User talk:Harald88/Archive3

Welcome!

Hello Harald88/Archive3, 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:

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)[reply]

My sandboxes are here:

/sandbox - on OWLS, meant for Special relativity or a side article - low priority.

/sandbox2 - draft for a replacement article for (rightly deleted) articles about relativity critics.

Archive 1: User talk:Harald88/Archive1

Archive 2: User talk:Harald88/Archive2

Bjerknes and Smoluchowski

You indicated you had a copy of Bjerknes. I am curious what he says about Einstein in relation to Smoluchowski. Licorne has made that statement the Einstein's result is "line for line identical to Smoluchowski's", which was allegedly distributed widely before being published after Einstein's. I am wondering how much of this comes from Bjerknes. On the Einstein Talk page, I have provided a source (a translation of a paper of Langevin's from 1908, with some commentary) which shows this to be complete nonsense (Smoluchowski's derivation was not only different in method, but also different in result by a spurious factor). If Bjerknes claims anything like Licorne, his credibility is further trashed. (Einstein plagiarizes an unpublished result by using a different method and getting a different (correct) result ??!!). --Pallen 07:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I bought Bjerknes' book for the references, in particular on SRT (really very usuful for that purpose). I know nothing about Smoluchowski, and I think that Bjerkness' opinion (or anyone's secondary opinion) is hardly relevant for Wikipedia. From your comments it appears that you agree with me that we don't need to waste our time with second-hand information when we have access to first-hand information. I rapidly had a look at the index, and no mention is there of Smoluchowski. Also, I don't remember having read anything about him; thus it appears that Bjerkness didn't mention him at all. Harald88 22:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I guess it's no surprise that Licorne is much more scurrilous that Bjerknes. Also, this is consistent with Stachel's review of Bjerknes - he didn't come up with anything glaring like this, as I am sure he would have if he could. --Pallen 00:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)--Pallen 00:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOR

Please don't do that again. Just because no one responds to Lumiere doesn't mean no one disagrees. Several people have made it clear more than once that a non-response signals that they do disagree with him. The word "synthesis" is vital in the policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slimvirgin, please YOU don't do that again and instead talk on Talk! It's obvious that that summary does not have consensus. Harald88 19:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I saw exactly what happened. I chose to undo it because I disagree with what you're trying to do. Will you tut-tut yourself on your own talk page if you edit war to undo it? Just curious. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 19:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree with your undoing of removal of errors; now please have a look at the last change where Slimvirgin himself removed another erroneous comment (I tend to agree with such removals!), and see if you don't want to revert that too. Anyway, I'll move this discussion to the corresponding Talk page, where it belongs (as I pointed out to you). Harald88 19:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harald, I have redone the paragraph and posted it on talk there to bring clarity. See if you agree. I am one editor that is opposed to the present wording based on the arguments I made there. --Northmeister 01:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northmeister, I can't follow your reasoning, and I've run out of time. Thus, roughly I tend to disagree, but not enough to state it as such. Sorry. Harald88 21:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfc

There is a Rfc on me. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Lumière I am just an ordinary user that felt that a clearer policy will be useful when there are disputes. If I am left alone on this, I have no chance. -Lumière 18:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO such an Rfc is terribly biased and exaggerated (one could just as well launch an Rfc against several others) but I have no time to comment well until after easter... Harald88 21:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOR

Hi Harald, when you say "our" proposal, can you say who you mean, please? I'd prefer not to respond to anything that Lumiere, Northmeister, Ragout, and Herschelkrustfosky are involved in, because there's a degree of trolling going on there, and the page is protected anyway. My suggestion is to leave things for a few days until the issues calm down. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And anyway, it's not only an unpublished synthesis advancing a new idea that isn't allowed. That would be to change the policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed it and it has been commented so far by one person, who fully agreed. That makes plural. Indeed that person is Lumiere who I now see is accused of not giving any positive input - hereby disproved. Of course we should wait some days for more comments, and I especially like to hear yours. The purpose of page protection is not to wait with uncontrolled editing until it's unprotected, but to encourage for more elaborated discussions. ;-) Harald88 21:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harald, I won't be commenting on the issue if the only person supporting it is Lumiere, or any of the others I mentioned above. If you want to discuss it with me by e-mail instead, you're quite welcome, of course. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, if it was something that only you and I are interested in I'd email you about it. But the appropriate way to discuss such things of common interest is on the article's discussion page. Harald88 18:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling? By what degree of evidence are you again making personal insults? Please stop this stuff. All anyone wants is proper discussion and collaboration..whether on my edit, your edit, Harald's questions (seperate matter) or keeping the original. But, you insist in personal insults which do not help discussion. As far as Harald's points, he makes good ones and they should be addressed. --Northmeister 21:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northmeister thanks for the clarification; but please you two if you have issues between the two of you, don't use my page for fighting! Harald88 21:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. Won't happen in the future. Best of luck. --Northmeister 22:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twin paradox

4.158.177.227 18:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Hi, I'm very new here! But I am a Physicist.[reply]

Regarding the Twins Paradox, I have discovered that it is impossible! SR and GR are fine, and so is Time Dilation. But there were some assumptions made when the concept of the Trins Paradox was first developed, which happen to be wrong!

The easiest way to see that it has to be wrong if for YOU to be "the traveller" and you have lots of No-Doz. You and your twin brother are on Earth, having lunch, and you both confirm with instruments that Alpha Centauri is 4.3 light years away. You say goodbye, get in the ship and take off. According to the story of the Twins Paradox, you arrive at A.C. a few weeks later. Still never sleeping! In YOUR view, you just traveled from 4.3 ly from AC to 0 from AC, in three weeks! So, if the Twins Paradox was true, you could go into any Court and Testify that you just traveled over 40 times faster than light! In YOUR perception, distance/time. Einstein would go crazy!

There IS a simple (well, sort of) solution! It turns out that for SR, yes, time dilation occurs as we can prove it does. However, during GR, the effect is actually opposite!

YOUR sensation of the trip would be of accelerating for about 2.1 years, traveling at constant velocity for the three weeks, and decelerating for about 2.1 years. So SR and GR are fine, but the Twins Paradox is wrong! Einstein would certainly confirm that when the WHOLE TRIP was considered, YOU could not experience any speeds faster than light and you could not experience any discontinuities of time or space. No problem. You would therefore actually arrive slightly later than 4.3 years (on YOUR watch and clock) from when you started.

I am distressed that several entire fields of modern AstroPhysics are built on top of the concept that one could "gain time" as in the Twins Paradox. Nope! You WOULD "gain time" during the constant velocity part (SR) but you would "lose time" during the GR accelerations.

--- In case anyone is able to read this, it does NOT figure that I will ever look here again for any responses! I prefer e-mail, at cjcj9876@earthlink.net

For nearly ten years, I have had a web-page on this subject, at: http://mb-soft.com/public2/twinspar.html

Thanks,

Carl Johnson 4/19/06 4.158.177.227 18:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carl, if you read the article, you may discover that your allegations are discussed and dealt with, in a fairly neutral manner (I hope!). If some explanation there isn't clear for you or biased according to you, please comment on the Discussion page of that article. Harald88 19:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete

Hi, I'm seconds before switching off my computer, so this issue has to waot a bit, BUT there's something unsatisfactory with narrow understanding of obsolote. Also note, that the article Superseded scientific theory isn't that consistent, compare the handling of Flat Earth. --Pjacobi 20:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand, the "flat earth" used to be a popular concept in ancient times, that has been almost universally abandoned; it's supported in no recent scientific journal article. Thus it has become "obsolete". And if you disagree with the article that defines the concept "obsolete", please work on that article first... (I copy this to the corresponding article)Harald88 21:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calculational strategy and

Hi Harald,

what I tried to convey on the centrifugal force talk page is that in the example given by Henning Makholm (and in general) two independent methods are used to handle the calculation more efficiently.

One method is the cause-effect inversion. The centrifugal potential field can also be inserted while still mapping the motion in an inertial coordinate system!

Of course, invariably both methods will be used simultaneously (inserting a centrifugal force-field and mapping the motion in a rotating coordinate system). --Cleonis | Talk 16:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cleon, your explanation was helpful indeed, thanks - let's hope that it is understood! Most likely a little more detail will be needed, for both approaches.Harald88 17:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Foucault pendulum

Hi Harald,

I just finished a major addition to the Foucault pendulum article. It touches on the same themes as the Eötvös effect article and the Rotational-vibrational coupling article.

My additions to the Foucault pendulum article may recieve a lot of criticism, the information will be totally new for a lot of people. Please check it out. I hope you will find it interesting. --Cleonis | Talk 02:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thanks! :-) Harald88 11:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of the Foucault pendulum article, there are several links to sites where a mathematical derivation is presented. None of those authors mentions the poleward force, yet their derivation does end up with the correct formula! My supposition is that they have fudged their derivation.

This slots in with something you have remarked earlier. In physics thinking, it is very easy to end up with mistakes if the thinking considers exclusively the motion with respect to a rotating coordinate system.

To my knowledge, Anders Persson and Norman Phillips are the only two authors who point out that the Foucault pendulum precesses with respect to the fixed stars, and who recognize that the Earth's oblateness must be taken into account.

What I have tried to bring out in the article is that the motion of the pendulum bob cannot be compared to ballistic motion. In the case of the Foucault pendulum, the poleward force must be taken into account, just as in taking gravimetric readings the Eötvös effect must be taken into account.

By contrast, in calculations for ballistics, the Earth's shape can be taken as perfectly spherical. In ballistics the influence of the Earth's oblateness is quite negligable. (Only in predicting the trajectories of the GPS-satellites does te required accuracy demand that the minute non-sphericity of the Earth's gravitational field is incorporated.) --Cleonis | Talk 12:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Foucault pendulum (2)

Hi Harald,

my additions to the Foucault pendulum article have been challenged. I badly need a fellow wikipedian to support the Foucault pendulum article. I hope you endorse the additions that I wrote. If you do, please help me.

There are two reasons why I want to try hard and keep the information in the Foucault pendulum article. 1) My additions are based on articles that have been published in peer-reviewed journals. 2) My additions are a correct application of newtonian dynamics.

In my opinion the physics has first priority. Wikipedia articles should apply newtonian physics correctly, regardless of any habits of the physics community. --Cleonis | Talk 09:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to have a chance to look at it this evening. Harald88 10:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harald, I've just decided I need a loooooong vacation from wikipedia. Thank you for our conversations, thank you for hearing me out on so many occasions. Good luck to you in trying to achieve the things you aspire to achieve. --Cleonis | Talk 20:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cleon, I know what you mean - this is very much a hobby that risks us to spoil the valuable time of our lifes. And that without any fame or other benefits! I myself decided to limit the frequency with which I visit this site, for my own good. OK, hope to see you back soon! :-) Harald88 21:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aberration

Rather than fighting each other's wording, please take a look at my sandbox, which contains a proposed new introduction. If we agree on this, I am all set to rewrite and enlarge the rest of the article. My goal is to make this a featured article. --Portnadler 10:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to have a chance to look at it this evening. Harald88 10:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's a first question, for apparently we both value the explanation that stellar aberration is attributed to the orbital and rotational motion of the observer, with 'these motions being referred to an inertial frame of reference (note the careful distinction between description and attribution).

However, you wrote:

What I really don't like about Harald88's intro is the reference to some arbitrary "inertial frame".[...] --Portnadler 08:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I then pointed out that you must have meant someone else as the last version after I modified it didn't do so.

Thus I wonder why, in the light of all the above, you changed the phrasing:

It is caused by the twin facts that the speed of light is finite, and that an observer on Earth is in non-inertial motion , to:

At the instant of any observation of an object, the apparent position of the object is displaced from its true position by an amount which depends upon the velocity of the observer relative to an inertial frame of reference.

Harald88 21:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, believe it or not, it's because I am trying to achieve a compromise that we can both agree upon. I was away from home when I wrote the bit about What I really don't like..., and I didn't realise that the Explanatory Supplement refers to an inertial frame. I think that a form of words based on the Explanatory Supplement is better than an unlinked statement about non-inertial motion. Since no one else has edited the main article in the last few days, I am going to replace it with the version from my sandbox, which also contains some other additional material. I plan to further expand on it during the next few days. --Portnadler 07:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. The concept "true position" (which refers to the arbitray solar frame which has little do with stellar aberration but everything with planetary aberration) I find not a good idea to introduce at that place (even without explanation!)- and thus also not its related inertial frame. I hope it's now clear what I tried to point out here above. For a featured article it would be good to have basic, uncomplicated descriptions in the intro, and that kind of details in the body of the article. But I'll put such comments on the Talk page, if and when necessary. The essence of stelalr aberration is "orbital and rotational motion of the observer", as also that supplement indicates.

There is also some stuff to improve at other places, and I hope to get to doing that too.

Cheers, Harald88 21:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your comments wanted

Please go here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination) right aways and add your input. Merecat 15:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond

At Talk:Redshift regarding your most recent change. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 19:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK but fast, see the above "To Do's" Harald88 19:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "describe" to "prescribe". Not ideal, but heading in the right direction.

Not bad. Harald88 21:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ladder paradox

http://ej.iop.org/links/q62/ziam91auKLCrIT2Dl3KNYA/ejp5_1_003.pdf

Doesn't work for me. It seems the URL includes some identifier. Can re-check please? --Pjacobi 20:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, and I even checked it! OK I think that I fixed the problem now. Harald88 11:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that [1] has a nice collection of interesting articles, for example "what is mass" may useful for the article on mass. Harald88 11:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice stuff! Unfortunately it's a teasing offer, the links will stop to work after one year. And, I assume, you cannot deeplink.

A more open and no-hooks-attached site is http://www.livingreviews.org/ (you surely are aware already), but it has a limited scope.

Pjacobi 12:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is "deeplinking"? Anyway, Wikipedia is a dynamic thing with dead links being replaced/removed all the time - I simply indicated an expected expiry date :-)

Note that some journals (such as the EJP) allow authors to publish their articles on their own web sites. Thus, it may well be that not long after this "free meal" ends, many of these articles will be made downloadable by their authors.

And, last but not least: No I did not know Living Reviews - thanks! :)) Harald88 12:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deep linking is the ability or action to guide the reader to specific page of web site. On a plain vanilla web site this is always possible. But by accident or more often by choice, webmasters can circumvent this (to some extent), e.g. to force visitors to go to the main page first. Pjacobi 20:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OWLS isotropy

And another point: Did you give http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0409105 as reference in some discussion? Pjacobi 20:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, see Talk:Special relativity/Archive2 near the bottom (my last contribution to that page) -> oops, it has been deleted, I'll repair it now by simply reverting (which only eliminates some name calling and personal attacks). Harald88 22:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, not a case of false memory. I'd like to comment, if you can spare some bytes on your talk page (Talk:Special relativity isn't a good place for a talk on special relativity). I still have to follow some reference chains, for a better assessment, but for a start:

I mostly agree with factual assertions, but don't see much new insights since the 1920s (of course it's worth re-iterating, if this is really disputed). In some cases, the calculations are made explicit, which Reichenbach mostly didn't bother about much.

For my taste, the papers offers too much praise to Selleri. Despite getting some things right, Selleri's papers (e.g. on the Ehrenfest paradox) usually raise the confusion. And quoting van Flandern! Heavens, is this intended as a tease? (You may judge that as good style having no prejudices, but I beg to differ).

What's soreley missing, is making contact with the "modern" coordinate free formalism. IMHO this would expose it immediately, that Einstein symchronisation is both a convention and trivial, just a choice of coordinate system which make practical calculations easier. Pjacobi 19:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting: I reckon that it's due to the "modern" textbook treatments of the near past that so many people mistake that convention as something physical. And what coordinate free formalism do you mean? I'm not familiar with it (or perhaps I am but simply don't realise it). If it's really so good, please simply add a mention of it (plus a good reference) to the SRT article. Harald88 19:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as everybody if fixated on fighting the strange guy from USENET, there seem to be no constructive advances in the article Special relativity possible. Perhaps we can use other articles, to make it more clear, e.g. by adding "connection to the postulates of SR" to Einstein synchronisation.

I'm still looking for a textbook or review, which both uses modern notation and discusses the philosophical and metrological basics. I'll try to put an explanation in my own words together, but without a respectable source source, we can't press the issue.

Pjacobi 22:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're too pessimistic: Several respectable sources have been cited (also from the AJP) that both press and explain the issue. It's a piece of cake to provide many more such papers, even some that stress that it only is needed to provide the constant c; and as far as I'm aware no contrary source has been cited that press the idea that the 2d postulate is about 1-way speed. No source = no mention. And if it turns out that the misunderstanding is widespread and really a significant counter POV, then that should also be mentioned. We just apply Wikipedia rules, and no need to care about all WP:OR! Harald88 22:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sifting through these papers is a bit tedious, as scholar.google.com now even indexes Galilean Electrodynamics, Apeiron press stuff, etc. And of course, some of journals the authors tend to publish in, are clearly on the less prestigous side of reputation. Then I'm wondering, what's up with the large percentage of Italians in the discussion. Strange. It seems the interest in this questions have settled down, and the best papers are already somewhat older. Looks the necessity of library visit.

But I've found a nice on-line review with good pointers to further reading: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-convensimul/

Pjacobi 19:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harald - I am wondering what you are up to with this TWLS business. I seem to have a bit of an answer here, but I don't like it. The ArXiv article cited at the top of this thread is not published in a reputable source, and in any case is very anti-relativity. Special relativity is based on the one-way speed of light being the same in all cases in inertial frames of reference. If you are going against that, then you no longer are dealing with special relativity. I don't know if Selleri's work is encyclopedic. I do know that the level of acceptance of his ideas remains so low that they should not even be mentioned in the special relativity article. More importantly, the special relativity article should not be adjusted to suit the TWLS viewpoint for any reason. --EMS | Talk 17:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EMS, you surprise me by claiming that a journal that has people such as Gerard t'Hooft in the editorial board is not "reputable", according to you. Please explain!

Moreover, althought I didn't read that paper fully (I only checked that it addresses the issue), I didn't notice anything unscientific in it nor that it is "very anti-relativity" - as if that mattered anyway. As far as we can tell, what you call the "TWLS viewpoint" is the generally accepted, mainstream science POV. If you want to bring in another viewpoint, please provide the references and we can include that too. We can present those POV's together in a section on "Lightspeed".

Cheers, Harald88 19:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS apparently both you and pjacobi missed the clarification at the top of that paper that it was for a special journal issue for Selleri's 70th birthday - no wonder that he was mentioned so much! ;-) Harald88 19:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. I only hope he doesn't feel obligued to write an article celebrating Tom Van Flandern's 70th birthday. --Pjacobi 19:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You indicated in my talk page that you have gotten this TWLS business from a "Foundations of Physics" article. That is a journal that I am trying to avoid in my attempts to publish my won original research because it has a reputation for being willing to publish highly speculative work that is often unacceptable in other more respected journals. Furthermore, if this is a "birthday present" to Selleri, it only takes my opinion of both the article and the journal down another notch.

Let me make it very clear to you that Einstein himself is the best primary source, while other sources such as Rindler's Introduction to Special relativity, Wald's General Relativity, and M. G. Bowler's book on relativity (sorry not to be using the "cite book" template with these) also very much support the OWLS view. What you have keyed on is one of the more prominent alternative views to relativity, and not an accepted part of relativity theory. --EMS | Talk 15:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I did not indicate that, and it's not so. I had obtained a similar OWLS impression as you from several sources, but it was corrected by reading a number of papers in which the issue was clarified. Thus, when someone here asked for a reference I simply Googled and that paper showed up; it seems to correctly reproduce what is commonly known in the field. I saw nothing "speculative" about OWLS there; it's similarly explained (but in less detail) in the AJP article that was also discussed.

But to get back to the point: you asserted that a peer reviewed scientific journal with reputable Nobel Prize laureates as editors is "not reputable", apparently because you disagree with the philosophy of some of the published papers. Such personal considerations must be disregarded in a discussion for a Wikipedia article. BTW, I know no journal that is free of error and speculation.

We have relevant precisions by Einstein from 1905 and 1907 against which you object, as well as the notable book on Special Relativity by Pauli and the paper by Erlichson of 1985 in the Am.J.Ph, against which you also object. Apparently according to you, they did not teach "relativity", and I dare to bet that you will similarly claim that the books by Lorentz on "special and general relativity" are "not good sources".

To put it differently: it is well known that SRT is a principle theory that is based on observed facts, as Einstein stressed; nevertheless, you insist on representing SRT as a kind of pseudo science. I think that that's regretful, as such a presentation of the theory naturally results in useless objections to the theory (as has indeed happened).

Anyway, the readers can form their own opinion when we clarify the different interpretations of what is meant with "light speed postulate" in a section on "light speed". Harald88 21:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me for a response and I will give it to you: My objection is not to these sources but instead to your limited understanding of them. You seem to pick up bits and pieces and totally overstate or misinterpert their meaning and/or significance. For example, your use of Pauli's statement of the second postulate, which turns out to be set up to support both the special and the general theories. Based on that, I had a running edit war with you over whether source independency was the operative part of the second postulate as opposed to the constancy of c. Pauli's book is an excellent resource which is still in print 85 years later. But unless you have a subsscription to that library service, you are only seeing a piece of that book. Then again, even if you do have a subscription, you still have a lot to learn.

Another example is the Erlichson article, which you interpret an saying that clock synchronization is impossible. That is not the point of that article. Instead it is that a convention is needed to achieve it, as "good" clocks in arbitrary states of motion will not stay synchronized in and of their own accord. In fact he explicity validates the Einstein synchronisation procedure, and the stipulation that it only works properly in a given inertial frame of reference.

I think that your total lack of understanding is most manifested in the "pseudo science" remark above. Theories are grounded in postulates and validated by how well they conform to observations. What you call "pseudo science" is what I call the metphysical boundary of physics. In essense you are determining the first principles on which the proposed physics is to be based, and go from there. So our discussion was on just what Einstein established as his first principles. He may have chosen them based on observations, but they are not statements of the observations but instead of what principles one may turn to to explain the observations. There is a difference. --EMS | Talk 03:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EMS, the main problem seems to be that we all too often disagree about the issue at hand.

For example, the use of Pauli's postulate was proposed by Pjacobi and there were no counter arguments from literature provided that prove that more is needed. That warranted a change according to his proposal as we agreed that Einstein's original formulation can be put in the article about the postulates; SRT was never owned by Einstein alone.

In 1907 Einstein clarified the conventionality of OWLS by stating more precisely that clocks can be adjusted in such a way that the propagation velocity of every light ray in vacuum - measured by means of these clocks - becomes everywhere equal to a universal constant c, provided that the coordinate system is not accelerated.

The point of my referral to the Ehrlichson article was that "Einstein clock synchronization" is by convention. That can only be because OWLS isotropy is stipulated by convention; thus it isn't a metaphysical assumption.

I'm glad to hear that you don't object to articles from respectable journals; but don't make the mistake to think that my use of few words and references means that I only have little bits and pieces of information - quite to the contrary! Over the years I studied countless original articles on SRT which provided me with a general understanding of the issues and different views of it over the last century.

Regards Harald88 11:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harald - OWLS isotropy is stipulated by postulate. The conventions are there to establish what is meant by that. Since "time" is one inertial frame is not the same as "time" is another inertial frame (and the same for distance BTW), a convention is needed to establish them. In the end, Einstein uses the clock and rod at rest in that frame.

This is one of the oddities about relativity: At first it is obvious what Einstien means by "at a determined velocity", then he shows you that it is not truly obvious, and then he shows that properly considered there is an obvious answer anyway. --EMS | Talk 15:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EMS, it's good to know that we agree that a clock and a rod (=time and length standards) at rest in an inertial frame can only serve to experimentally determine the value and isotropy of the two-way light speed in that frame.

Obviously we'll have to agree to disagree about the meaning of the postulates, just as Lorentz and Einstein agreed to disagree about the meaning of relativity - which didn't hinder their collaboration in promoting "relativity" theory.

In summary, I consider SRT to be a theory of modern physics similar to QM (=no metaphysics included), while you view SRT as a theory that does contain metaphysics. Since our opinons simply reflect the differing views in literature, there should be no problem as regards to Wikipedia.

Best regards, Harald88 16:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voigt

And now for something completely different: I saw you discussing with User:KraMuc at Talk:Woldemar Voigt - formally speaking he is still blocked for sockpuppetry, but enforcing this seems rather pointless and contraproductive. If you can enhance KraMuc's Wikipedia experience (and Wikipedia's KraMuc experience), I would very much applaud this. He has some strange ideas, not only about Relativity, but also about Wikipedia and its Cabal, see User Talk:KraMuc. Pjacobi 19:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that it is correct to block him for that; however there was reason to block him for his ignorance of Wikipedia rules. I don't know if he can be brought to reason, let's hope so.

And did you read Voigt's second 1887 paper? If so, please comment on it, as that theory seems to have been shoveled under the carpet in most literature, while the related subject has recently been picked up by a Master thesis at my university - with similar conclusions as Voigt! I consider it as still unfinished research. Harald88 19:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noticed, that the Wolfgang Pauli book Theory of Relativity, ISBN 048664152X, originally published 1921 as monograph "Relativitätstheorie" in the series "Encyklopädie der mathematischen Wissenschaften" (Teubner, Leipzig) starts with giving credit to Voigt as a pre-cursor of Relativity. --Pjacobi 16:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would speculate that that's because Lorentz did so, after he was made aware of the "Voigt transformations". However, as far as I can tell his work is completely incompatible with SRT... Harald88 19:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harald88, I just have been in a copying shop and have made copies of Voigt 1888 for you. You will have to give me some address so that I can send them to you by Air Mail. (When you have received the copies from me you should perhaps pass them on by e-mail to Göttinger Digitalisierungszentrum, suggesting that also this paper by Voigt should be made accessible to the public.)

The check list for papers proposed for deletion has been manipulated. If the Editing PAGE of the article 'Anti-relativity' is not soon re-installed I probably shall introduce legal measures against Dr. Peter Jay Salzman, alias 'pjacobi'. Initially there have been two persons involved in this 'Electronic War' against my version of the article 'Anti-relativity'. The other person apparently is no longer participating in this criminal activity. But Dr. Salzman is carrying on with playing with the fire, because he probably thinks that the pseudonym 'pjabobi' protects him.

Dr. Salzman accuses me of 'puppetsocketry' because already earlier I have called for the police to interfer. (Since then the activities going on on the PAGEs involved will be monitored by police authorities.) He argues that this amounts to "putting pressure" on other users, in this case on himself. He does not accuse me himself, however, of 'pupettsocketry', but asserts that a student of computer sciences in Croatia, named 'Dijstra' or the like, is accusing me. This is again one of Dr. Salzman's infantile ganes.

As soon as I enter my user name on an Editing PAGE, I am fully blocked and cannot launch any message anymore. I have also no access to the Homepage of student Dijstra. KraMuc.84.154.91.86 13:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here, in an Internet Café, on the column on the left hand side of your User PAGE there does not exist a command "email this user" or something similar.KraMuc.84.153.110.194 16:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- KraMuc, I greatly appreciate that you made those copies. I'll send you my address by email: Look at the left hand column, under the Wikipedia puzzle globe. Below you will see a little "search" window, and below that a "toolbox" (which I haven't tried out yet!) with:

What links here
Related changes
User contributions
E-mail this user
Upload file
Special pages

Click on "E-mail this user", and a message window should pop up. I look forward to your email!

- Please be aware that it's effectively you who is not following the rules of partipating to this website. If I'm not mistaken, not only personal attacks are forbidden, but also disrespecting the anonimity of other users. If Pjacobi requests so, I'll delete your above apparent intrusion into his rights. Harald88 19:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To protect Dr. Peter Jay Salzman, I state for the record, that I'm Peter Jacobi from Hamburg, Germany. This will be enough information if you insist to contact or sue me. I don't put a full address here, due to the address harvesting bots. Despite the insatisfactory experience with each other, I'd still hold that KraMuc can become a valued editor here due to his specialised knowledge. But this would require a better understanding of how Wikipedia works, regarding policy and regarding technis. E.g. it is impossible, also for Admins, to manipulate edit summaries [2]. --Pjacobi 19:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of my edit summaries has definitively been deleted by an administrator. I had written into it that according to the introductory label no text should be removed. That sentence has been removed, and then text had been deleted again. It is likely, however, that this has not been done by pjacobi, but by an other administrator (whose name then appeared in the 'history' record).KraMuc.84.154.116.222 13:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harald88, from "What links here" to "Special pages" everything is there (in addition "Printable version" and "Permanent link"), but not "Email this user". I try again in one hour from now. If I can't find then your address I have to give up for the nexr days. I come back then next Wednesday.KraMuc.84.154.116.222 13:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harald88, I have changed the Internet Café, but here appears no "Email the user" either. Take the author of the fourth ref. of the article you proposed for deletion and use the mailing address in Germany. If you send a postcard with your address, the copies will be sent to you.84.152.210.56 14:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KraMuc, I now understand that you didn't inscribe yourself in Wikipedia. Indeed, without log-in you can't contact other editors. OK I'll send you a postcard. Harald88 16:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harald88, I did not logg in, because I have been banned from editing (for silly reasons). As soon as I logg in under my user name "KraMuc" I have no longer access to Wikipedia's Editing PAGEs, so that I am also unable to contact administrators and/or editors. Moreover, the 'Electronic War' I have been facing included transiently also that all Internet Cafés in this area here were blocked off by administrators. I am probably assumed to consider these measures taken against my version of 'Anti-relativity' as 'highly intelligent'. Your postcard has been received, and Voigt's article of 1888 has been sent to you. What happened to the last version of the article 'Anti-relativity'? I can't find it anymore. Does there now exist an alternative article? KraMuc.84.154.95.28 11:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kramuc it was deleted, see the link by EMS below. Nearly half of the commentators favour a replacement article with a more modest header (e.g. "Criticisms of the theory of relativity"). However, as long as you are likely to alter any new article in such a way that it again becomes un-encyclopedic (or, at least un-Wikipedia) beyond repair, I doubt that a new article will be started by any of the former participants.

Anayway, I look forward to reading that little known article by Voigt. :-) Harald88 19:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - anti-relativity got deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-relativity. --EMS | Talk 15:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KraMuc, your 1-week-block has expired [3]. Are you sure, you cannot login and edit? Even a blocked user is allowed to write on his user talk page. If you still are blocked, please write the message you get on your user talk page and will look after the issue. --Pjacobi 15:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently he did not yet create his user page... Harald88 19:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither "Anti-relativity" nor "Criticisms of the theory of relativity" is an optimum choice for the title of the article I had been editing. Perhaps the existing article "Relativity" (or the like) should be changed into "Relativity (orthodox)" or "Modern Relativity". The new article could then be given the title "Relativity (unorthodox)". "Criticisms of orthodox theory of relativity" could then become a sub-title of the latter article. I have informed some activists of the 'Scholar Sub-culture of Modern Relativity' that they have here the chance to supply contributions. At the moment I have no time because I have an appointment for tennis. Thereafter I shall create my user talk page.

It is clear to me that an encyclopaedical article requires 'neutrality' etc. I was surprised, however, that the arguments for deletion had not included one single objection on physical or scientific grounds. I shall try once more and hope that this will not happen again.KraMuc 10:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I now received the paper by Voigt, thanks a lot! However, the coming days I'll have little time, and this subject is one that requires a lot of time, it's very tricky.

I did notice a mistake (at least, according to me and almost everyone else!) in your "transverse Doppler" understanding. In fact, I already added a clarification to the Transverse Doppler effect article that is meant to avoid such misunderstanding: when people state that "classical physics has no transverse Doppler", they mean that classically no such effect exists for a stationary observer. If you like I can explain more on the corresponding Talk page, and it may be worth to next expand the explanation in that article. Harald88 19:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harald88, you are mistaken with your interpretation of the transverse Doppler effect. I strongly recommend that you withdraw your modification, because it most probably adds to confusion. You should first study Bradley's theorem and its meaning in optics of moving bodies. I recommend that you consult E. Herlt und N. Salié, Spezielle Relativitätstheorie, Akademie Verlag, Berlin 1978, Section 1.2: "Elektrodynamik und ausgezeichnetes Bezugssystem".KraMuc 17:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what is then "my" interpretation do you think? Here above I didn't give one, and neither did I notice a clear interpretation in that article.

BTW, I have consulted other sources and I can show how to derive the relativistic "transverse Doppler" effect from classical Doppler, assuming classical wave theory and time dilation. From your writings it appears that you reject SRT's Doppler effect as well as the wave theory of light. I won't discuss here what to put in that Doppler article: that's for that article's discussion page.

Best Regards, Harald88 01:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS I now notice that last month you already added a very long comment to that article, but you forgot to add a header. The usual syntax is as follows: put two equal signs (==) on each side of the header text, without a left leading space. I'll fix that now. Harald88 12:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classical unified field theories

What are you doing to this article? Any expansion should use the Hubert Goenner review article (see citation in previous version) as the basic source, not Albert Einstein. ---CH 21:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

???! -> It doesn't make sense to rely on a single source and to ignore what other editors already have contributed (that's POV forking), but I'll clarify it on the article's Talk page. Harald88 22:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metaphysics

Harald - You wrote

I consider SRT to be a theory of modern physics similar to QM (=no metaphysics included), while you view SRT as a theory that does contain metaphysics.

You really don't seem to "get it". Mathematical physics (in other words the type that was initiated by Sir Issac Newton) is where you start with a set of principles that can be mathematically expressed, and see what predictions it creates. Much of that it experimental and hence pseudoscience. However, there are views that have been found to have actual predictive power, and those are the mainstream theories of physics.

QM lack for metaphysics? Hardly! Instead, things such as the Schrödinger equation are its first principles. To say the "special relativity predicts time dilation" or "E=mc²" is physics. After all you can show how both arise in special relativity. But where does the global invariance of the speed of light come from? In the end, that is a first principle, and all first principles are by definition metaphysics. That is not a putdown of the theory, for no theory can exist without resting on a set of assumptions that simply exist as opposed to having been derived from any underlying principle. --EMS | Talk 22:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EMS, you made me smile with your remark that "I don't seem to get it"! :))

What is experimental and predictive - such as Planck's constant and the PoR - is certainly physics. They can be put to the test and offer predictive power.

OTOH, things that with mathematical certainty can't be verified by experiment and don't add predictive power - such as the definition of simultaneity - are simply not physics, just as math isn't physics.

When someone believes that such a definition is more than just a convention and corresponds to underlying physical reality, then we definitely are in the field of metaphysics.

There is nothing wrong with that as long is it isn't asserted that such belief is "scientific", for then we are dealing with pseudo science.

Thus we definitely disagree about those concepts.

Peace. Harald88 11:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two choices

Happy Solstice! Either the references to me on this page is removed, or I place a response similar to the one I've drafted here. --Tim Shuba 04:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is rather ironic. I'll discuss it with the owner of that page. Harald88 06:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest that threats, especially legal threats, are generally a high ineffective method of getting material removed from Wikipedia? You might want to look at the example of Daniel Brandt. As for the other parts of your comment, a personal attack would be like saying you are an idiot. If a user posts in good faith that a person is stalking him, that is not a personal attack. --Philosophus ^T 08:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Philosophus, you may suggest many things, including that my comment "looks like it is from a puppet of some form rather than a real editor". The only threat I made, if you want to call it that, was to posssibly post a reply similar to the draft I wrote (now deleted). My intention was to stay away from bringing this (minor) conflict into another user's talk page, and in that spirit these are my final comments about it on this talk page.

Thank you Harald88 for resolving this issue with a minimal amount of nonsense. --Tim Shuba 15:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removal of personal attacks

Hi Herald. Just noticed your message on Pjacobi's page, and I have one comment for you... If you remove personal attacks, especially by a regular editor, it's accepted (and good) practice to at least note on the page that you've edited their remarks: write something like "personal attacks removed". -- SCZenz 22:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that I did of course. Thanks anyway! Harald88 07:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so you did. I'm sorry I missed that. I'll look at the message you just left on my talk page in the next hour or so. -- SCZenz 08:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged personal attack on Talk:Bell's spaceship paradox

Hi EMS and Harald,

I'm leaving you both the same message on this, since I was asked to look into it. The main thing I'd like to emphasize is that this issue is extremely minor, and I don't want to see it blown out of proportion. Here are my comments:

EMS, making general statements about a user's editing habits, like the ones you made, is somewhat uncivil. It shouldn't be done unless vitally necessary, and I don't think it was necessary to warn a 3rd-party user about Harald.
Harald, it was a borderline personal attack and a relatively minor violation of WP:CIV. Removing the text of alleged personal attacks tends to be inflammatory, and should therefore be reserved for the most egregious cases. Sending a polite note to EMS would have been a more appropriate response.

If either of you disagree with my judgement, feel free to ignore me for now, but just think about what I said in the future. -- SCZenz 12:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SCZenz, thanks for you looking into this (I also put this here on both your and my page). As it happens it was not at all the first of its kind: I have commented to him about his uncivil behaviour in the past. Moreover you didn't take into account that instead of apologising, he reinserted the comment, showing his disrespect for me as well as for WP:CIV. A stream of sneering remarks is more detrimental for Wikipedia than one uncivil outburst, and allowing them is gratifying for the offender. Harald88 15:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inclusion

I replied to your comment there. The place seems a bit dead... and you're quite right, hardly a project at all. The point about projects is that they're meant to do something... this seems far closer in spirit to a mere organization. TheGrappler 04:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User talk:Hillman

Hi I noticed by chance the page [4] [next moved elsewhere, see history].

It appears to be stalking and may be a breach of European Union privacy laws. Thus it should be altered or deleted, also in view of similar Wikipedia policy. The same is the case for this section User_talk:Hillman#On_names_and_other_things. Please reconsider what you're doing - these are public pages... Harald88 09:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is absurd, Harald. There is no information there which is not public information. Why don't you do some Googling and so on? These pages are for my own use, BTW, but yes, I know they are world readable. I can't help that. You don't have to read them if they offend you.---CH 10:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, publicly readable web pages are subject to the same laws; moreover, Wikipedia respects the right on privacy and is against stalking.

From what you wrote yourself, it appears that the inferences that you made are not "publicly available", since you didn't cite a website that made such connections.

I repeat: please remove information from Wikipedia that is disrespectful of the privacy of editors and/or private persons. I will work to get any information removed from Wikipedia that I happen to come across and that may be considered to be harrassment and/or breach of international privacy laws. Such things are much graver than for example the ranting of cranks.

And please note that I'll reinsert referral above to the corresponding Wikipedia page by tomorrow, to give you time to rework it (I hope that you'll for example replace the name of the person by ***, consistent with what you did here).

Regards,

Harald88 13:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to see that that page has been removed, and that section has been edited in accordance with my request. Harald88 18:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Hillman did not make those edits to his talk page, I did. Plus I had to revert them several times to keep them there. Amazing ... DrL 19:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy stuff

The best place to report privacy-related issues is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Explain carefully what the issue is and post links to where it occurred. They handle this sort of thing fairly often. --Fastfission 16:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll do that if needed. Harald88 21:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Physics Article WIP proposal

Hello, as an editor who has previously added to the Physics article and taken part in discussions on its talk page I thought a current proposal may be of interest to you. Over the past few months the article has suffered from a lack of focus and direction. Unfortunately the article is now judged by a number of editors to be in a relatively poor state. There is currently a proposal to start a full consensus based review of the article. That review and consensus process has been proposed here, your thoughts on the proposal and participation in the WIP review of the article would be much appreciated. It disappoints me that an article on one of the fundamental sciences here at wikipedia is in such a relatively poor state, and I hope you can have a browse by the page to offer your views and hopefully participate. Thanks, SFC9394 22:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving Caroline Thompson?

Harald, as the person who first reported Caroline Thompson's death, perhaps you would know how one could get to, archive, laminate, gold-plate, however-you-want-to-think-about-it, all the extraordinary content she created on the web under "Caroline Thompson's Physics" ...? The page (freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1) seems not to be accessible any longer. Thanks - I just believe this stuff needs to be preserved, to live on beyond her physical lifetime even though she was repeatedly rebuffed by the defenders of more orthodox points of view. Dilettante Extraordinaire 18:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Ball RfC

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rod Ball. --EMS | Talk 16:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'll have a look. Harald88 17:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relativity of simultaneity

Harald -

Please help defend that page as a stub. The prior contents are a somewhat subtle attempt to deny Einstein the credit he deserves for it. That old version is also off-topic in that it is dicussing the history of the Lorentz transformations and not the relativity of simultaneity! This is a case where a stub (or no article) is better than a grossly incorrect and misleading one. I know that this action is drastic, but this is one time that such action is needed.

BTW - While Einstein deserves credit for relativity as a whole, Lamor does have priority for both the derivation of the Lorentz equations (in their final form), and infering that they call for time dilation. However, those facts are better expressed in other places. --EMS | Talk 22:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EMS, I agree that that article can be improved and trimmed, but I strongly disagree with stubbing. I don't know what credit Einstein deserved for relativity of simultaneity; but if you know it and you can cite it, you may add it to that article. Please discuss such things on the corresponding Talk page. Harald88 22:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful with WP:NOR

Harald88, hi. I noticed you reverted some changes at Wikipedia:No original research. I just want to caution you that the page is very close to being reprotected, and that any kind of undoing of anyone else's edit without prior discussion on the talk page is just going to push it closer. Please help keep this page from getting protected again. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bachus, it happened to be an undoing of someone's edit without prior discussion - in fact, it had been discussed before to not have that version. Probably I was not clear enough in my comment? In any case, I welcome pretction of that page if such edits continue! Harald88 20:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that an undoing is as bad as a doing. I would love it if we could just get the whole group to discuss without any of us editing, for a day or two, and I honestly believe we can work it out. It's all the undoing and un-undoing and re-undoing that screws the process up, and upsets people. We have to avoid it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this one was straightforward: his edit was in defiance of the demand that "When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." It's standard practice to revert in such cases. Harald88 20:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's common practice. It's also wrong. The best way to approach a bad edit is to discuss first. Otherwise you're reinforcing that editors wrong idea that it's ever ok to edit a controversial page without discussion. In particular, because of the edit that you were reverting, you were actually certain that your revision does not reflect consensus. When there is not consensus, i.e., when there's any dispute, as there manifestly is now, we have to stop editing and talk. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be getting on your case, by the way. It's actually that you seem to be a reasonable person and I hope you can help stabilize the situation, which seems capable of flying right out of hand without a few level headed voices. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple words

I find your editions at Wikipedia written in a very clarifying and logic way. These brief words serve to express my anonymous support, as a non-physicist, to your vital efforts. Thank you, Best Regards. --Viriathus 19:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know to which articles you point in particular, but it's very nice to hear positive criticism - Thanks! :-))) Harald88 21:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Btw, perhaps you may be the most prepared individual here to aid in the development of the article related to Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev, as there seems not to have been till now at Wikipedia any "expert" able, or willing, to dwell into this Russian astrophysicist/astronomer's work. His and Dr. Aspden's work seem to constitute a true challenge to current-day physics; the question arises: are both of their works to became the basis for a new Physics, and Science, of the 21st century and beyond? Time will tell... ;-) --Viriathus 21:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KraMuc socks?

FYI, I have reported PaolaDiApulia (talk · contribs) as a suspected sock of permabanned user KraMuc (talk · contribs · block log) at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/KraMuc_(2nd). ---CH 05:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harald88, I noticed that you reverted MGR Talk to an old June 18 version with edit summary 'revert PA by KraMuc'. I am sure it's some kind of mistake, so I reverted it back. If I missed something please let me know. Thanks, Crum375 13:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OOPS - by mistake I was looking at an old version, sorry about that! Harald88 15:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOR

I already answered your question, on the talk page. I have nothing more to add to the answer. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I now found the discussion which did not appear on the corresponding Talk page. I answered on both now. Harald88 19:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dingle

I've made some comments about a serious error on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Herbert_Dingle#accuracy Maybe you want to try to edit the article to correct the error? Many thanks. NC 172.202.158.145 14:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

My apologies for not drawing your attention to the Request for Arbitration on Pseudoscience vs Pseudoskepticism, my oversite - Ian. --Iantresman 22:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L. Essen

Hi Harald88, since you seem to be in charge now of this article, please note that you lost the following reference: E.'s letter to THE ECONOMIST. By clicking on the bottom left of E.'s Homepage, you find the list of his publications. Perhaps you should by e-mail request a copy of ref. no. 129 and ask what the meaning of "Proc. Royal Inst. Of St. Bactain?" is. --Pillepalle 15:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not "in charge" of that page; nevertheless I have copied that reference to the talk page. Harald88 20:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to my talk page

Hi Harald. You bring up some interesting points and question. I apologize but my work has taken up most of my attention these past few days. I need to think about your questions a little more and get back to you by Sunday. Agne 08:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 11:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Trying to reach an infobox consensus here: [5]. Please can you weigh-in with your opinion? SureFire 00:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Fields

Thank you for casting your vote on the Einstein infobox. Please now go to [6] to give your opinion on how you want the individual fields modified. SuperGirl 08:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]