Talk:Fizeau experiment

HoekExperiment1.png

The illustration seems to imply that Hoek, in this version of his experiment, was testing different colors of light for differences in aether drag. Is this in fact the case? Otherwise, why the prism? Thanks - Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

See s:fr:Determination de la vitesse avec laquelle est entrainée. Hoek only says that the prism was used to "analyze" the ray (p. 190), and partly enters it by refraction (see description below fig. 2, p. 191). He doesn't mention that he was testing differences in aether drag due to different colors. --D.H (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I see. "Analyze" means to spread out into a spectrum. The light in one circuit is retarded 7/600 mm with respect to the other. That corresponds to about 30 wavelengths of violet light or 17 wavelengths of deep red light, so there should be 13 fringes across a full spectrum. Hoek says 10 fringes, which is close enough... he wasn't using the whole spectrum, but probably only the brightest part from red to blue. Dispersion effects are very small in comparison. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

A remark that doesn't exactly seem to fit

On April 21, Czyx added the remark that I've put in bold face: "Fizeau's experiment is hence supporting evidence for the collinear case of Einstein's velocity addition formula.and the earliest refutation of the emission theory of light". While Czyx seemed well-intentioned, I'm not exactly sure that his addition could be considered true (nor untrue), and the emission theory of light was certainly not considered an important topic of debate in 1851. I'd like to remove his remark as out of place. Thoughts on this? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, emission theories are not the topic here. --D.H (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. BTW, can you check over Martin Hoek? Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice article

It would surely pass a GA review with a just a little bit of work. Nice job! YohanN7 (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! This article is mostly what it is because of D.H's efforts, who is now retired from Wikipedia. My role was mostly to translate his Germanic English idiosyncrasies into standard English, besides a few minor additions of my own. I wish there was some way I could let D.H know that his work is still very much appreciated. Anyhow, I'll go over the article against the GA standards before nominating. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

By the way, there is a new summary section of the main article [here]. YohanN7 (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fizeau experiment/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Fearstreetsaga (talk · contribs) 16:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Good job on the article; it was a very interesting read. Comments:

Lead

• The citations in the lead aren't needed since the content appears elsewhere in the article

Y Deleted citations in lede after double-checking body of article. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Fresnel drag coefficient

• "velocity v" --> "speed v"

Y Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Ref S6: No page number

Will pay visit to university library on weekend Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Y I was a bit confused since S6 is now S3 because of the removal of the lede citations. Using the rp template, I've added the page range 15–20 to the section discussing Einstein's addition formula. To be completely precise, Lorentz's comment on the dispersive term is on page 18, but I'd rather cite the complete section.

• The use of punctuation after an equation is inconsistent. E.g., a period is placed after Lorentz's formula under this section but is missing from his formula under "Lorentz's interpretation".

Y Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Repetitions

• "Fizeau's tubes were of small diameter resulting in observational difficulties" Could you elaborate on this?

Y I also elaborated on "there were uncertainties in Fizeau's determination of flow rate" since this is a related issue that Michelson also addressed. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hoek experiment

• I suggest adding a caption explaining what the spectrums in the image represent. It's not immediately obvious just by looking at the image alone.

Y Added caption. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Controversy

• "see section above" A link to the relevant section would be useful

Y Done. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• "On one hand, the aberration of light, the Fizeau experiment and the repetition by Michelson and Morley in 1886 appeared to prove the (almost) stationary aether with partial aether-dragging." Too verbose. What about something like "On one hand, the aberration of light, the Fizeau experiment and the repetition by Michelson and Morley in 1886 appeared to support partial aether-dragging."

Y Done. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Lorentz's interpretation

• S1: No page number

Y S1 is now S10 because of removal from references from lede. Added appropriate page numbers via rp template.

• "He succeeded in deriving Fresnel's dragging coefficient by the reaction of the moving water upon the interfering waves" The meaning of this is unclear to me

Y I hope that the following wording represents an improvement? "He succeeded in deriving Fresnel's dragging coefficient as the result of an interaction between the moving water with an undragged aether." Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Derivation in special relativity

• "approximating to the first non-trivial correction" Could you define this?

Y Replaced with "dropping higher order terms" Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• There appears to be an inconsistency italicizing v and c throughout the article: In this section there are v and c that are italicized and not italicized

Fearstreetsaga (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Y Italicized. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Fearstreetsaga: Article should be ready for your re-review. Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Great work. I'm satisfied this article meets the GA criteria, so I'll pass it. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Fresnel Dragging can be explained by Classical Physics

The effect known as Fresnel Dragging can be fully explained and visualized in terms of Classical Physics when the transmission of light through moving optical media (such as water) is modeled as a process of continual absorption and emission rather than a continuous process determined by the medium’s refractive index. Previously the result of the famous Fizeau experiment has been explained using Special Relativity, however Classical Physics can explain the effect.

This link show the maths and explanation for Fresnel Dragging using only Classical Physics: http://gpcpublishing.com/index.php?journal=gjp&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=386

Declan Traill (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not accept wp:original research (see wp:NOTFORUM), and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion (see wp:PROMOTION). Wikipedia needs reliable relevant wp:secondary sources. This was explained extensively to you at Talk:Michelson–Morley_experiment#The_Lorentz_Ether_Theory_should_be_acknowledged_as_a_possible_alternative_to_Special_Relativity. Contunuing this will get you blocked and the publishing site likely blacklisted. - DVdm (talk) 06:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Link to french page

This article is about the experiment to measure the relative speed of light in a moving medium. The french page in link is about the measure of the speed of light (between Montmartre and Mont Valérien, in Paris). Stefjourdan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.47.106.8 (talk) 05:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I presume that you are referring to Fizeau's 1849 paper Sur une experience relative a la vitesse de propagation de la lumière. I don't see that paper referenced in this article. Is one of the links in the article inadvertently leading to that paper, even though the link references another? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

There still is a link to a page of the French Wikipedia that is not about this experiment but something else Hippolyte Fizeau has done.

Fresnel dragging coefficient?

Exactly, Fresnel dragging coefficient should be rather called dragging factor or dragging ratio being dimensionless. See ISO/IEC 80000 series standards for terms coefficient, factor, ratio. JOb 22:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

You will have to convince the literature first:

Google	Scholar	Books
"Fresnel dragging coefficient"	99	433
"Fresnel drag coefficient"	171	584

- DVdm (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding my signature. Just, I have improved that, and the title too.

Concerning frequency of using (Fresnel dragging) coefficient, nothing to do -- you are right, too.

Concerning definitions of coefficient and factor, see Electropedia:

IEV ref 112-03-03

coefficient

quotient of two quantities of different dimensions, used as a multiplier to express the proportionality equation between them

Note 1 – A coefficient is a quantity having a dimension other than one. Examples: Hall coefficient, damping coefficient, temperature coefficient, gyromagnetic coefficient.

IEV ref 112-03-04

factor

ratio of two quantities, used as a multiplier to express the proportionality equation between them

Note 2 – A factor is a quantity of dimension one. Examples: coupling factor, quality factor, peak factor, power factor.

Fortunately, the concept itself is already obsolete (in fact, relativistic adition of speeds solves it immediately and exactly), so the term is not so important any more. JOb 22:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Please indent your talk page messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT — See Help:Using talk pages. Hoping you don't mind, I have slightly reformatted your reply along these guidelines. Thanks.

This is all interesting, but in Wikipedia we cannot run ahead of the current literature, so we must keep the most common terms. - DVdm (talk) 06:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

OK. Thanks! JOb 08:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Light in moving air

The article should also say that Fizeau performed the same experiment in moving air and observed no fringe shift, i.e. no drag; and that this result is compatible with Fresnel's theory (Fizeau, H. (1851). "Sur les hypothèses relatives à l'éther lumineux". Comptes Rendus. 33: 349–355.).

I think you are confused. Immediately following his experiment report on air, Fizeau mentions that he got a null result *only because of the insensitivity of the device: He says "According to the hypothesis of Fresnel, the same displacement ought to be only 0.000465, that is to say, entirely imperceptible." Aether drag is determined by refractive index in Fresnel's theory and is not nil in air. IE there is expected drag in air in Fresnel's theory and Fizeau properly understood this. It seems you've misunderstood Fresnel's theory predictions. Nemesis75 (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

It is already stated in the lede that Fizeau performed the same experiment in air. "When he repeated the experiment with air in place of water he observed no effect. His results seemingly supported the partial aether-drag hypothesis of Fresnel, a situation that was disconcerting to most physicists." Where do you believe that the article is confused about the predictions of Fresnel's theory? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

That's just a bad timing of reporting facts confusing you. The first fact is only incidentally related to the second. It does not lead to it. "He observed no effect in air"=true "His results supported aether drag"=true. One does not lead to the other. The null is contrary to the fact that it was positive in water. However it's okay that he got null in air because it's so small. The positive is still expected to be there... just too small for that experiment to detect. I'm sorry but believe you don't understand the context of the history. Nemesis75 (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Note to dispute reviewers: This section is not part of dispute resolution in any way. This is complete, resolved, and is separate from dispute on notice board. (though perhaps not so emotionally?) Nemesis75 (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Apparent original research

@Nemesis75: From the Controversy section, I removed the addition

Alternatively, one must adopt the ad hoc hypothesis that the properties of aether change to a Nonlinear_system such as found in the Soliton in the presence of matter.

You need to justify this assertion with an appropriate reference. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

This is just a well established part of non-linear wave phenomena. The references are in the nonlinear systems and soliton articles. Read them and understand them before vandalizing my additions. We don't have to justify every sentence about things that have been understood for a century. If you want more context, the author referenced at this point is a historian who is just faithfully reporting on a paper written in the 1800s. A paper written by an author wholly ignorant of 150 years of scientific progress. So if the date of the previous reference is throwing you off then change the reference to the actual author of the statement, not the historian re-reporting the ignorant position Nemesis75 (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Soliton phenomena are indeed well-established. I merely need a clear-cut reference that states, without any WP:SYNTHESIS on your part, that the observed dependence of apparent aether dragging on wavelength can be explained via soliton phenomena. Stating that the relationship between partial aether dragging and solitons should be obvious to anybody who has read up about these phenomena is not sufficient. Who is this "historian who is just faithfully reporting on a paper written in the early 1800s"? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

No it's not actually soliton phenomena that is responsible. That's an example not the mechanism. Is that unclear?? Yikes, maybe I do need to reword it then... The mechanism is non-linearity of mediums leading to waves of different frequencies having different refraction qualities.

The point is that Stachel -a historian - (the preceding paper cited) is reporting the comments of an 1800s paper when it says in his paper "different mediums for every wavelength would be required" That is not his assertion but a very old historical source's assertion. It's a purely scientifically false statement with around a century of falsifying experimental knowledge. We now know that a nonlinearity can occur in a mechanical medium that leads to differing refraction profiles. One single medium can refract mechanical waves in it, at different frequencies in different ways. It does not require multiple mediums. That's what happens in a soliton (the example) This is not synthesis, this is merely scientific fact you'll find references for in the soliton article and in the nonlinear article. I guess you could accuse me of being lazy though... Nemesis75 (talk) 03:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally a soliton occurs because there is a cancellation of the normal dispersion. It's really cool because it "undoes" the "spectrum" or separation of frequencies that a medium should cause. This leads to self-reinforcement. So I guess, if you did do a little reading, I could see how you could misunderstand that I was referring to the mechanism of non-linearity, not the example of solitons. You accidentally "intuited" a hypothesis that does actually exist in which photons are modeled as solitons in a medium. Nice job! Nemesis75 (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I am familiar with Stachel, who was reporting on conclusions reached by Veltmann and by Mascart. Nonlinearity indeed results in waves of different frequencies having different speeds through a given medium, and yes, this is a well-known fact and possibly does not require an explicit reference. However, the question is how non-linearity can result in wavelength-dependent DRAGGING, which is a very different thing and for which we most definitely need a source. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The idea of dragging is inextricably tied with index of refraction in Fresnel's theory. So the reference needed is how "wavelength-dependent dragging" occurs. That's the new assertion without scientific basis. Tell Mascart or Veltmann to give you that reference.

But, as you've stated it, you've made a category error. There's a problem with your hierarchy/arrangement of concepts. The non-linearity is a result of the partial dragging which is a modern understanding of actual wave phenomena that opposes the nonsensical/ignorant/old assertion of "different mediums required."

The crucial part is PARTIAL DRAGGING. How does the "partial" aspect of that work? There are a crapton of old obsolete hypotheses that are irrelevant to a real, modern, scientifically accurate article.

If you want the history, Fresnel explained it in terms of some light traveling in a stationary aether and some travelling in the aether carried along with (near) matter. Whitaker explains it in "Aether and electricity" vol1 p110 if you have it.

However, placing that reference here in the article is too much digression. We could totally remove the mascart/veltmann nonsense entirely but that would be a disservice to relevant history. However, leaving it to seem like an actually scientific statement is completely unacceptable as well.

Going back to the history...

In essense, for Fresnel's explanation of the theory, the light travels in both a moving and nonmoving medium at the same time and one has to sort-of average out the effects. (the non-linearity here is explicitly stated without the word "non-linear") Yes, Index of refraction was used as a measure of how much aether was presently being dragged along so, yes, that can confuse you if you oversimplify it to only that information about refractive index instead of what occurs in mechanical waves in mediums if the medium is moving at multiple speeds. Hopefully this grants you some insight as to why Mascart et al would be confused if they didn't understand how to treat non-linearity in a mechanical wave propagating in the mixed state of two different speeds of a single medium. (which results in non-linearity)

The faulty presumption made was this: if index of refraction is mediated by light speed, (different per frequency) then light speed is changed according to amount dragged, then different aethers are required. However what was asserted is refraction is just an incidental measurement of how much aether is carried along because it coincides with a property of matter that also causes light's speed to be altered per frequency. A stationary prism still refracts in Fresnel's theory. Light's speed is still changed per frequency. The dragging effect is irrelevant to the differences in speeds caused by a property of matter. It merely coincides with it. (again, it's a hierarchy of concepts problem) IE the motion is not the source of the deviation so one need not have different motions for each type of deviation. In Fresnel's conception all the light would be altered by motion. All types of light, the speed is changed the same. Then it would be altered by refraction effects which are a constant property of a medium. These are two different things. Matter effects light in a way that alters it's speed, period. Matter effects aether in a way tied to the way it affects light. This is fairly easy to conflate, but it's separate.

So again - refocusing - well established mechanical wave science (that is the intended correction, not the aether) tells us that a partially entrained medium can exhibit non-linear properties (maybe this is the reference you want?) and cause changes to refraction, dispersion, etc. Multiple mediums are NOT REQUIRED to perform this feat as suggested by Mascart(?) some century ago. This is about mechanical wave science, not just aether hypothesis, or aether drag. It's about a mechanical wave in a medium with multiple component speeds of that medium.

So at this point all I can really give is a link to explain non-linearity and an example of it. Thus we are back at the beginning. A concise reporting of relevant info about scientific consensus and history that avoids confusion about old/outdated historical misconceptions of complexities within *mechanical wave phenomena.

Hopefully you now understand the full set of issues that must be addressed. If you think there is a better way to address the problem with the article, I'm open to suggestion. Nemesis75 (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, "partial dragging" is something that occurs in the real world with mechanical waves. As wind passes through the hair of a tennis ball there is a "carrying along" of the air. There is not some perfect border of carried and not carried air, there's a sort of continuum of effects that is best abstracted to some sort of average if you want to calculate the bending of paths and speeds of various frequencies of sound near that tennis ball. Nemesis75 (talk) 05:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

In other words, you are unable to provide a reference that explicitly covers these issues in regards to aether-dragging. We have only the above WP:SYNTHESIS. Wikipedia is not a forum for editors to engage in WP:ORIGINAL. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 05:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

In other words you don't follow basic mechanics even when explained to you in excruciating detail. Trying to "tell on" me (by repeating yelling WP:SYNTHESIS hoping the teacher will hear it) about my talk page explanation is really transparent. I regret attempting to educate you since the speed of your response indicates you didn't read or understand.

I CAN, however, give the reference that EXPLICITLY covers these issues in regards to aether dragging. I can include the above from whittaker -requiring additional article input- or we can delete all reference to "multiple aethers" AND my comment... OR leave my edit. One or the other. You're just being recalcitrant because you don't get it. (just like you didn't grok that the Fizeau null in air was experimental error) No "synthesis" required AND we don't misrepresent well established mechanical wave theory. I'm not going to let this article misrepresent well-established and well understood science of mechanical waves.. Nemesis75 (talk) 05:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

In the last few hours, you have made a number of edits which were not unacceptable to me, but among these edits you sneaked in your original research. I have hence reverted to revision of 08:34, 1 January 2022 by user:7clem until issues are resolved here via consensus. Attempting to do an end-run around the consensus process is not appreciated. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

As I have just stated, most of your edits made between 05:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC) and 11:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC) were not unacceptable to me. But you really need to provide a reliable source for

Alternatively, one must adopt the ad hoc hypothesis that the properties of aether change to a Nonlinear_system such as found in the Soliton in the presence of matter.

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

You have no reason other than spite to have blanked the nearly 1500 characters of my additional content. You give no legitimate reason to do so and this is unacceptable editing behavior. Continue to WP:VANDALIZE and you will be reported. Please see WP:VANDTYPES for information on illegitimate blanking. Here is an excerpt:

Content removal is not considered to be vandalism when the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary.

(Please also see WP:ONLYREVERT for more information on acceptable/non-acceptable editing behavior)

Your explanation that my further editing was "not acceptable to you" to you is clearly "frivolous explanation." You can't just blank nearly 1500 characters of unrelated content as part of your turf war and pretend it's part of the previous dispute. This most recent blanking is unambiguously retaliatory vandalism.

The previous blanking you have been engaged in was also WP:VANDALIZE under these rules as well because references were given in the form of wikipedia article links though, I suppose, personally speaking, the first blanking was forgivable confusion about a needed re-write. The continued behavior is not.

Wikipedia does not belong to you. This is not "your" page. Your feelings about what is or is not unacceptable is not valid reason for vandalism and turf war. This is your warning: Continuing to use illegitimate blanking can result in banning or other disciplinary action.

---

For the sake of attempting to resolve the actual disputed section, (and returning to that subject) I will attempt a rewrite of that section. Just for you. However, the references already exist in the pages given. They are the reference. You're requiring that I reference within a reference. If you believe hand-holding is required at this point then you should use the information given in my referenced Wikipedia articles to add more direct references. Use WP:NEEDCITE instead of vandalism in the future. It seems clear to me you have some specific narrative you wish to uphold and thus attempt to suppress inconvenient facts.

As I said, I will attempt another re-write of that section for your benefit even though you are wasting my time frivolously because you simply don't understand nearly a century of progress in non-linear systems and basics of wave mechanics. My re-write will not be legitimizing the anachronistic claims of ignorant, biased, 19th century metaphysics that you apparently want to uphold against 21st century consensus science.

Please remember that just because you can cite writings from the 18-19th century doesn't mean they are accurate or should be allowed to be expressed as legitimate in a knowledge repository that is supposed to be clearly expressing modern understanding of physical phenomena. Nemesis75 (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Concerns that the content added is WP:OR is not frivolous, nor was the removal vandalism under Wikipedia's definition of the term. You need to discuss the content itself and get a consensus for your preferred change rather than reinserting it into the article. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog has brought up this issue at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, so other editors will be able to see and address the concerns raised here. What I would suggest is writing a concise explanation as to why you believe the content belongs in the article, and to provide reliable sources that support your proposed changes. Per WP:ONUS, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. - Aoidh (talk) 03:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

There is a designated section on the notice, Summary of dispute by Nemesis75, where you may express your take on the dispute. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Unless and until Nemesis75 can provide sources and a concise explanation as to why the content belongs, I have no opinion on the matter one way or the other outside of the two points that (1) the removal was not vandalism, and that (2) there should be a consensus to include contentious unsourced new content when it has been challenged. That being said I do not think some of the content I reverted seems particularly appropriate; "Alternatively, one must adopt..." who is this one and why must they adopt anything? Also "Fizeau's surprise and expectations of what should be shown by his own experiment was intimated at the conclusion to the report" We should not give emotional qualities or similar descriptions to words, that's absolutely WP:OR. The quote certainly doesn't support that description. - Aoidh (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Homolog blanked ~1500 characters of unrelated text on the pretext of the previous dispute, and did so without reason. I am re-writing the disputed area and the nearby area to satisfy his previous dispute.

Please see blanking, illegitimate

I would appreciate a third party's look at the new content intended to settle the dispute. I said the only alternative was tremendous contextual work. I've now just done the work. Please read over it and help revise tone where needed. I attempted to retain as much of the previous state/tone as possible. Nemesis75 (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Nemesis75: to be clear once again, the editor reverting your edit was not an illegitimate blanking and was not vandalism. That you do not like the reason for its removal does not make it illegitimate. The editor gave a reason, a very good reason, for reverting your additions. - Aoidh (talk) 08:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

So, to clarify this was the reason given on the "vandalistic" revert:

"you again use the opportunity to drag in your Original Research, so I am rejecting the entire edit"

Therefore, because the single line in question still existed in the version, alongside unrelated new edits, it is wikipedia policy to revert all new edits by that person? Or are you saying re-inclusion (via revert) of disputed info, is a good reason to also blank any other edits made by that editor in the same version?

Can you please clarify how Because you included, I'm rejecting is a very good reason or are we talking about two different things? I'm talking about "Undid revision 1112028096" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fizeau_experiment&diff=1112048998&oldid=1112028096

Not simply about the single line he mentioned repeatedly and directly. Nemesis75 (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

That edit in your diff is not vandalism; that's not even close to what vandalism is, even under "illegitimate blanking". Reverting the edit because there is an issue with contents within the edit is a reason given, a valid reason, and not vandalism. I feel like we can and should drop the vandalism accusation, it's stale and very clearly these edits are not vandalism. - Aoidh (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Continuation of discussion from Dispute Resolution Noticeboard

@Nemesis75: Splitting our discussion between the article talk page and wp:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Fizeau_experiment is very awkward, so perhaps we should try to keep everything here. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I moved the following from the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and placed the moved content within blockquotes:

We may be simply crossed in signals at this point. I no longer care about the issue of whether or not you vandalized my work since I've completely re-edited the whole area. What concerns me now is the continued attack on my edits seems to be in preparation to justify future blanking of extremely careful and extremely time-consuming re-writing you made necessary via dispute. Inline replies found indented beneath blockquote bullets. Nemesis75 (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Nemesis75 has inadvertently misread Stachel's reporting of arguments advanced by various of Fizeau's contemporaries, including Veltmann and Mascart. In the late 1800s, Veltmann and Mascart noted that Fresnel's theory would imply that the hypothetical aether must simultaneously be in different states of motion for different colors of light (Veltmann) or for light of different polarizations (Mascart).

Yes, this is what he said, and no I didn't misread it. I quoted it directly. I left it up to people reading wikipedia to figure it out instead of giving my opinion on it. I agree with Prokaryotic's paraphrasing above. Above is adequate to represent Stachel's characterization of Veltmann and Mascart's work. It's exactly as I read Stachel and how I understood Stachel as well.

I have to assume you're aware of my re-write and now you're now campaigning to discredit my re-write to prepare for more blanking?

• Veltmann and Mascart did not state that multiple aethers simultaneously in different states of motion would be needed to explain the phenomenon of Dispersion (optics). Rather, multiple aethers in different states of motion would be needed to explain the entirely different phenomenon of differential aether dragging at different wavelengths of light (Veltmann) or different polarizations (Mascart), which Veltmann and Mascart both considered absurd.

-Let's just stop a moment to call out this root fundamental disconnect: "differential dragging at different wavelengths" would create dispersion-

1. I re-read through all of Stachel, Veltmann, and Mascart and I gave the exact quote from Veltmann that Stachel referred to in my re-write of the section. Unfortunately it appears Prokaryotic is not reading any of Veltmann or Mascart while still referencing them simply because Stachel does. I am referencing and referring directly to the source material in question, not the re-report of the source material. Veltmann and Mascart are in the epoch (1870) of the experimental subject of this article. Stachel's recent work (2005) is intended to be a work of historical revisionism which is fully represented and primarily supported in my re-write of the section.
2. Mascart was considering two modes of motion of the same aether. That which is dragged and that which is not. This is one medium in two modes of motion. This is factually and accurately thought of as differential aether dragging as Prokaryotic has stated, but he has not understood the subtle difference because from all his comments it is unmistakable that he has not read the original material to which he refers.
3. The context of the papers, which I give in the re-write, is experimentally examining mechanical wave speed differences created as they change from vacuum (aether) to the medium and whether the dragging is in whole or in part. This is done by using celestial light sources and the motion of the earth in context of stellar aberration as a rubric for expected outcomes. As Stachel states, there is indeed an eventual crises of implications that requires a relativistic solution. This I have also made clear(er) in the re-write.
4. The misunderstanding of Prokaryotic lies in the fundamental questions of experimental methods for differentiating partial from complete aether dragging using the deviation of light in a medium as measure of changes to light's speed from a celestial source. Prokaryotic is not comprehending the referenced material (Veltmann and Mascart) and their experimental method of inquiry because he is not using the source material, only citing it with perfect faith in his read of Stachel. It also appears that he doesn't understand that the speed of light in the medium, because it is causal, is practically inseparable from Dispersion (optics).

The dispute obviously comes from Prokaryotic's complete separation of "dragging of aether" from Dispersion (optics). Both are questions of light's propagation speed in a "ponderable medium." (matter was often called "ponderable" media to separate it from aether which is also sometimes called a "medium" when referring to mechanical wave properties) Dispersion was a crucial part of Veltmann's experimental and theoretical examination of Fresnel's partial aether drag that was the critically examined hypothesis of the paper. (The experimental regime of Mascart was birefringence, though his work anticipates and predicts the Michelson null)

• The lines that I object to reflect a crucial misunderstanding on Nemesis75's part of Veltmann's and Mascart's arguments. His arguments not only represent wp:ORIGINAL and wp:SYNTHESIS, they are based on an incorrect premise. Although Nemesis75 correctly noted on the Talk page that Dispersion (optics) results from nonlinear phenomena, this has nothing to do with differential aether dragging. I do not understand why Nemesis75 would need to mention solitons.

Non-linearity changes speeds of waves. Speeds of waves determine angles of propagation in media. Differential aether dragging is therefore testable by not only monochromatic interference but also by inspecting alterations to dispersion which are determined by the speed of waves. This is minimally required knowledge to be editing this article without butchering it.

Prokaryotic's objection can be traced to his use of guesswork from Stachel alone about the actually referenced material which is not only behind paywalls but also in French and German. His accusations of WP:OR are a blanket refusal that he applied to a single sentence with two article references in it and it is obviously the go-to cudgel to attack the slightest edit to his "turf." He is stating I misunderstand Veltmann when it is very clear to anyone versed in this material that he has not read Veltmann and is only referring to his overconfidence-by-proxy he gained from Stachel.

• Nemesis75's entire contribution to the article reflected (to varying degrees) this misunderstanding on his part. I felt that it was necessary to revert his entire contribution until we could clear up his misunderstanding of Veltmann and Mascart's arguments. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Prokaryotic, Why are we still even talking about your initial blanking, illegitimate? You were warned let's move on. I can't imagine you are unaware of the re-write so what is now your goal? To try more blanking in the future?

Unfortunately, while deciding to blank my edits based on his own "superior" understanding, Prokaryotic repeatedly demonstrates his complete lack of familiarity with the fundamental physical systems discussed and a pronounced ignorance of the source material he cites in numerous places. This includes very directly his inability to understand the contextual relevance of solitons he mentioned above. Even Stachel mentions the issue of "compensation" that is a major concern of both papers. (also reflected in re-write) The subject in question in the controversy that Stachel discusses and Mascart and Veltmann are testing, is the ad hoc nature of Fresnel's co-efficient for partial drag that performs an exact compensation. It seems like a too-convenient cancellation of aberration effects. That is the very source of their discomfort and a prefect compensation is exactly what solitons do. It's a 1:1 with the very nature of the genesis of the controversy Stachel is discussing and a core topic of this entire section of the article we are debating. It was laser precise and razor concise, and in retrospect, perhaps "to a fault."

Editing Format Note: I felt the format required line by line discussion. Please excuse the change from numbers to bullets. If you feel the need to re-edit this section, I will not object. I've tried to retain indentation consistency as a secondary cue of speaker. Alternatively, I can add my sig on all lines if you like. It's merely an attempt at readability for a very large number of specific criticisms and replies to them. (and I don't know text formatting on wikipedia very well)

Finally, your date reference for Stachel seems incorrect. This is what I get from Springer:

Cite this paper Stachel, J. (2005). Fresnel's (Dragging) Coefficient as a Challenge to 19th Century Optics of Moving Bodies. In: Kox, AJ, Eisenstaedt, J. (eds) The Universe of General Relativity. Einstein Studies, vol 11. Birkhäuser Boston. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-8176-4454-7_1

I would normally assume the older date but cannot readily find it. Nemesis75 (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

According to WP:Canvassing "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." However, it would be inappropriate for me to notify others "with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way." In the spirit of improving the discussion, I am inviting @DVdm:, @JRSpriggs:, @XOR'easter:, @Tjrob137: and @Dr Greg: to participate (if you have time), but I am not asking you to take any sides. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

And I would like to point out that you appear to have very friendly dealings with user:DVdm based on your talk page, which could be construed as a prior relationship and would like to ask that he, in particular, not participate in this specific dispute since that might be construed as WP:Canvassing Nemesis75 (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, I would like to ask that any of you who are familiar/friendly with Prokaryotic recuse yourself as biased just like would be done in any court. We are all human and it would require more than unrealistic self-image to believe any one of us is the "truly unbiased" observer.

I have no Wikipedia friends. I do not participate in community whatsoever. I'm not particularly social, or patient in general, nor particularly likable in text. Therefore I am automatically at a disadvantage already in most any dispute; if you are even remotely realistic about human behavior. - any neuroscience and anthropology editors in here? hah! -

Thanks for not (even accidentally and innocently) biasing this dispute which - I'm unsure why - is still ongoing. Nemesis75 (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

References

• Question - The copy-paste job above is an absolute mess and I can't tell who said what or responded to who when because there's no signed comments and it's all interlaced weirdly, so let me be direct: @Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog: do you have any specific concerns this this recent edit? Not the previous ones, but this one specifically? If so, what are they, and do you have sources that can refute what the other editor said or that can support what you're trying to say? - Aoidh (talk) 02:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Nemesis75: Please collect your interspersed commentary in such a fashion that Aoidh can tell who said what.

@Aoidh: As I stated in my summary on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard: "Much of what Nemesis75 has wished to add to the article is not unacceptable to me and probably only requires a bit of back-and-forth editing to bring to an acceptable compromise wording." While I differ somewhat in my interpretations of what Nemesis75 has written in his recent edit that you are asking about, precisely the same comment applies: his edits are for the most part the sort that would only require a bit of back-and-forth exchange for us to reach a satisfactory compromise wording. My concern has always been with this one specific, unsourced assertion which appeared to be original research: "Alternatively, one must adopt the ad hoc hypothesis that the properties of aether change to a Nonlinear_system such as found in the Soliton in the presence of matter." Nemesis75 was very offended by my original snip requesting that his statement be sourced, and he reverted back without supplying my requested sourcing. At that point I decided to bring the discussion to the Talk Page, hoping that we could reach an amicable solution here. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, well that sentence about "one must adopt..." does not appear to be included in the most recent edit, unless it's been reworded so extensively that it's not immediately apparent. So if that's the primary concern, and the recent edit only has minor concerns, maybe we can move forward with rewording what is in the article and go from there, since (again unless I'm missing it) the main point of concern is not in the article at present? As I said previously, I agree that the "one must adopt" wording was problematic, so for it to be included there needs to be a consensus, which currently does not exist, so let's move from that which at present doesn't seem to be an issue. - Aoidh (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

That would be acceptable to me. I only brought this dispute to the Noticeboard because Nemesis75 started accusing me of vandalism and showed every sign of wanting to escalate our discussion to the level of an edit war. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 04:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Nemesis75: Shall we have peace? You need to learn to control your temper. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 04:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Is the "Derivation in special relativity" correct?

What about this video that states that special relativity does not explain Fizeau experiment?

Youtube - Ask Us Whatever - E9.3 - Confirmation bias in physics. The embarrassing Von Laue, Einstein, Fizeau blunder. 2800:2131:5400:FB2:A5A8:26FE:B5E0:A625 (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

See wp:Talk page guidelines: we can discuss the article here, based on wp:reliable sources. Youtube doesn't qualify. - DVdm (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)