned" knowledge, defended by him (really too?) stubbornly. Meanwhile he seems to resign because conversation became seldom and rather hard.

• 4. THIS PROF. INDICATED - we didn’t believe it, but saw widely, as in engl. WIKI:
• a) GENERAL SOLUTIONS OF GR are too rarely indicated in most of famous publications...
• b) Physicians seem blind to see (mentioned) most banal resolutions, even accepted by Einstein:
• - The second Schwarzschild solution 1915 for ("gleichverteilte Gase") isotropic (all equally distributed) gas;
• - exactly same FIRST Friedman-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker solution - forgot above,
• - how Fritz Zwicky became a laughter-stock trying to declare these trivial solution for isotropic gases as "photons getting tired" by interactions with all molecules and gravity centres.
• - Exponential solutions incl. resonancy between two extremes;

• 5. RESULT: He meant, too many physicians of today obviously know

- ALL from NOTHING, especially referring to the infinitesimal METRIC TENSORS their knowledge stops (here after 20 boundaries and 14 facts! 6 estimations?) but from the ALL knowing NOTHING? - he meant (approx.): “unable to understand basic principles of banal integrations“ as still Einstein had made; ref. to the same meaning of FEYNMAN...

• 6. REMINDER: Eistein's GR firstly was against all consensus - until PLANCK's honoration as widely written...

German Astro Group84.158.249.148 13:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Annex: could you accept those basic known integral solutions?:

GR-solutions, effects

• 1. The first Schwarzschild solution handles singularities:
• - a) a big sink like Black holes, "stop time" at Schwarzschild radius;
• - b) a source like a Big bang beginning in time and space.
• 2. The second or “inner Schwarzschild solution” is simply any isotropic (equally distributed) continuum within a sphere, and the Friedman-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker solution; both a volume-integration within a shell (e.g. r=R of a sun, even r=D of the universe) accumulating amount of the potential field of equally distributed (charges) growing linear until a border of the universe, calculation applicable in solids, fluids or gases.
• 3. Another general solution of GR is an oscillation within the following single valid extreme solutions:
• - a) Initially maximal huge universe, finally beginning to implode (e.g. by gravity with initially minimum gas-tension),
• - b) Initially minimum space - e.g. maximal compressed interstellar gas, finally exploding.
• 4. Exponentional solutions proposed by de Sitter.
• 5. Note: Each superposition of a valid single solution is another valid solution of GR!

German Astro Group 84.158.203.126 14:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Annex:

HHO gas

"I would love to know why you are so adamant about these topics needing coverage, to the point that you are willing to grasp at any straw to assert notability."

Sigh.

I would love to know why you are so adamant about these topics being deleted. Notability has been demonstrated many times as per our guidelines. See WP:N and WP:SCIENCE. What do you think is hurt by inclusion of these topics? Why do you think they're not as notable as, say, water-fuelled cars, hydrino theory, cloudbusters, the Biefeld-Brown effect, or the Philadelphia Experiment, to name just a few?

And why do you persist in labeling me a proponent in spite of all the evidence to the contrary? Do you realize that I've been debunking crap like this on Wikipedia for four years? Did you even bother to read through my userpage, my contributions to the talk page or, gods forbid, the article itself before making such accusations? Do you normally believe things like Nomen's claims without doing any research to verify their credibility? — Omegatron 13:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I find it very frustrating the way you use very trick in the book to assert a non-existant notability. Everything from piggyback notability to acting like those silly short news clips somehow prove it to even the journal article that noone has cited. If you are not a proponent of this crap, then why do you want it promoted here? The topic does not deserve its own article! As for your examples:

• Water-fuelled car is actually a good overview on the topic, and the sum of the parts I will admit as being notable enough for Wikipedia. Whether all of the cited means deserve an article is another issue.
• hydrino theory I'm not sure about. The statement in the introduction that it has not had attention in the scientific community almost certainly means that it fails WP:SCIENCE. The large number of citations indicates that it could be notable, but in cases like this that is often an illusion. So research is needed to determine if anything is there in terms of public awareness or other non-academic notability criteria and if not to craft a good AfD against it.
• Cloudbuster looks like AfD bait to me. I may put it up.
• Biefeld-Brown effect also looks like AfD bait, but not as blatantly as cloudbuster is. Like hydrino theory, it needs some research and (if justified) a carefully crafted AfD.
• Philadelphia experiment appears to have the makings of a notable hoax. In other words it is (or at least seems to be) that which you claim HHO gas is.

Once again Wikipedia is not an indicriminate collector of information. The argument that you present of "but these things are there" really does not wash with me and is what I will call the "slippery slope of Wikipedia", and is another piece of evidence of how badly you want the articles to exist. IMO, a line needs to be drawn and enforced. HHO gas is obviously on the wrong side of the line as I see it, and that is that. That other items which apprear to you to be of a similar are in Wikipedia is irrelevant. Either they do meet notability standards, or they are also AfD bait themselves. HHO gas and Brown's gas must stand on their own in they are to be included, and not by virtue of comparison to anything else in Wikipedia.

Inidividually these oxyhydrogen scams do not rate articles. Each one is very isolated and of fairly limited knowledge. As part of a larger pattern, the pattern may well rate an article (as is the case for water-fuelled car). That is part of the reason why I approve of these items being redirected oxyhydrogen if these scams should be covered there.

BTW - You claim to want to debunk these scams. It seems to me that showing that they are part of a pattern is helpful to doing this. It also means that these scams are not given an undue significance by virtue of their having independent articles. --EMS | Talk 01:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I find it very frustrating the way you use very trick in the book to assert a non-existant notability.

Like what? — Omegatron 19:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Do you have any ideas on how to track down these articles? Academic Sources Noah Seidman 19:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I googled "SAE Technical Series" and ended up at this Michigan Tech site. I looks like a compendium of articles on alternate automotive technologies. I see no obvious evidence of review, so this may be a formal but unreliable technical article service. --EMS | Talk 02:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

DC Meetup notice

Greetings. There is going to be a Washington DC Wikipedia meetup on next Saturday, July 21st at 5pm in DC. Since you are listed in Category:Wikipedians_in_Virginia, I thought I'd invite you to come. I'm sorry about the short notice for the meeting. Hopefully we'll do somewhat better in that regard next time. If you can't come but want to make sure that you are informed of future meetings be sure to list yourself under "but let me know about future events", and if you don't want to get any future direct notices \(like this one\), you can list yourself under "I'm not interested in attending any others either" on the DC meetup page.--Gmaxwell 22:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm in the area and now plan to be there. --EMS | Talk 04:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Dingle article removed from my watchlist for the immediate future

Over the years, special relativity has been subjected to a series of tests, not of its

experimental predictions, but of its very logic. Many of its predictions, such as the slowing of time on moving clocks, were deemed to be so strange, so beyond normal experience, that there had to be something wrong with the theory. The idea was to find “paradoxes”, simple situations where the theory could be shown to be logically inconsistent. Of course, there are no paradoxes! To be sure, the idea of time dilation may be hard to understand or to swallow, but there is absolutely nothing paradoxical

about it.

NPOV vio and attempt to "shove" something down people's throats regarding Dingle? If so, pull the entire reference out, along with the article text it supports. I wish I hadn't even included it now. I am asking for your input here. Thanks. Tim Shuba 07:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)