User talk:Harald88/Archive1

Welcome!

Hello Harald88/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --Fastfission 03:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Links and redirects

Hi Harald! I took a look at the page you left on my talk page. What I thought needed to be done was to create what is known as a redirect -- basically a page which will simply "forward" the user to the desired page. We use them a lot on here in order to avoid creating ten of the same page under different names.

What I did was create a new page under the title "Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction", and the context of the page were only the line: #REDIRECT [[Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction]]

You can see this at the following link: [1] (in this instance, I have told it not to automatically redirect, just as an example).

What this does is make it so that anyone going to the page Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction will be automatically forwarded to the page Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction. If you click on these links you can see how it works.

Also, make sure to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~), as it will automatically sign your username and date your post (it makes it easy to people see who left them the message, for example). If you have any other questions, don't hestitate to ask! --Fastfission 20:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Notification of POV-pusher & libeler conspiracy

This notification is being sent to FT2, Iantresman, Harald88, and Wetman, as these 4 people have responded in support of my proposition to include the wikipedia policy 'POV selective fact suppression'.

I made a note on the page wikipedia_talk:Neutral point of view that both the users Saxifrage and Dominick stalked me to said page, and that Dominick only started stalking me because Todfox notified him that I called him on his POV-pushing behavior on my user page. On my user page (user:NPOVenforcer), I have listed many people that have either pushed a POV and/or have used libel instead of fair argument, so as to warn innocent wikipedians of who to look out for. Saxifrage and Dominick both saw the list of trouble users, which included themselves as well as Todfox (aka 'Kit') due to their past offenses. Saxifrage and Dominick are thus conspiring to trying to suppress the POV selective fact suppression policy so as to give themselves free reign to make as many selective fact suppressions as they want. Also, Todfox is conspiring with Dominick to libel my informative list as an 'enemy list' via their RFC on my user page at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/NPOVenforcer (libel violates the wikipedia civilty policy, by the way), so as to try to get rid of the informative list and give them free reign to violate as many wikipedia policies as they want. On said libelous RFC, Dominick actually committed the criminal offense of trying to frame me of threatening his person, so as to try to put me in prison under false pretenses. I hope you find such behavior apalling as I do. It is for that reason that I am creating an RFA against Dominick to permanently ban his IP for his criminal offense against me. I hope that you come to support it. Why should you help save me from Dominick's offenses? -Because I am fighting to support the NPOV nature of wikipedia articles, so what benefits me benefits you through my actions, because you also support the NPOV policy. Besides, Dominick may victimize one of you next. Have you heard the saying "We will all hang together or we will all hang separately"? NPOVenforcer 05:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

POV Suppression draft policy

I've posted an updated version that tries to capture the best of yours and mine together. It has more examples but they are much better arranged and easier to read, the sentences are shorter and to the point, and it's interesting to non-abusive editors too. It's closer to your style than mine as well, and also probably (if needed) an easier base to edit and work from.

Talk:NPOV#Selective information suppression - version 2

Your turn!!

FT2 22:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory definition

Hello Harald88, I think your new definition of "conspiracy theory" is using word choices that are less evocative of the genre than the old definition, but it seems to me that you are defining the genre (twice) now. Writting in the form of "As conspiracy theory..." seems to be a usage note and not a definition? Doesn't "conspiracy theory" have a literal and/or argument type definition? I think your first sentence could be good within the genre paragraph but it seems subtly yet woefully incomplete at the top. Also, please either precisely explain the relevance of your German article reference or stop referencing it. zen master T 20:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zenmaster, as you saw (I hope) I also improved the "Introduction" paragraph by adding a sentence that is already hidden in the article (as discussed in Talk). About hte first sentence: this is just an attempt to get out of the deadlock; I changed as little as possible to the German definition which has been peer reviewed, just eliminating some unnecessary words that never were in the English version. You're welcome to improve on it, what mattered for me is to have a neutral (approved, third party) starting point that is the "child" of none of the editors. No sentiments, fresh start! ;-) Harald88 20:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, i think in some ways it is worse. The previous version at least defined "conspiracy theory" as an argument type but used words evocative of the genre to do so, your/the german version uses less obviously loaded words but decreases the disassociation between the literal definition/argument type and the genre dramatically. zen master T 21:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I cited the explanation of the German version that the disassociation is not sharp, it's a whole spectrum of meanings and feelings that fall under that term - AFAIK all meanings are now covered with the general description, as it should be. And did you also look at the introduction? That was the biggest crap, now it's better but more may be added. Harald88 21:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I think overall your intro is about the good as what was there before, is still lacks sufficient clarity and does not explicitly note that the phrase is often confused. I have cleaned up the intro I came up with yesterday, let me know what you think. zen master T 21:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that it's still disputable for some because of the way you phrased it, and unnecessary long in view of the introduction. Much of that would be fitting as addition, IMO, to the introduction paragraph. And I see that now someone else reversed it, with which I in principle agree: really, the best way to go is to sleep on it and rework from a non-involved, third party starting point. Harald88 21:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Introduction size should be propoprtional to the complexity of the subject. Our discussion here seems to be moot because Jayjg has reverted both of our possible introductions. I've added the {npov} template to the article to signify a neutrality dispute, if you agree there is a neutrality dispute please keep your eye on that tag because it has a habit of being removed. zen master T 21:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master, do you also disagree that much with my neutral new starting point that you would tag it NPOV? For I will revert it back to that one. Harald88 21:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I think any version of the article should be tagged with {npov} now since there is a 3+ way dispute currently and so it's clear to third parties there is a neutrality dispute here. Could you be the one to add the {npov} to the article? zen master T 22:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

nOt yet: see Talk. Harald88 23:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Now it's quite OK for me; what do you think is still wrong about it? If you could add one or two words or take away one or two words, what would they be? Harald88 22:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Harald88, I am sorry to seem unsociable. I generally like using the talk pages, and I think your work at Wikipedia is making the encyclopedia better on balance(for whatever my opinion is worth.) It's just that at Conspiracy theory, and earlier at words to avoid, I've gotten tired of recapitulating the same arguments. I follow the discussions; if I don't respond it's because I, or another more articulate editor, has addressed that point in the past. Best regards, Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Tom Harrison, point taken -- I know how it feels to get tired of endless discussions. Best regards, Harald88 00:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV and suppression

I have drafted 3 ideas based on the discussion on the WP:NPOV talk page discussions:

• A draft "POV suppression" policy, at User:FT2/SUPPRESS
  (worth a policy of its own, like WP:CITE not just a paragraph in NPOV)

I appreciate it that now you like referral to strawmen tactics so much that you bring it up as two points; but I think one time is sufficient (both are nearly identical): although not bad to have repetition for emphasis, it's nowadays only common in old Jewish literature (the bible). The other two drafts below will have to wait for later, I have not reread all of this yet, most likely my criticism is that it's too elaborate. But that is less applicable if you want to propose it as a sub page, thus that should be discussed first! And next, how to include it, where should it be discussed? I thought on the Talk page, but we in fact got no comments anymore... Harald88 22:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• A draft reworking of WP:NPOV, at User:FT2/NPOV (almost but not 100% complete)
  (The current NPOV page is often criticised on its talk page etc for being not structured enough)

• A summary of what wikipedia is in one page, at User:FT2/ABOUT
  (gives a framework for where NPOV and other policies fit in and why)

As you can imagine, reworking 3 major WP pages and policies and stuff is a fairly major thing, and I half expect everyone to say how its not needed and no good etc, thats why Ive sat on it a while. But I would like your thoughts etc.

FT2 23:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

A & B's discussion and Wikipedia management

[Text analysis of discussion for more general purpose] Harald88 00:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

From A's talk page (for discussion purposes brought here too):

You seem to have some sort of vendetta against me, to the point that it appears you've started Wikistalking me. It may come down to the fact that we have different views of Wikipedia. You seem to have a conspiracism worldview, while I think accusations of cabals and conspiracies go a bit too far. I also think your claims [2] at RfD are some of the craziest I've seen. You get some points for imagination, but zero for accuracy.

Listen, you're certainly entitled to whatever opinions you wish. If you'd like to believe that I'm part of some cabal that runs Wikipedia, go right ahead. But the harassment and accusations need to stop. There's already numerous civility violations on your part, but I'm quite willing to put them in the past if you agree to stop this harassment campaign. Let's end this. OK? B | Talk 16:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You were doing pretty good until you got to the threats. Asking nicely works better. Want to try again? --A 16:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Threats? I'm offering to put everything in the past, provided you stop your harassment. How is that a threat in any way? B | Talk 16:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Antisocial personality disorder is identified through a patient's inability to socialize with peers in a context outside of rewards and punishment. In extreme cases, the patient doesn't even realize that he threatens people. When I see editors being treated as dogs, I try to stay as far away from the situation as possible. I certainly don't follow you around. Also, I never adopt vendettas against people I feel sorry for.

B, I want you to know that help is there if you want it. All you need to do is reach out.

We care. --A 17:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Voldemort your response was very fast, actually! From what I see, their harrassment is mutual, and it's difficult to judge without a full investigation who started it or who is more "guilty" of it (and I don't really care). Assuming a honest response, I see so far no alternative to A's analysis, which I interpreted as a hyperbole -- it certainly wasn't name calling. You still provided no alternative explanation of how to interpret the phrasing of B other than implying a threat accompanied by a personal attack, and what to think of B's apparent unawareness of the same. I wrote the above comment without seeing further below that this is indeed how A understood it as well. I like to see your text analysis of B's remarks, as it apparently differs strongly from mine, while that of A is exactly the same as mine. Or, in other words, apparently your answer to my question is a 100% YES: If we like we can go around making subtle personal attacks and covered-up threats in order to either get our way or obtain that the victim of our attacks makes the mistake to reply outspokenly so that he is judged to have "crossed the line".

For a comparison, here is my rephrasing of B's comments stating what he wrote according to you:

"Hi A, please listen, you're certainly entitled to whatever opinions you wish. If you'd like to believe that I'm part of some cabal that runs Wikipedia, it's your good right. Let's stop with our mutual harassments and accusations, that's counterproductive. I'm quite willing to put all our quarrels in the past if you agree to do the same. Let's end this. OK?"

Harald88 22:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to bring the relevent stuff here, to keep it fresh in my mind. My text analysis? Okay, here goes... I only know a little about what happened in the past, so I cannot be held responsible for anything said or done previously that I have missed or misunderstood. My comments in bold:

You seem to have some sort of vendetta against me, to the point that it appears you've started Wikistalking me. I'll assume good faith and believe B actually thinks A was following him around. From what I have seen, he may be right (Once again I point to the whole JPGordon thing). It's not really a personal attack, just a statement of B's POV. It may come down to the fact that we have different views of Wikipedia. You seem to have a conspiracism worldview, while I think accusations of cabals and conspiracies go a bit too far. Again, statement of B's view of the situation, and start of the "we agree to disagree" solution. I also think your claims [3] at RfD are some of the craziest I've seen. You get some points for imagination, but zero for accuracy. This is the only personal attack here. B shouldn't have called A's views "crazy". I haven't really delved into the link, but I'll assume it was a difference of opinion about if the redirect should be deleted or not.

Listen, you're certainly entitled to whatever opinions you wish. If you'd like to believe that I'm part of some cabal that runs Wikipedia, go right ahead. B tries to bury the hatchet. Agreeing to disagree. But the harassment and accusations need to stop. No threat here, harassment is against WP policy and B was well within his right to inform A that he was feeling threatened and that he should cease his behavior. There's already numerous civility violations on your part, but I'm quite willing to put them in the past if you agree to stop this harassment campaign. Statement of facts. A did violate WP:CIVIL a couple of times. Let's end this. OK? Agreeing to disagree and seeking compromise. B | Talk 16:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I see no threats here. He seeks to end the debate. There was no threat of an RfC or RfAr. There was no threat to block A. If A, you, and others read it that way, you are the ones failing to assume good faith. A says there was a threat and B asked for an explanation. A proceded to diagnose B as having an antisocial personality disorder and tells him he needs help. There is no way of assuming good faith on this. I wasn't there to talk about B's remarks anyway, I was specifically commenting on A's. I am well within my right to do so. Please let me know if this helps clarify my position here. See you around, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Lord Voldemort, I only criticized you for giving the impression of taking sides (and that's my good right too!). But that's in the end not what I am talking about. It's more the overall psychology, and what this means for Wikipedia policy.

Interesting, the only time that you regard as a personal attack, I do not see as anything else but personal opinion! At the same time you overlooked the implied accusations that it was A who was harrassing and accusing, and even, in a sentence that you commented with "statement of facts", in charge of a harrassment campain. Do you deem an accusation of a harrassment campain a statement of fact? And what implies, in practice, to not "put civility violations in the past", according to you?

Apart of that, I disagree with your suggestion that it is so bad to take action to block others who are deemed disruptive, that anyone reporting someone else would be accused of failing to assume good faith. Obviously, such a threat can be made without anyone doubting anyone's good intentions.

And I do assume "good faith" (insofar as it applies, I think you mean something else) in the case of A's hyperbole, as I already explained. I regard it as a possible personal attack in return for a personal attack and consecutive denial. IMO B really overdid it and A called him on what we call in Dutch "playing stupid", when pretending not to understand something (truly or not). Thus A pointed out how he interpreted B's denial, assuming honesty. But I agree with you that he also overdid it.

IOW, I interpret that conversation overall very differently from you. It's easy to point out how B here above violated civilitybut you seem not to have noticed it. Taking into account that we both hardly know them, it tells perhaps more about difference in mind patterns than anything else -- but that makes me doubt if Wikipedia rules on textual behaviour can be applied correctly.

Best regards, Harald88 00:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Since I'm the subject of discussion, could I interject for a moment? I agree with LV that the one area in which I came somewhat close to being less-than-civil is when I said that A's claims on RfD were some of the craziest I've seen. But if you follow the diff [4] what you'll find is essentially "crazy" claims. Note that I didn't call A crazy or refer to all of his opinion as such. I was referring to specific claims made in a specific edit. Take a look at one of the claims: "Everywhere I go, I see B spreading seeds of despotism, forcing his extreme POV on articles, restraining people against their will, treating them like dogs, and then witnessing some of them kissing his buttocks and saying "Good call."" Personally, I believe that calling this claim "crazy" was somewhat generous. Thus, I'm going to have to disagree that "It's easy to point out how B here above violated civility...". B | Talk 00:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi B, you are definitely not the subject of my discussion (apparently you did not read my comments), but I'll emphasize it by replacing you and A by A and B (this evening). Apart of that, I disagree with your suggestion that what happened in earlier conversations can change our opinion about sentences in a new discussion being "civil" or not. Best regards, Harald88 08:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response... I had to run yesterday before I saw your response. I just don't really care what B said. I was only responding to A's remarks. Personal attacks are never acceptable, even if in response to attacks on them. I just think there is a HUGE difference in the actions of B (asking A to quit harassing him) and A (falsely diagnosing B as having a personality disorder and telling him to get help). I never said it was bad to block those who are disruptive. I do think an accusation of a harassment campaign is within B's right in this case. The first step to any solution is identifying the problem. That is what B saw as the problem. I won't make broad generalizations about WP policy based on this ONE case. And I don't think you assume good faith. If you were assuming good faith, you would read B's statements as an olive branch looking to let bygones be bygones. I don't think he was playing stupid. Assuming good faith, I believe that B's request for clarification is a perfectly valid one. I didn't see a threat, so I think it would be reasonable to assume that B did not see what he wrote as a threat. However, it is impossible to read A's responses as anything other than a personal attack. Once again, let me remind you, I was never there to comment on B's remarks. If you felt his comments were out-of-line, you could have said something. That is you right. I was just there commenting on A's comments. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Voldemort. I observed that you one-sidedly responded to A's comments to B, either without paying attention to B's foregoing comments to A to which he reacted, or without realising that the reaction was natural, from A's standpoint: from the way it was put forward he had good reason to interpret it as a threat plus personal attack together with either true failure to notice it (corresponding to his description) or a pretended failure to notice it. It's a perfect example for the WP:CIVIL page, to illustrate how uncivil language easily escalates. But since you could not answer my question (what implies, in practice, to not "put civility violations in the past", according to you?) I cannot ignore the fact that I still know no other obvious interpretation than the one that I gave. And if B was not playing stupid, than the only plausible explanation that has been offered is the explanation as given by A (B offered no alternative explanation and neither did you). It was not my primary purpose to criticize either A or B, but perhaps my remarks gave some food for thought to B.

Apart of that, I already explained that this has nothing to do with good faith, nobody expressed doubt about B's intention to stop the quibble, although without coming down from his assumed pedestal to accomodate for it. By chance yesterday evening I discovered [Wikinfo], and I wonder if B and you are both adminstrators (it appears so, is it correct?). For at face value, that incident seems to be related to a publicly discussed problem:

"outsiders, new users, and those constructively critical are often blocked from discussions under vague allegations, such as "trolling", or being a known "problem user". Such disputes are not limited to Wikipedia, but Wikipedia's administrators regularly invoke the power of their community, reasoning that such people are excluded for "behavioral reasons", not for critical policy arguments, when the truth was quite the opposite. Some administrators might not be adept at the personal or editorial skills which can best resolve conflicts among contributors. An inability or unwillingness among such untrained administrators to consistently articulate what they find problematic contributes to a less productive collaborative environment, and exacerbates conflicts."

Sincerely, Harald88 21:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I don't wish to beleaguer the point, so I'll make one last comment and leave it at that. I thought that I was one of the subjects of the discussion mainly because the section has my username in it and your most recent comment had referenced me three times. If the discussion was much broader than the actions of myself and A, I may have misread. In regards to "civility", I'm not sure that judging a comment without context gives a very accurate picture.

I agree but that's hardly relevant for this discusson about the psychology and the consequences for Wikipedia. Harald88 21:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

As I explained above, I was referring to specific claims made in one specific edit. I provided the diff when I made the original comment to ensure that there was no misunderstanding about the focus of what I considered to be "crazy". I was not referring to A, his opinions in general, of even his opinions on the redirect. After re-reading A's comment [5], I stand by my classification of it as "some of the craziest I've seen". Frankly, I see zero connection with my actions and "spreading seeds of despotism, forcing his extreme POV on articles, restraining people against their will, treating them like dogs". In that context, I believe calling these claims "crazy" is entirely within the letter and spirit of the civility policy. If you believe otherwise, I'm not going to attempt to change your mind, but I did want to fully present my view of this matter. Thanks for listening. B | Talk 14:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

As stated above, I regard your opinions to be your fair right to state; Voldemort apparently considers such opinions to be personal attacks. I can understand both A's opinion of B as well as B's logical conclusion and use of hyperbole about A. Anyway, thanks for your clarification. Harald88 21:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Redshift RfC

Can you respond and let us know whether you think the Redshift page adequately has addressed the issues? --ScienceApologist 14:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Time dilation and the interpretation of general relativity

Hi Harald,

my comments on the time dilation Talk page have long pauses in between. As announced, I am trying to work out a new animation, but I'm struggling. In the meantime, I'd like to verify that we are on the same page as far as the theory of general relativity is concerned. Can you please tell me whether you find the following interpretation of general relativity agreeable?

John A. Wheeler coined the phrase: 'Space-time is telling matter how to move, matter is telling space-time how to curve.' Since General relativity subsumes special relativity, it follows that in special relativity the following statement is valid: space-time is telling matter how to move.

Nineteenth century physics brought the innovation of the concept of fields, for example the electrostatic field and the magnetic field. By analogy physicists figured that gravitation must be mediated by a gravitational field. In retrospect it can be seen that inertia can also be interpreted as a field interaction: matter interacting with an inertia field. The inertia field is not a vector field, but a scalar field. The inertia field puts constraints on motion.

In retrospect Newtons laws of motion can be interpreted as describing properties of the interaction of matter with the inertia field. First law: matter in a particular state of interaction with the inertia field remains in the same state as long as no mechanical force is exerted. Second law: in order to change the state of interaction with the inertia field, a mechanical force must be exerted. Finally, the third law asserts isotropy of the inertia field: if object A exerts a force on object B, then for both objects the amount of change of momentum will be the same.

The breakthrough from special relativity to general relativity is that Einstein recognized that postulating a single field suffices, rather than postulating two distinct fields (a gravitational field and an inertia field). The Einstein field equations describe a single field, performing two jobs that are only apparently different jobs: providing the existence of inertia, and mediating gravitational interaction. The shift in thinking could hardly be more profound: while the electrostatic field is a field that occupies space, the einstein field is space-time itself. Space-time is not only the arena in which physics takes place, space-time itself is also participating in the physics taking place.

In newtonian thinking it is implicitly postulated that space is acting upon matter, putting constraints on motion. Relativistic physics has in common with newtonian physics the assumption that space-time is acting upon matter. Relativistic physics has added to that model the concept of matter acting upon space-time. --Cleonis | Talk 11:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Cleon, that's a lot, and more than I can currently reply to! Moreover, my knowledge of GRT is only superficial, just the basics (although I have noticed that some people with a detailed knowledge of GRT mathematics lack some knowledge about the basics...).

Anyway, in short, I saw nothing in your account that looks wrong to me; only I'd check that he really thought, at the time, physically in space-time instead of space (I read him talk about "space", but maybe you read "space-time"?). I think that Einstein's original GRT was wrong and that this has been demonstrated with the Twin paradox; nevertheless his equations are right (at least in good approximation). His IMO erroneous concept helped him drive the equivalence principle to the extreme, and that led to his success concerning gravitation. Note that in the GRT article this point is wiped under the carpet, it is falsely pretended that GRT was primarlily a theory about gravitation... (as if it came falling out of the air!). Best regards, Harald88 18:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Harald,
I get the impression that the mathematical framework of GRT does not exclusively enforce one interpretation or the other. Different physicists can have quite differing opinions about what the fundamentals are. I am committed to the field interpretation, and it is my understanding that most physicists are. However, it is possible that EMS does not acknowledge the field interpretation (or even that he is unaware of that interpretation.)

I agree that anyone who claims that GRT is primarily about gravitation doesn't get it. In newtonian dynamics there is on one hand a theory of motion (Newton's three laws) and on the other hand a theory of gravitation (the inverse square laws). GRT is a "package deal"; its both a theory of motion in space-time and a theory of gravitation.

About time dilation: EMS prefers the interpretation that asymmetric velocity time dilation in Minkowski space-time is a form of gravitational time dilation. I hope that issue can be adressed in the future.

As far as I know Einstein was initially somewhat dismissive about the concept of Minkowski space-time. He quipped (quoting from memory here) "Now that the mathematicians have had their way with the theory, I don't understand it anymore". Einstein quickly warmed up to Minkowski space-time, recognizing (as did his fellow physicists) that postulating Minkowski space-time is mathematically equivalent to the postulates of the 1905 article, and recognizing the elegance and versatility of the geometrical concept of Minkowski space-time.

I am looking forward to reading more of your comments and edits. --Cleonis | Talk 20:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Why Einstein was dissatisfied with special relativity (twin scenario)

I'm putting in a comment here, because I don't want to burden the twin paradox Talk page with all of this.

In the twin paradox article you have written:

In 1911, Langevin discusses the evolution of the concepts of space and time in physics and presents the principal aspects of special relativity. He suggests that special relativity implies the existence of a stationary ether and states: "Every change of speed, every acceleration, has an absolute sense".

Langevin's observation is correct, of course. Special relativity assumes the existence of an absolute background reference for acceleration. In special relativity, velocity is relative, and acceleration is absolute. In that specific sense, special relativity assumes absolute space just as Newton had assumed absolute space.

Ernst Mach had criticized Newtonian dynamics, Mach had argued that physics is about entities that act upon each other and that are being acted upon. For example, Newton's law of gravity is about pairs of objects that each exert a force on the other. Newtonian absolute space acts upon matter, newtonian absolute space constrains the motion of objects, thus giving rise to the phenomenon of inertia, but newtonian absolute space itself is immutable. Mach had proposed that physicists should look for a theory of inertia that eliminates space from the model altogether. Mach had proposed that the inertia of any single object arises out of an interaction with all of the matter of the universe combined. Such a machian theory would eliminate space from the model altogether. Also, in a machian theory, inertia would be relative (in a very technical sense), because in a machian theory inertia is relative to the combined matter in the entire universe.

Einstein was of course quite aware that special relativity was subject to Mach's criticism just as newtonian dynamics was; special relativity assumes that Minkowski space-time acts upon matter, without being acted upon.

Einsteins response was to explore the possibility that the phenomenon of inertia arises out of interaction with a field. Einstein proposed that space-time itself acts as a field, and that matter can act upon this field. Einstein proposed that matter (and energy) induce curvature of space-time. Rather than eliminating space as a participant in the physics taking place, Einstein proposed that space-time itself should be seen as a physical entity, acting upon matter/energy and being acted upon by matter/energy. Einstein proposed that space-time and matter/energy cannot exist without each other. In 1916 Einstein still believed that GRT incorporates Mach's principle, but later evidence compelled him to abandon that thought.

It may be interesting to review the twin scenario from a machian point of view. The travelling twin observes that at some point in his journey his velocity relative to all of the matter in the universe changes dramatically, whereas the velocity of Earth relative to all of the matter in the universe hardly changes at all. --Cleonis | Talk 10:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleon, I am astonished, for, differently from your comments on the Twin paradox page, you now hit on the very essence of Einstein's Twin paradox. His 1918 "GRT" solution of the Twin paradox is a semi-Machian solution, in which he tried to demonstrate that the assumption that acceleration is "relative" does not contradict special relativity. However, he did not account for the matter in the universe. Harald88 10:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Apologies in advance

If I have offended you by underestimating your knowledge of GR, please accept my apologies. I tend to get carried away. --Cleonis | Talk 10:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I tend to get carried away too, for it is such a very interesting topic, it fascinated me already as a child. But you can hardly underestimate my knowledge of GR which is only conceptual and approximate -- thus no offence and no need for apologies. :-) BTW, I was pushed to learn a bit on GRT (it was skipped in my education), after I discovered that I had to do so in order to form an opinion of the GRT twin paradox solution (Einstein, Moller). Harald88 18:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Properties of Euclidian 3-space and Minkowski space-time

Hi Harald,

Again I post this on your personal talk page, I fear what I write is too technical for the Twin paradox talk page. Basically I'm thinking out loud, here. I'd appreciate your opinion.

OK, I will think out loud with you.

Let's compare what you expect in Euclidean 3-space plus separate time, and what you expect in Minkowski space-time geometry.
In Euclidean 3-space you expect that it is possible to measure your own velocity with respect to the space, your own velocity with respect to some "aether". Technically challenging maybe, but you expect that in some or other way it is possible.

Well it depends... if you mean Newtonian space and time, then yes. But you won't expect to measure that in Lorentzian space and time.

In Minkowski space-time you expect that it is inherently impossible to measure such a thing as your velocity with respect to space-time. Velocity is a ratio of distance and time, hence Minkowski space-time is not a spatial space, but a velocity-space. (A coordinate rotation in Euclidean 3-space corresponds to a reorientation, a coordinate rotation in Minkowski space-time (involving the time-dimension) corresponds to a change of velocity.) In Minkowski velocity-space, all uniform velocities relate to each other symmetrically.

Do you refer to the fascinating dynamic Minkowski diagram in special relativity?

What you expect both in Euclidean 3-space and in Minkowski space-time is that acceleration is absolute. It is a property of Minkowski space-time that symmetry can be broken. Exerting a mechanical force causes change of velocity, and change of velocity has a symmetry breaking effect.

When the assumption of a luminiferous aether was dropped, many people tended to assume blindly that exactly the same kind of relativity ought to apply for acceleration and velocity.

Well, Einstein didn't really drop it, but his ether concept is very peculiar, and in particular not stationary -- which is why I inserted "stationary" into my paraphrase of Langevin. It is not clear what you mean here; likely you agree with the remark of Ives about it (which I dropped from the article as on second thought it didn't seem to be useful where I had put it):

"The "clock paradox" is a consequence of a sweeping and unqualified application of the hypothesis that relative motion of matter is the only operative factor."

As you know, that supposition, identical relativity for velocity and acceleration is incompatible with the twin scenario. (Or, stating the same in equivalent words: the supposition that there is identical relativity for velocity and acceleration is incompatible with assuming Minkowski space-time geometry). --Cleonis | Talk 13:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Einstein disagreed, and thought to have succeeded in getting around it with GRT. As I understand it, he made time rate a function of relative speed (between objects) and gravitational fields, leaving Minkowski space-time behind. Harald88 16:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

On the history of science

When the assumption of a luminiferous aether was dropped, [...] --Cleonis | Talk 13:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Einstein didn't really drop it, but his ether concept is very peculiar, and in particular not stationary -- which is why I inserted "stationary" into my paraphrase of Langevin. It is not clear what you mean here; likely you agree with the remark of Ives about it (which I dropped from the article as on second thought it didn't seem to be useful where I had put it):

"The "clock paradox" is a consequence of a sweeping and unqualified application of the hypothesis that relative motion of matter is the only operative factor."

Harald88 16:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Possibly the following Einstein quote can be of help in reconstructing what Einstein's views were:

From a lecture delivered in 1920

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it. (Albert Einstein, Leiden Lecture, 1920)

I think the last sentence of that quote is particularly interesting: The idea of motion may not be applied to it. I think the statements of that 1920 lecture are consistent with the modern interpretation of GRT. Space-time is endowed with physical qualities, but the idea of motion may not be applied to it. In particular, the idea of velocity cannot be applied to it.

Exactly, that was what I referred to.

Or, in other words: the concept of luminiferous ether entails that objects are always in some velocity with respect to the luminiferous ether. Not so for GRT space-time. The concept of being in some velocity with respect to space-time does not apply. --Cleonis | Talk 14:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

There were a number of luminiferous ether concepts, and it is open to reckon Einstein's concept as another one or not. I find your last idea interesting, indeed we can't say what angle our trajectory has with space...

But that is still a Minkowski concept, and perhaps not the same as Einstein's concept eventhough they share that feature. I very much doubt that he fell for Minkowski's idea that time is a kind of physical space, or that Minkowski Space-time corresponds to Einstein's Space. Cheers, Harald88 17:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Technically, what can be remarked is that the GRT field equations use a geometry that mathematicians call 'pseudo-Riemannian' geometry. Minkowski space-time geometry and GRT pseudo-Riemannian space-time geometry have in common that they describe a 4-dimensional geometry, with three dimensions of space, and one dimension of time, and the way the amount of geometric separation between two points in the geometry is calculated is the same. Einstein space-time geometry with zero curvature is identical to Minkowski space-time geometry.

That is why my assessment is that Minkowski space-time geometry is at the heart of both special relativity and the general theory of relativity.

In his 1908 lecture, Minkowski suggested that the newtonian concepts of space and time were destined to fade away. I take that to mean that he suggested that physical space as we are accustomed to see it does actually not exist in that form, and that the flow of time as we are accustomed to see it actually does not exist in that form. It is unclear in what form the dimensions of Minkowski space-time do exist. In my opinion, relativistic physics is just as weird and counter-intuitive as quantum physics --Cleonis | Talk 22:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleon, you surprise me with those remarks. The only one of that time who confused the "shadows" of reality with the underlying reality itself, was Minkowski. As far as I can tell, Lorentz, Poincare and Einstein all disagreed with Minkowski's view. I strongly disagree with Minkowski that time is a physical dimension, as well as with Einstein's virtual and personal reality (insofar as I understand it, for his concept is acknowledged to be difficult to understand). That leaves Lorentz's ether (modified for GRT). I very much disliked that but in the end it turns out to be a very useful concept: it takes away all weirdness and counter-intuitiveness of relativity, it's a piece of cake. Thus I moved on to new challenges, such as, indeed, QM. I still can't figure that one out! Harald88 02:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I certainly do not see time as a physical dimension. I agree that seeing time as a physical dimension just won't work. It appears that I use the concept of Minkowski space-time geometry in a rather skeletal way. My acceptance of Minkowski space-time geometry is somewhat like the 'shut-up-and-calculate'-attitude of some physicists towards the conundrums of Quantum Physics. It appears that in your assessment Minkowski space-time geometry carries with it the conceptual "luggage" that time is a physical dimension.

Can you point out to me texts in which the GRT-compliant ether that you refer to is described? I remember reading about a theoretical framework that is called Ether Gauge theory (EGT). Possibly that is related to what you are referring to. --Cleonis | Talk 11:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Your make me think of Lorentz and Feynman who also focussed on calculation. Of course, it avoids all those tricky debates at the edge of physics (but not, as Feynman mistakenly thought, only empty hollow blah blah). I also heard of the EGT first, but it's a rather shaky engineering theory; only later I understood that also Einstein's GRT model was an ether, and in no textbook have I found Einstein's light bending calculation, probably because it emphazises his ether concept - you can find it at the end of his 1916 paper http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/gtext3.html . Then there is the similar but more sophisticated theory of Ilja Schmelzer, which is also work-in-progress. But I know that there are others, such as "flowing space" theories. Harald88 13:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Keen to come to a better understanding

Your make me think of Lorentz and Feynman who also focussed on calculation. [...] Harald88 13:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I compare Minkowski space-time to the early Bohr model of the hydrogen atom, the "planetary model". The planetary model looks very fishy, but its predictive power is way too good to discard it. Later the scientific community moved on, and showed that there is a deeper, more compehensive theory than the planetary atom model.
I'm very keen to come to a better understanding of Minkowski space-time geometry, but I must make do with what is available. And who knows what the future might bring? If a successor to GRT and QM is found, it may shed more light on Minkowski space-time geometry. --Cleonis | Talk 16:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The twin scenario and suppositions about physics

likely you agree with the remark of Ives [...] :

[...] the hypothesis that relative motion of matter is the only operative factor."

Harald88 16:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, my thoughts are in that direction (I am unfamiliar with Ives' work).
For me personally, my starting point is the view that velocity is relative, and that acceleration is absolute, so for me the twin scenario is not paradoxical.

A nice example of the relativity of uniform velocity is the relativistic Doppler shift (longitudinal relativistic doppler shift). With relativistic Doppler shift the relative velocity between a specific pair of objects (the emitter and the reciever) is the only operative factor.

Some non-physicists blindly extrapolate that, and assume that in all dynamics relative motion between a pair of objects is the only operative factor. Once that assumption is made, it is of course impossible to accommodate the twin scenario. To resolve the situation, the 'pairs-of-objects'-supposition must be abandoned.

It is sometimes argued that a theory of inertia in which Mach's principle is realized, is a theory in which inertia is relative. As you know, Mach's principle is not about pairs of objects, it is about all of the universe in one big swoop. Hence any supposition that in all dynamics relative motion between a pair of objects is the only operative factor, and Mach's principle, are mutually exclusive.

So whether someone attempts to realize Mach's principle or not, either way it is clear from the start that the supposition that the relative motion between a pair of objects is the only operative factor is flawed. --Cleonis | Talk 17:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

About your last remark, yes I agree. It is said that Mach was particularly unhappy with Einstein's remarks!

According to you, acceleration is, in a physical sense, relative to what (meta)physical entity, to make its effects absolute? Harald88 17:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I used the word 'absolute' in the meaning of 'not relative'. So actually I should have written: 'uniform velocity is relative, acceleration is not relative'

I follow the interpretation of GRT in which an inertia field is postulated. This inertia field is described by the Einstein field equations. In this interpretation 'inertia field' and 'space-time' are two expressions for one and the same physical entity. So wherever I write 'inertia field' you can also read 'space-time' or 'GRT space-time geometry'.

In the interpretation that I follow the concept of acceleration is defined in terms of interaction with the inertia field. In order to accelerate an object with respect to the local inertia field a mechanical force must be exerted. Accelerometers measure how strongly an object is accelerating with respect to the local inertia field. (Example: an accelerometer in the pod of a pilot training centrifuge measures how many G's the centrifuge is pulling.)

Another property of the inertia field is that the concept of having a particular velocity with respect to the inertia field does not apply.

What kind of modification of Lorentz ether did you dislike at first, and later came to appreciate? --Cleonis | Talk 21:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation; the basic problem I have with it is that of a "field" which however can't be given spacial coordinates -- for if it does, it would be possible to have a velocity relative to it. My mind boggles! And as I'm lazy, I stick with the simpler solution. ;-)

But if I understand well, it also implies "something" in empty space, and thus not really empty space (nothing, not even something that causes inertia, can exist in true emptyness).

About Lorentz ether, and more seriously: in fact I was misinformed about it (rather typical, I believe). I thought that it meant something like that of Stokes, the kind of ocean like ether through whcih the earth is plowing. Highly primitive and unattractive, conceptually. Of course, it's a matter of taste really. The whole concept of an ether was to my dislike, also the idea that empty space would be in fact filled with something. But I dislike (in fact, distrust) entities relative to which things have no speed even more, and according to experiments, empty space is in fact not empty anyway. Thus I chose (as everyone?) the available option that looks the least improbable to me. And that I find it most easy to comprehend comes as a bonus. Cheers, Harald88 22:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for your input

I saw that you support the wikipedia policy against information suppression. Currently there is a VfD and RfC on an article of a scientific researcher that has made large and verifiable contributions to science and society, at Edward Smith (psychologist). I have verified the findings myself via observation and experimentation, so the findings are clearly real. However, Edward Smith has not been published in any major scientific journal, it is uncertain if he has gone through the official educational system, and even his identity is uncertain. Some people believe that any such subtle-but-important people that lack those social prerequisites can not make major contributions to society, and especially scientific advancement, and that any of their contributions are non-verifiable, period, despite methods of verification being outlined by the discoverer. I am curious what your stance on this matter is. IrreversibleKnowledge 19:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not exactly a policy against (all) information suppression, but a list of examples of how POV can be pushed by means of selective information suppression. It is therefore not really a new policy, nor a proposal to change policy.

Not all information is fit or appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia, and one rule to follow is verifiability; another is notability. My first impression is that that article fails on both points; and partial replacement of the first by OR isn't acceptable either. Sorry if that answer disappoints you. Harald88 02:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox article about time dilation

Hi Harald,

I have finally completed the project about velocity time dilation. It's several animations actually. Here is a Sandbox version of a time dilation article

In its current form that Sandbox version is unsuitable for wikipedia. For one thing, it is still very incomplete. It represents how I attempt to explain special relativity to other people; it's how I attempt to explain special relativity to myself.

It may allow to to see if your understanding of special relativity is different from mine, and if so, how it differs. --Cleonis | Talk 12:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That is a lot! It may be incomplete, but also already very long for a Wikipedia explanation. Quickly looking through it, I noticed one peculiar remark:

"Since proper time remains invariant under the coordinate transformations, it seems justified to judge that proper time is more real than coordinate time."

As just as the number 1, proper time can't vary by definition (it's normalised), I don't understand your reasoning.

See also my question above. Cheers, Harald88 12:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That indicates a difference in interpretation. I prefer to not think of proper time as normalized time. I prefer the postulate that all velocities are fundamentally equivalent.

I hope you realise that your preference in no way validates your argument!

There is the factor $\gamma =1/{\sqrt {1-v^{2}/c^{2}}}$. That factor constitutes a singularity in Lorentz ether theory. As v approaches lightspeed, $\gamma$ approaches infinity. My assessment is that matter cannot contract infinitely close to zero length; something has to give. Special relativity avoids the singularity by making the sweeping assumption that the time dilation does not occur at all for the co-moving observer.

Close to zero length the contraction is not infinite, and according to relativity zero length can't be reached. Thus that hypothetical singularity isn't an issue to begin with, it isn't physically possible in any universe. But special relativity doesn't avoid Lorentz contraction by ignoring it. Instead, it's supposed to be as real as the directly measured time dilation.

You may begin to see why I only edit wikipedia articles that involve newtonian physics. I am fascinated by relativistic physics, I can't resist roaming the Talk pages, but it seems every individual physicist (including me) has developed his own personal interpretation. Cheers, --Cleonis | Talk 19:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That's for sure! But you still didn't tell me your metaphysics, your explanation for the mechanism behind the Twin paradox! Cheers, Harald88 21:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

In my searches on the internet I have not encountered such a mechanism, so I have none. All calculations that are offered in various articles are explicitly or implicitly (and sometimes without the author being aware of it) based on postulating Minkowski metric signature. (+,+,+,-) --Cleonis | Talk 22:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that we both have been busy about these things! Hmm... I would appreciate it if you rework that comment also in the last discussion item on the Twin paradox. Harald88 22:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Coordinate systems and the laws of inertia

I copy and paste from above:
I follow the interpretation of GRT in which an inertia field is postulated. Another property of the inertia field is that the concept of having a particular velocity with respect to the inertia field does not apply. --Cleonis | Talk 21:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation; the basic problem I have with it is that of a "field" which however can't be given spacial coordinates -- for if it does, it would be possible to have a velocity relative to it. My mind boggles! [...] Harald88 22:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it didn't stop Newton from formulating his three laws of inertia:
Newton's three laws are the laws of interaction of matter with the inertia field (at non-relativistic velocities).

First law: When no mechanical force is exerted, objects keep going in a straight line with uniform velocity.

Second law: a = F/m The only two operative factors for acceleration are the exerted force and the mass.

Third law: when two objects are exerting a force on each other, causing each other to accelerate with respect to their common center of mass, then the common center of mass of the two objects will keep going in a straight line with uniform velocity.

Apparently you are unaware that he based his laws on his Absolute Space postulate...

I bear in mind that the concept of a field was not available in Newton's time, it would be another 200 years or so before the concept of a field was developed. So what could Newton possibly do? What metaphor can possibly convey what he had in mind? Newton trimmed his postulates down to necessity. Newton needed a field that is absolutely everywhere, and the inertia field is absolutely everywhere. Newton needed a field that is absolutely uniform and the inertia field is absolutely uniform.

Newton did not need to know the velocity of the common center of mass of the solar system with respect to the inertia field, so he makes no attempt to measure or define that velocity. In fact, Newton asserts that given his assumptions it is impossible to know the velocity of the common center of mass of the solar system with respect to the inertia field.

My point is: in order to work with Newtonian mechanics you don't need to know the coordinates of the inertia field. Any inertially moving system of coordinates will do. Your objection against the inertia field is: "I don't know its coordinates". Well hey, you don't know the coordinates of newtionian absolute space, yet that doesn't keep you from applying the newtonian laws of inertia to physics problems.

That is suddenly a very Newtonian (and thus Lorentzian) interpretation of you; but indeed, below you changed your mind I see.Harald88 22:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Newtonian physics has been replaced with relativistic physics. In that sense newtonian physics is a thing of the past. But newtonian physics thinking is very good physics thinking in its own right, so it makes sense to retain newtonian physics thinking. Todays physicists must be proficient both in newtonian thinking and relativistic thinking, choosing in each situation what thinking to apply.

Physics theories are tools, they are means to an end. Currently, relativistic physics is the best physics available. It seems reasonable to expect that relativistic physics itself will be replaced someday.

I'm not changing my mind, I'm shifting from theory to theory, (shifting from tool to tool) which admittedly, can be confusing to the reader, for which I apologize. --Cleonis | Talk 00:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree; however, I was discussing the meta-physics, while I now understand that you discussed te physics. Oh well... It was an interesting discussion anyway! Harald88 00:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's true that you don't know where the field is, but you don't have to know, for the field is everywhere anyway, and it is uniform. Another way of looking at it is to postulate that the field is moving at all uniform velocities simultaneously. You pick any coordinate system that is co-moving with any of those uniform velocities and then Newtons laws of inertia will hold good. --Cleonis | Talk 01:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the precision; IMO it implies the model of an infinite number of parallel universes... Your approach looks very Einsteinian to me, so I find it interesting!

Cheers, Harald

What if...

I copy and paste from above:

Apparently you are unaware that Newton based his laws on his Absolute Space postulate...
Harald

I was imprecise in my previous comment, I need to correct myself.
Historically, the view that Newton presented in the Principia is that the existence of a single absolute space is asserted. (Whether that also was his private view is unknown, and not neccessary to know. As it stood, the Principia, with its 'action at a distance' gravity, and its innovative mathematics, was already way at the edge of what his contemporaries were likely to accept as a work of science.)

But from a strictly logical, non-historical point of view, I don't think postulating a single homogenous space is the only option. So what if...

What if Newton had postulated a superposition of an infinite number of spaces, all moving relative to each other with uniform velocity. (If the planets can move through space with zero friction, then presumably one space can move with respect to another space with zero friction.)

Logically, Newton's laws of inertia can also be based on the 'superposition of an infinite number of inertial spaces' postulate. --Cleonis | Talk 13:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. But what does that mean, physically? How can an infinite number of such inertia causing things that are intermingled with each other at the same locations but don't affect each other, have physical meaning, in a real universe? That's what I meant with "my mind boggles".

BTW, some input from you on the Twin paradox page would be useful. For a strange reason, it's still very quiet there, few people seem to be interested in that subject at the moment -- very different from the German version where both the article and the discussion page are blocked!

Harald88 14:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

P{hilosophy of physics (meta-theories)

I like to compare the mathematical formalisms of physics to the skeletons of organisms. The skeletons are rigid and articulated.

I like to compare the interpretations that are attributed to physics formalisms to the 'flesh on the bones'; it's the soft parts of the organism. Trying to find out what the mathematics of a theory means is like facial reconstruction. With only a bare skull to work with, the forensic anthropologist attempts to reconstruct the facial features, a process that involves educated guesses.

Philosophy of physics is like that, I think. I take it that with 'meta-physics' you refer to the meta-theories, the theories about what the heck the equations are supposed to mean.

Faraday wrote that he visualized the electrostatic and magnetic fields as distributions of field lines in space, bunching up and diverting. Maxwell wrote that he was much inspired by Faraday's visualisations. Maxwell's physics thinking in finding the Maxwell equations was guided by this kind of visualisations.

The animations and diagrams of my sandbox article about physics in Minkowski space-time are designed to serve as visualisations of the theory. Those visualisations contain the full range that I need: the twin scenario is included, the relativity of simultaneity is included, the concept of space-time interval is included. It's all there.

Are you familiar with Richard Feynman's booklet Quantum ElectroDynamics? Very likely you are. The visualisations of my sandbox article are designed to also serve as a bridge to QED.

The first quantum wave equation, the on that Schrödinger formulated, was a quantum wave equation for Euclidean space. The quantum wave equation for Euclidean space predicted fine for non-relativistic velocities, but in order to have good prediction at all speeds a version of the quantum wave equation for Minkowski space-time was formulated.

As Feynman explains in his booklet: a postulate of relativistic quantummechanics is that the path a particle follows is the path that among the set of all paths is the path with the largest lapse of proper time.

I would like to emphasize that none of what I write about physics is of my own design, I have searched libraries and the internet, I have made a judgement as to what has the best scientific qualities and what looks like gibberish, and I report the concepts that in my judgement are the best; the most profound and versatile.

My visualisations look skeletal. I seem to have stopped attempting to put 'flesh on the bones'. Effectively, that is my philosophy of physics, I do attempt to put 'flesh on the bones', but only up to a point. --Cleonis | Talk 12:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I can follow you very well in this; also I have nothing of my own design, so far. I have enriched my knowledge quite a lot after I realised that scientific disciplines suffer from similar group psychology as religious groups, and that most scientists (incl. myself until recently) are naive subjects of propaganda under the pretense of "science". It is an illusion to think that standard textbooks give a fair, accurate and complete overview of science; internet has helped me a lot to discover suppressed facts as well as opinions of important but less well known scientists, and even of some of the greatest scientists of all. Long live Internet!

It is my opinion that it is most efficient for scientific progress to avoid lingering on empty philosophical speculations. OTOH, commonly the other extreme is being preached: that one should not even attempt to understand the universe at all.

Eventhough that part of natural philosophy is not the field of physics, giving up the scientific endeavor to investigate nature would in my eyes spell defeat. Also, looking for equations with which we can calculate what will happen rarely leads on its own it to great progress, it is only part of the scientific process. Good intuitive models help a lot, and those that make physical sense are leads to a better understanding of reality.

(I'll soon save this part to an archive, as the page is getting long)Harald88 21:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

An omnipresent structure

I copy and paste from above:

But if I understand well, it also implies "something" in empty space, and thus not really empty space (nothing, not even something that causes inertia, can exist in true emptyness).[...] Harald88 22:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a conceptual difference between the inertia field of GRT and for example the electromagnetic field. The electromagnetic field is an occupant of space-time and electromagnetism is sensitive to the inertia field.

When I write: electromagnetism is sensitive to the inertia field I mean the following contrast:
1. When two spaceship are co-moving in space-time, then lightpulses exchanged among the two ships will not be frequency shifted.
2. When two spaceships are moving in space-time, and both are accelerating (the ship's thrusters are switched on, onboard accelerators measure acceleration), and ship A maintains constant proper acceleration, ship B adjusts thrusters to maintain a one second lapse of proper time for the two-way trip of lightpulses between ship A and B. Then the pulses that ship A recieves will be red-shifted, and the pulses that ship B recieves will be blue-shifted.

In contrast with the electromagnetic field, the inertia field is not an occupant of space-time, it is the very structure of space-time itself. According to GRT space-time isn't filled with an omnipresent structure; it is an omnipresent structure.

Often people try hard to bring the dichotomy, 'it is either empty or not empty' to bear, and I doubt that dichotomy applies. --Cleonis | Talk 12:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure. This point is known but misunderstood since Newton: his physical "Space" is a "structure", as you put it, in space -- whereby space is nothingness, in the way Poincare described: volume without properties, an abstract framework. I wonder if Poincare didn't understand Newton's use of that word, or simply refused to even mention it. Harald88 15:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The Eötvös effect

Hi Harald,

I've written a new article. It's newtonian dynamics. It involves rotation, and true to form I have avoided the expression 'centrifugal force'. None of any of the meanings of centrifugal force plays a role in the Eötvös effect. --Cleonis | Talk 22:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi yes I think it's very clear; only, "true to form" would be, in the standard approach as I learned, not to use centrripetal force either, but centripetal acceleration. The weight depends on the difference g-a. Anyway, at first glance I like your article. :-)

Harald88 22:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hm, tricky. When the cargolifter increases eastward velocity the distance to the center of the Earth remains the same but a larger eastward velocity corresponds to a larger centripetal acceleration. That requires more centripetal force, so a larger percentage of the force of gravity is spend on centripetal acceleration, making less gravitational force available for weight.

By contrast: in orbital mechanics all of the gravitational force is spend on centripetal acceleration, so a problem in orbital mechanics is purely an accelerational problem. But the Eötvös effect is partially accelerational, partially statics. --Cleonis | Talk 23:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Talk page. Harald88 06:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

tired light

Harald, sorry about the delay on tired light, I have been preoccupied with a long mediation on the Jehovah's Witnesses page. I will take a look at it. I was thinking about heading over to the library, maybe this weekend. It appears there is at least one book on the subject, so maybe that will give me some fresh insight. Thanks, SteveMc 05:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

About Inertia

Hi Harald, just out of curiosity: are you inclined to regard inertia as a force?

I often think of the following example: an electric car that is designed to recharge its batteries on decelerating. When the driver "applies the brakes", the flow of energy in the drive-chain reverses, and the batteries are recharged. The reaction force (reaction to deceleration) is doing work: charging the batteries.

Also I think of the thought experiment of a stack of flywheels floating in space. Kinetic energy can be stored in the stack of flywheels, by counterrotating the wheels of the stack. The larger the rotation rate of the wheels, the larger the amount of stored energy. The stack of flywheels is depleted of kinetic energy when the flywheels are stationary with respect to inertial space again.

The typical characteristic of any force is that there is always a potential energy associated with it. The reservoir of the potential energy can be charged up (for example, stretching out an elastic material, such as a spring), and the reservoir can be depleted.

I'm thinking about this because in Newton's time inertia was often thought of as a force. It was generally thought that moving objects have an impetus. I've just read this interesting article about the development of dynamics thinking in Newton's time (PDF-file 1.7 MB 27 pages)

In modern physics, 'force' is sometimes defined as: a causal agent that causes deviation from inertial motion. --Cleonis | Talk 13:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Cleonis, that is interesting -- then Hooke was the Poincare of classical mechanics?

And I would think that impetus is another word for momentum.

But about your question of my opinion, the nature of inertia happens to catch my interest. Here are a few thoughts of how I look at it now, but you may be able to make me think otherwise.

No, I don't regard inertia as a force -- I think (slightly following Einstein) that it's related to gravity. Inertia causes a reaction force on a body when it is deviated from its natural motion, and probably gravity is a modification of inertial Space. Gravitation can arguably be called a pseudo force, in agreement with Einstein; but with that view, perhaps in the end no "causal agents" at all remain to be called "force", so that only contact forces remain that counter natural tendencies -- the very ones that often are overlooked!

Without inertia, no "mass"; those two concepts are related, and almost synonyms. Mass thus depends on a property of Space as well as on amount of matter (number of protons/neutrons), IMO it's not a purely intrinsic property. On that point I take sides with Feynman (etc.) and don't go along with the modernistic geometrial "explanations" which for me don't manage to explain anything at all. The dynamic ("relativistic") mass concept fits with your flywheel description: kinetic energy corresponds to inertia increase, it's more than just an abstract calculation tool. And that brings me back to the intro of your reference article. Most scientists of now would perhaps have been perfectly happy with Keppler's laws in Newton's time: the equations are the "explanation" for them...

PS do you know how to archive this page?

Harald88 17:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

How to archive a Talk page

PS do you know how to archive this page? Harald88 17:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

If I remember correctly: you move your current Talk page to archive space with the move tab at the top of your Talk page. You will then have a blank Talk page again, but you need to edit the 'automatic redirect'.

As the current Talk page is moved to archive space, a 'redirect command' will automatically be inserted on the blank Talk page. To change that automatic redirect, click the link to your Talk page that is present on the archived Talk page. Then change the 'automatic redirect command' into a link. --Cleonis | Talk 20:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try it tomorrow. :-) Harald88 21:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" title neutrality proposal 2.0 voting has begun

See here and Wikipedia:Title Neutrality. zen master T 20:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Analogy between inertia and inductance

Had I written before about inductance? That's a pet theory of mine.
A coil with self-induction will not resist current running through it, but a coil with self-induction does oppose change of current strength. I picture a current circuit, with all components cooled down to a temperature where they are superconducting, so once a current has been started it just keeps flowing. But if you want to increase or decrease the current strength, you find that change of current strength is opposed, by the inductance.

Then I picture how the current circuit would behave if the coil would not be in it. That would actually be dangerous: in a superconductor a minute voltage will instantly whip up a massive current. Without the coil, you would have to be very careful, and apply a tiny tiny voltage. But with a coil with self-induction incorporated, there is a "safety margin".

The question is: is the opposition to change of current strenght a force? Can it be compared to an electromotive force? Well, yeah, the opposition is an electromotive force.

Inductance is inherently reactive. There is opposition to change, but the opposition can arise only in response to actual change. If an experimentor is careless, and applies a substantial voltage, then the inductance reduces that voltage to a tiny level, and subsequently the rate of change of current strength is proportional to the applied voltage.

My hunch is that this analogy is helpful in understanding inertia. As you know, my view is that inertia is mediated by an omnipresent, uniform inertia field.

PS I have churned out another article: Rotational-vibrational coupling
--Cleonis | Talk 21:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

PS PS: wow! You are quick, how can you be that fast? I'm jealous! Harald88 01:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Your hunch is not original, but don't be disappointed: your thinking is in good company (Thomson, Lorentz, and physics textbooks). Lorentz concluded that the electron mass is purely electromagnetic, and I think that that idea has never been disproved despite some such claims. Your argument of selfinduction can be found in the Electromagnetics university text book of Alsonso&Finn: If I remember well (not in my hands now), they develop the thought further by suggesting that the electron's electric field energy corresponds to rest mass/energy, and the magnetic field energy to the kinetic mass/energy. If one does not realise this, one could be brought to double counting: for the relativistic effects should not be added to this, they are already accounted for by electromagnetism. (Note: there are problems with electron shape and size assumptions).

Here is an amazing coincidence: eventhough as a student I had their Mechanics book (in my mother tongue), I missed out on this one, but I found that book in the same language in a paper waste basket of the university where I work in the country that I am now living! That part had written next to it "skip" -- thus the teacher thought that it was not interesting... Cheers, Harald88 21:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, in my pet theory there is no involvement of electromagnetism in inertia. I only take "pattern of behavior" as a model. I expect that if the nature of the Inertia field is ever elucidated then it will be seen not to be related to electromagnetism.

My speculative thought is that the inertia field is actually pushing back. Lets say there is an object in an electrostatic field. So there is a force and without the inertia field the object would jump to near light speed. But inertia kicks in opposes the change of velocity with an exactly equal force. But being a reaction, inertia is a tad late, let's say one second divided by planck's constant has elapsed before inertia kicked in, so the electrostatic field can accelerate the object just a little bit.

Then again, maybe that is what Alonso & Finn had in mind too. I have come up with this speculative thought on my own, but it would be surprising indeed if I would be the only one. --Cleonis | Talk 22:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I see no other interpretation than that the inertial field pushes back (except for possible variations in phrasing). I did not see a speculation of Alonso&Finn about the microscopic mechanism, that's the next highly interesting step -- I must admit that I never went as far as that, and your idea looks not so bad at first glance.

But my above remarks were not speculative, electromagnetism is related to inertia. For electrons, if one could take the inertia due to electromagnetic selfinduction away, then at least to good approximation their remaining inertial mass would be zero. Thus I don't see how your "pet theory" could be maintained... in return, in the end there will be less to account for: the two phenomena can apparently be unified and that is good for Ockham. :-) Harald88 01:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts are in a direction where the inertia field and electromagnetism are unrelated. In a sense, the inertia field provides a grid for other fields to follow. Electromagnetism follows the grid like chesspieces follow their grid. You can bend the gridlines of the chessboard; as long as none of the columns or rows is torn or broken or removed from the grid altogether, the chesspieces will still follow the grid. In this (only partially appropriate) analogy, the inertia field is the grid. The inertia field exerts a force on any object that doesn't follow the grid. --Cleonis | Talk 08:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It nevertheless appears that I shot that model down twice already. Let me try one last time! According to your model, there is an inertial effect (look-alike to selfinduction) even without the chess pieces, right? Let's say the effect amounts to x. You also agree, I suppose, that classical electrodynamics laws are approximately correct. From those we find with the chess pieces an additional selfinduction effect that mimics the inertial effect; it amounts to y.

Following your model, one would get x+y=y while x>0. Thus IMO you can't maintain that the inertia field and electromagnetism are unrelated. Harald88 11:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well, I'm out of my depth here, and the chess analogy is too wibbly-wobbly. I'd like to switch all attention to the other thread; by comparison a clearcut matter: rotation in newtonian dynamics --Cleonis | Talk 11:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Newtonian dynamics of rotation

I copy and paste from above:
PS I have churned out another article: Rotational-vibrational coupling
--Cleonis | Talk 21:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

PS PS: wow! You are quick, how can you be that fast? I'm jealous! Harald88 01:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Err, the uploading was quick, I have been brooding about it for a long time now. I am very interested in the newtonian dynamics of rotation, and rotation in general.

The newtonian dynamics of rotation presents a dilemma for wikipedians. The majority of the textbooks contain errors in description of the dynamics of rotation.

For example, the Eötvös effect is very unknown, and the poleward force as depicted in the the image Image:Forces_oblate_spheroid.gif is very underappreciated. In the Eötvös effect article I explain that a zeppelin on, say, 45 degrees latitude, cruising due west, will tend to veer to the pole. I don't think that you will find that in any textbook, it is widely overlooked.

Addendum: most textbooks consider only satellite orbits as represented in this wonderful orbit simulator and they erroneously extrapolate those results to the motion of airplanes and zeppelins. Try the geosynchronous orbit (set the off nadir angle to zero). Is it clear to you why the trace of the geosynchronous orbit (with the plane of the orbit tilted with respect to the plane of the equator) must have that particular shape?

Adhering to Neutral Point Of View policy would mean that these errors would be repeated. In my opinion, any theorem of newtonian dynamics is not original research. In my opinion, wikipedia editors should not hesitate to correct errors of newtonian physics textbooks. --Cleonis | Talk 08:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I have not yet read the Eötvös effect in detail and you surprise me with your zeppelin result, I will look into that later.

I am looking forward to your reactions. The theorems of newtonian dynamics that I point out can be verified as correct with high school physics knowledge level. These theorems can be overlooked by people who believe in the existance of a "centrifugal force". That is why it is so hard to talk to the guys out there on the centrifugal force talk page. They believe in something that isn't there, and that introduces a jungle of complications.
And if you also play around with Gavin Chung's orbit simulator, then you can check whether your intuitions about satellite motion relative to the Earth are on the mark. --Cleonis | Talk 12:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

OK I had a first look, and at least qualitatively it's correct. Good one!

Funny, recently I also tried to explain --for the 2nd time-- to a rather intelligent guy on sci.physics.relativity why clocks run at the same speed on the geoid: he got confused by explanations that use the rotating surrogate Newtonian frame which he mixed up with those that use the real one ... Also here, nearly impossible to undo his confusion, because of the inconsistent definitions and the lack of clarity in those writings. Harald88 13:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that lovely theorem of GRT: all of the clocks on the geoid count the same amount of lapse of proper time.
The poleward force, that is introduced in the Eötvös effect article, is obvious if the thinking is anchored on inertial space. Some people have argued to me that the resultant poleward force cannot actually exist. For, they said, if it would exist then all oceans would flow to the poles. It's tricky.

I dealt with that misunderstanding by adding a precision in the text in the drawing. Harald88 18:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

But I now see that now it is wrong! Sorry, but apparently you are confused now: objects including water that co-rotates are in full equilibrium. Harald88 18:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

That is what is stated in the article: the atmospheric layer of the earth is equally thick everywhere.

The situation is comparable to the layer of mercury on the dish of a mercury mirror as is used in astronomy. (Currently the biggest mercury mirror has a diameter of 6 meters.) The shape of the dish is parabolic. The closer you get to the rim, the stronger the force on the mercury to flow to the center. When the dish is rotating at the designed angular velocity, the mercury redistributes itself into an even layer.--Cleonis | Talk 18:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, I had to decide whether or not to mention the following detail: for an object resting on the equator of the Earth, the center of the Earth's gravitational attraction is 10 kilometers away from the Earth's center of mass (and intermediate values for other latitudes) For the oblate spheroid the center of mass and the center of gravitational attraction do not quite coincide. --Cleonis | Talk 14:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

NOw that is tricky! Harald88 18:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and OR

Cleonis wrote above: "Adhering to Neutral Point Of View policy would mean that these errors would be repeated. In my opinion, any theorem of newtonian dynamics is not original research. In my opinion, wikipedia editors should not hesitate to correct errors of newtonian physics textbooks."

About NPOV and OR, I found back the original motivation of it by Jimbo and I agree with him. Jimbo stressed [6] that:

'The basic concept is as follows: it can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is _true_ or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid, we aren't really equipped to do that.'

Obviously, Jimbo wanted to avoid that editors try to judge the correctness of all information -- an impossible task indeed! To me it does not make sense to make it mean that we should not do a minimal effort of removing obvious errors, that would also be inconsistent with the official requirements for a good article. There can hardly be a judgment problem about matters that anyone with high school can easily verify. Harald88 12:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)