![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Does anybody remember when (even roughly) this article became GA? This Talk page archive does not include the header templates, which is probably not good.-- 71.141.237.87 20:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
In this article and in many others I read, that Newton claimed an absolute time and an absolute space. But, I can not find any citation from Newton talking of an absolute time or space. Moreover, Newton's work is based on Galileo's, and the principle of relativity was already used by Galileo, or not? 84.169.205.73 10:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
We have been studying Galilean and Lorentz transformations since a long time and in its derivation, we usually take y- and z-axis as constants, I mean we write y`= y and z`=z. I cant understand that when a particle is moving in 3-d, how can both the axis remain same. We do not take the value of x,y,z of a particle which is moving in 3-d as constants. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.94.209.92 ( talk) 19:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
The repeated edits by Enormousdude (see, e.g.,
here) can be reasonably considered vandalism and should be reverted without worrying about
WP:3RR. (in my opinion)
Gnixon
19:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
My guess is that the point which Enormousdude ( talk · contribs) is missing (if he is not just a troll) is that the laws of electromagnetism are not part of special relativity itself, they are a separate theory. JRSpriggs 09:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
There are numerous and highly reliable published sources that all agree that special relativity can be derived without Einstein's second postulate. See the short list of 11 references given by Palash B. Pal in the article, Nothing but Relativity for example.
The abstract to the article Lorentz Transformations from the First Postulate by A. R. Lee and T. M. Kalotas, published by the American Journal of Physics -- May 1975 -- Volume 43, Issue 5, pp. 434-437, says it best:
“ | We present in this paper a derivation of the Lorentz transformation by invoking the principle of relativity alone, without resorting to the a priori assumption of the existence of a universal limiting velocity. Such a velocity is shown to be a necessary consequence of the first postulate, and the fact that it is not infinite is borne out by experiment. | ” |
I see no reason why this elementary detail in modern special relativity that is so relevant to other knowledgeable editors can't be incorporated into the Wikipedia article on special relativity. -- e.Shubee 10:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
In the paper referenced above, from glancing at the first page, it looks like the authors essentially assume a Lorentz spacetime, then substitute experimental evidence for the 2nd postulate in order to rule out the limiting case of Galilean space for c=infinity. That hardly reads to me like any invalidation of Einstein's approach---in fact, it boils down to starting with his revolutionary insight that space and time are related. Since Newtonian mechanics is invariant in Galilean space(-time), invariance alone can't allow you to "derive" relativity. Of course, the whole issue of trying to find postulates for deriving relativity seems a little off-point to me. Einstein's insistence that invariance and constancy of speed of light must be correct led him to realize that we live in a spacetime described by special relativity. Gnixon 20:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I actually don't understand the comment made by EMS and others above that you have to set the limiting speed to c or assume the validity of Maxwell equations to get special relativity. I have two objections to that. First, suppose that the photon turns out to have a mass after all see e.g. here, then special relativity would still be valid, even though Maxwell's equations are not (at least they would not apply to electromagnetism). Also the limiting velocity would not be the same as the speed of light.
Another objection is that the value of the limiting velocity has no operational meaning because we have yet to define our units. You can always choose your units such that c becomes 1 (unless it is infinite in which case we are dealing with classical mechanics). The term c this a mere rescaling parameter that arises from the fact that we measure time and space in different (from natural) units. This point has been made a few times by Michael Duff, see here and here. As Duff explains in the latter article, you could just as well define different (incompatible) units for distances in the x y and z directions.
E.g. imagine that on the surface of a neutron star there are intelligent creatures that are contrained to move along the surfce. To them the vertical direction is invisible, but it does appear indirectly in their equations of physics. When their Einstein discovers the true laws of physics they get the formula for ds^2 with a c^2 in front of the dt^2 but also a c_{z}^2 in front of the dz^2. Both parametrs would then be dimensionful parameters because they would be associated with concepts from old laws of physics in which these quantities are incompatible. Count Iblis 01:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
A series of references (textbook quotations) were (finally) cited by User:Enormousdude, which appear to show that the redundancy argument is published. User:Sbharris also linked to a reference (lecture slides) when adding a somewhat better-worded version of the redundancy argument when this became clear.
Given that we finally have some citations satisfying WP:RS in play, I'm prepared to endorse the version produced by User:Sbharris. Can we please stop reverting and start discussing things again? Core to the discussion would be whether or not the textbook citations are valid for the point being made, not opinions on anyone's attitude or credentials. -- Christopher Thomas 22:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
That's a nice-looking graphic for the light cone, but the caption beneath it doesn't sound right. It says:
"The lower quarter of the diagram shows the events that are visible to the observer, and the upper quarter shows the light cone- those that will be able to see the observer."
The light cone consists of both the lower and upper quarters, no? Also, visibility to an observer is along the past light cone's surface. Visibility of an observer is along the future light cone's surface. So, shouldn't the passage say something like this?:
"The lower quarter of the diagram shows the observer's past light cone -- events that can affect the observer -- and the upper quarter shows the observer's future light cone -- events that the observer can affect." The Tetrast 02:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I've just added a new section Special relativity #Caveat:_improper_combination_of_the_equations_of_time_dilation_and_length_contraction which has been copied from Introduction to special relativity. There has been a lengthy discussion over whether this is correct at Talk:Introduction_to_special_relativity#Comparison_of_clock_readings_at_different_places_in_a_reference_frame illustrating, to my mind, that the topic is too complex for that introductory article. I have therefore moved the issue here where there might be input into the discussion from a wider range of editors.
Please note, the discussion on the other page has started to descend into insults. Please keep it WP:CIVIL, people! GDallimore ( Talk) 09:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
(reset indent) The problem with this caveat is that it does not use the definition of a reference frame as a collection of comoving observers each with their own synchronised clock.
In a given frame of reference clocks are synchronised, they dont just give the same intervals, they give the same absolute readings.
In a given frame intervals can be determined within AND between clocks:
If DT(1) = D12 - D11
and DT(2) = D22 - D21
Then DT= D12 - D21
and DT=DT(1)=DT(2)
So why does the Lorentz transformation contain the phase term vx/c^2? If an observer in a relatively moving frame reports that DT=DT(1)=DT(2) why does an observer in another frame disagree?
The reason for this is that the Lorentz Transformation compares the absolute time in one frame with that in another for a single observer. The use of synchronised clocks at different positions in the moving frame will be perplexing to the stationary observer because it will appear to him as if they have all been artificially set out of sync by the amount of the phase term. Only the two clocks that are coincident with the origin at t=0 will be initially synchronised between frames. All the other clocks that are in the frame that is moving relatively to the frame where the length measurement is being made will be conveniently out of phase by the amount of the phase term for the separation of the clocks.
So, taking two clocks separated by L metres, the clocks will appear out of sync due to the LT by g vL /c^2 but will have been conveniently synchronised at the outset to have an absolute time difference of minus gvL/c^2.
Given this, how can we measure the length of a rod? Suppose we place a mirror at one end and time how long light takes to go to the end and back:
DX = cDT (where T is half the overall time interval)
This works because the rod, the timing device and the mirror are in the same frame of reference. Only the light moves, v is 0 so g is 1 and vx/c^2 is 0.
We can do the same thing for a moving rod in its comoving reference frame:
Dx= cDt
But can we do it BETWEEN frames? Can we measure the length of a rod that is stationary in one frame from another, moving frame?
The definition of a reference frame is a collection of comoving observers each with their own synchronised clock. All we need to do is observe the reading on the clock that is adjacent to front end of the rod when the light is emitted and then read the clock that is adjacent to the front end of the rod when the reflected light returns.
We can then use Dx=cDt to determine the length of the rod as measured from the moving frame.
Clearly then x/t = X/T can be used to compare the two lengths and t and T can be related by the time dilation formula, contrary to the caveat.
The caveat, based on the LT for a single observer, does not take into account the synchronisation procedure between clocks in an inertial frame of reference. Incidently, the derivation of length contraction from time dilation is the standard method:
http://www.cosmo.nyu.edu/hogg/sr/sr.ps
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node79.html
http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/2000spring/PHY232/lectures/relativity/contraction.html
http://www.drphysics.com/syllabus/time/time.html
etc.... Geometer 14:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
GDallimore, here is A Full Mathematical Derivation of the point of the Caveat again (with appropriate notation):
(unindent) I have a couple of question here: Is there are reliable source which states that this issue is a concern for relativity theory? Without it, I must conclude that this is a well-meaning bit of original research, and should be removed. Even with a source, is this matter a source of significant concern for relativity theory? If it is not, then I would question whether it needs to be covered at all. Indeed, the best thing to do with a minor but contentious statement in a Wikipedia article is often to remove it. -- EMS | Talk 19:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
(reset indent)
EMS, that leaves us with the page Introduction to special relativity that has been almost completely rewritten by someone who thinks that the time dilation equation Dt' = g Dt can be valid for a pair of events that do not satisfy Dx = 0, in other words for a clock at rest in the (x,t)-frame that produces ticks at different places. How do you feel about that? DVdm 06:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Caveats like this belong to the "Introduction to Special Relativity article". Perhaps an artile like "Relativity for Dummies" is needed :) Count Iblis 02:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
(reset indent)
EMS: "...trivial issue out of the USENET...": => Not only USENET. Perhaps even more so on the Web, and Wikipedia is part of the Web as well, isn't it? ;-)
EMS: "...fighting strawman by anti-relativists...": => I don't really see this as a fight with anti-relativists. Just a warning that might help beginners to avoid becoming anti-relativists by failing to understand the, to beginners, de-facto most well known equations of special relativity. I notice that failing to understand them in their proper context is extremely, almost frighteningly widespread, both among beginning amateurs as among, yes, professional physicists. That is the reason why I carefully worded the section Time dilation and length contraction in its current form. I really think the caveat belongs in there.
EMS: "...an editor who suggested that it be placed here. So DVdm did just that...": => Correction: it was moved here by that editor, who, simply failing to understand it, decided that it is too complex for an introduction to special relativity :-)
Good grief, what a fuzz over such a trivial issue. Such a simple statement, but apparently some of the contributors here are even simpler. Yet for some of the more sophisticated contributors, the statement seems to be too sophisticated. A paradox.
Well, since I stand by it, I really think it should be inserted again. To those who find themselves somewhere between the extremes of simplicity and over-sophistication, feel free to contribute. DVdm 09:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Dvdm, Of course I cannot produce the pair of events you`ve been talking about, because it doesn`t exist. And I understand that this is the point you are trying to make, and that you believe that this pitfall is common enough to warant som king of warning in this articl. The point I`m making is that, in making your point, you`ve given the reader the impression that it is not possible to define an invariant area. That would be an even bigger pitfall. It appears to me that it would be preferable to show the reader the correct way to build that invariant. In other words, show them what to do instead of what not to do Dauto 02:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
Edit concerning the Special relativity page: The dilation and contraction formulas are incorrect. If moving clocks run slower (which they do), then an observer in the chosen rest frame will read a time t on his watch, and the slower time t* on the watch in the moving system. So t* < t as observed in the rest frame. Certainly gamma is greater than 1, so it must be that γt* = t, in order to correct for the time discrepancy.
Similarly, moving objects appear shorter. So if the observer in the rest frame observes a length L for a rod in the moving frame, then L* > L, if L* is the length of the rod in the moving frame. So it must be that L* = γL to correct for the length discrepancy.
I don't know how this error came to light, my guess is that the argument used is incorrect. Please correct me with a logically sound argument if I'm wrong. I also have a text by my side by physicist David J. Griffiths confirming my stand on the issue. If I am correct, then please change it.
P.S. Sorry for all the edits, I just kept thinking of clearer ways to phrase my argument.
Woojamon
00:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Does anybody remember when (even roughly) this article became GA? This Talk page archive does not include the header templates, which is probably not good.-- 71.141.237.87 20:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
In this article and in many others I read, that Newton claimed an absolute time and an absolute space. But, I can not find any citation from Newton talking of an absolute time or space. Moreover, Newton's work is based on Galileo's, and the principle of relativity was already used by Galileo, or not? 84.169.205.73 10:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
We have been studying Galilean and Lorentz transformations since a long time and in its derivation, we usually take y- and z-axis as constants, I mean we write y`= y and z`=z. I cant understand that when a particle is moving in 3-d, how can both the axis remain same. We do not take the value of x,y,z of a particle which is moving in 3-d as constants. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.94.209.92 ( talk) 19:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
The repeated edits by Enormousdude (see, e.g.,
here) can be reasonably considered vandalism and should be reverted without worrying about
WP:3RR. (in my opinion)
Gnixon
19:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
My guess is that the point which Enormousdude ( talk · contribs) is missing (if he is not just a troll) is that the laws of electromagnetism are not part of special relativity itself, they are a separate theory. JRSpriggs 09:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
There are numerous and highly reliable published sources that all agree that special relativity can be derived without Einstein's second postulate. See the short list of 11 references given by Palash B. Pal in the article, Nothing but Relativity for example.
The abstract to the article Lorentz Transformations from the First Postulate by A. R. Lee and T. M. Kalotas, published by the American Journal of Physics -- May 1975 -- Volume 43, Issue 5, pp. 434-437, says it best:
“ | We present in this paper a derivation of the Lorentz transformation by invoking the principle of relativity alone, without resorting to the a priori assumption of the existence of a universal limiting velocity. Such a velocity is shown to be a necessary consequence of the first postulate, and the fact that it is not infinite is borne out by experiment. | ” |
I see no reason why this elementary detail in modern special relativity that is so relevant to other knowledgeable editors can't be incorporated into the Wikipedia article on special relativity. -- e.Shubee 10:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
In the paper referenced above, from glancing at the first page, it looks like the authors essentially assume a Lorentz spacetime, then substitute experimental evidence for the 2nd postulate in order to rule out the limiting case of Galilean space for c=infinity. That hardly reads to me like any invalidation of Einstein's approach---in fact, it boils down to starting with his revolutionary insight that space and time are related. Since Newtonian mechanics is invariant in Galilean space(-time), invariance alone can't allow you to "derive" relativity. Of course, the whole issue of trying to find postulates for deriving relativity seems a little off-point to me. Einstein's insistence that invariance and constancy of speed of light must be correct led him to realize that we live in a spacetime described by special relativity. Gnixon 20:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I actually don't understand the comment made by EMS and others above that you have to set the limiting speed to c or assume the validity of Maxwell equations to get special relativity. I have two objections to that. First, suppose that the photon turns out to have a mass after all see e.g. here, then special relativity would still be valid, even though Maxwell's equations are not (at least they would not apply to electromagnetism). Also the limiting velocity would not be the same as the speed of light.
Another objection is that the value of the limiting velocity has no operational meaning because we have yet to define our units. You can always choose your units such that c becomes 1 (unless it is infinite in which case we are dealing with classical mechanics). The term c this a mere rescaling parameter that arises from the fact that we measure time and space in different (from natural) units. This point has been made a few times by Michael Duff, see here and here. As Duff explains in the latter article, you could just as well define different (incompatible) units for distances in the x y and z directions.
E.g. imagine that on the surface of a neutron star there are intelligent creatures that are contrained to move along the surfce. To them the vertical direction is invisible, but it does appear indirectly in their equations of physics. When their Einstein discovers the true laws of physics they get the formula for ds^2 with a c^2 in front of the dt^2 but also a c_{z}^2 in front of the dz^2. Both parametrs would then be dimensionful parameters because they would be associated with concepts from old laws of physics in which these quantities are incompatible. Count Iblis 01:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
A series of references (textbook quotations) were (finally) cited by User:Enormousdude, which appear to show that the redundancy argument is published. User:Sbharris also linked to a reference (lecture slides) when adding a somewhat better-worded version of the redundancy argument when this became clear.
Given that we finally have some citations satisfying WP:RS in play, I'm prepared to endorse the version produced by User:Sbharris. Can we please stop reverting and start discussing things again? Core to the discussion would be whether or not the textbook citations are valid for the point being made, not opinions on anyone's attitude or credentials. -- Christopher Thomas 22:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
That's a nice-looking graphic for the light cone, but the caption beneath it doesn't sound right. It says:
"The lower quarter of the diagram shows the events that are visible to the observer, and the upper quarter shows the light cone- those that will be able to see the observer."
The light cone consists of both the lower and upper quarters, no? Also, visibility to an observer is along the past light cone's surface. Visibility of an observer is along the future light cone's surface. So, shouldn't the passage say something like this?:
"The lower quarter of the diagram shows the observer's past light cone -- events that can affect the observer -- and the upper quarter shows the observer's future light cone -- events that the observer can affect." The Tetrast 02:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I've just added a new section Special relativity #Caveat:_improper_combination_of_the_equations_of_time_dilation_and_length_contraction which has been copied from Introduction to special relativity. There has been a lengthy discussion over whether this is correct at Talk:Introduction_to_special_relativity#Comparison_of_clock_readings_at_different_places_in_a_reference_frame illustrating, to my mind, that the topic is too complex for that introductory article. I have therefore moved the issue here where there might be input into the discussion from a wider range of editors.
Please note, the discussion on the other page has started to descend into insults. Please keep it WP:CIVIL, people! GDallimore ( Talk) 09:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
(reset indent) The problem with this caveat is that it does not use the definition of a reference frame as a collection of comoving observers each with their own synchronised clock.
In a given frame of reference clocks are synchronised, they dont just give the same intervals, they give the same absolute readings.
In a given frame intervals can be determined within AND between clocks:
If DT(1) = D12 - D11
and DT(2) = D22 - D21
Then DT= D12 - D21
and DT=DT(1)=DT(2)
So why does the Lorentz transformation contain the phase term vx/c^2? If an observer in a relatively moving frame reports that DT=DT(1)=DT(2) why does an observer in another frame disagree?
The reason for this is that the Lorentz Transformation compares the absolute time in one frame with that in another for a single observer. The use of synchronised clocks at different positions in the moving frame will be perplexing to the stationary observer because it will appear to him as if they have all been artificially set out of sync by the amount of the phase term. Only the two clocks that are coincident with the origin at t=0 will be initially synchronised between frames. All the other clocks that are in the frame that is moving relatively to the frame where the length measurement is being made will be conveniently out of phase by the amount of the phase term for the separation of the clocks.
So, taking two clocks separated by L metres, the clocks will appear out of sync due to the LT by g vL /c^2 but will have been conveniently synchronised at the outset to have an absolute time difference of minus gvL/c^2.
Given this, how can we measure the length of a rod? Suppose we place a mirror at one end and time how long light takes to go to the end and back:
DX = cDT (where T is half the overall time interval)
This works because the rod, the timing device and the mirror are in the same frame of reference. Only the light moves, v is 0 so g is 1 and vx/c^2 is 0.
We can do the same thing for a moving rod in its comoving reference frame:
Dx= cDt
But can we do it BETWEEN frames? Can we measure the length of a rod that is stationary in one frame from another, moving frame?
The definition of a reference frame is a collection of comoving observers each with their own synchronised clock. All we need to do is observe the reading on the clock that is adjacent to front end of the rod when the light is emitted and then read the clock that is adjacent to the front end of the rod when the reflected light returns.
We can then use Dx=cDt to determine the length of the rod as measured from the moving frame.
Clearly then x/t = X/T can be used to compare the two lengths and t and T can be related by the time dilation formula, contrary to the caveat.
The caveat, based on the LT for a single observer, does not take into account the synchronisation procedure between clocks in an inertial frame of reference. Incidently, the derivation of length contraction from time dilation is the standard method:
http://www.cosmo.nyu.edu/hogg/sr/sr.ps
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node79.html
http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/2000spring/PHY232/lectures/relativity/contraction.html
http://www.drphysics.com/syllabus/time/time.html
etc.... Geometer 14:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
GDallimore, here is A Full Mathematical Derivation of the point of the Caveat again (with appropriate notation):
(unindent) I have a couple of question here: Is there are reliable source which states that this issue is a concern for relativity theory? Without it, I must conclude that this is a well-meaning bit of original research, and should be removed. Even with a source, is this matter a source of significant concern for relativity theory? If it is not, then I would question whether it needs to be covered at all. Indeed, the best thing to do with a minor but contentious statement in a Wikipedia article is often to remove it. -- EMS | Talk 19:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
(reset indent)
EMS, that leaves us with the page Introduction to special relativity that has been almost completely rewritten by someone who thinks that the time dilation equation Dt' = g Dt can be valid for a pair of events that do not satisfy Dx = 0, in other words for a clock at rest in the (x,t)-frame that produces ticks at different places. How do you feel about that? DVdm 06:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Caveats like this belong to the "Introduction to Special Relativity article". Perhaps an artile like "Relativity for Dummies" is needed :) Count Iblis 02:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
(reset indent)
EMS: "...trivial issue out of the USENET...": => Not only USENET. Perhaps even more so on the Web, and Wikipedia is part of the Web as well, isn't it? ;-)
EMS: "...fighting strawman by anti-relativists...": => I don't really see this as a fight with anti-relativists. Just a warning that might help beginners to avoid becoming anti-relativists by failing to understand the, to beginners, de-facto most well known equations of special relativity. I notice that failing to understand them in their proper context is extremely, almost frighteningly widespread, both among beginning amateurs as among, yes, professional physicists. That is the reason why I carefully worded the section Time dilation and length contraction in its current form. I really think the caveat belongs in there.
EMS: "...an editor who suggested that it be placed here. So DVdm did just that...": => Correction: it was moved here by that editor, who, simply failing to understand it, decided that it is too complex for an introduction to special relativity :-)
Good grief, what a fuzz over such a trivial issue. Such a simple statement, but apparently some of the contributors here are even simpler. Yet for some of the more sophisticated contributors, the statement seems to be too sophisticated. A paradox.
Well, since I stand by it, I really think it should be inserted again. To those who find themselves somewhere between the extremes of simplicity and over-sophistication, feel free to contribute. DVdm 09:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Dvdm, Of course I cannot produce the pair of events you`ve been talking about, because it doesn`t exist. And I understand that this is the point you are trying to make, and that you believe that this pitfall is common enough to warant som king of warning in this articl. The point I`m making is that, in making your point, you`ve given the reader the impression that it is not possible to define an invariant area. That would be an even bigger pitfall. It appears to me that it would be preferable to show the reader the correct way to build that invariant. In other words, show them what to do instead of what not to do Dauto 02:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
Edit concerning the Special relativity page: The dilation and contraction formulas are incorrect. If moving clocks run slower (which they do), then an observer in the chosen rest frame will read a time t on his watch, and the slower time t* on the watch in the moving system. So t* < t as observed in the rest frame. Certainly gamma is greater than 1, so it must be that γt* = t, in order to correct for the time discrepancy.
Similarly, moving objects appear shorter. So if the observer in the rest frame observes a length L for a rod in the moving frame, then L* > L, if L* is the length of the rod in the moving frame. So it must be that L* = γL to correct for the length discrepancy.
I don't know how this error came to light, my guess is that the argument used is incorrect. Please correct me with a logically sound argument if I'm wrong. I also have a text by my side by physicist David J. Griffiths confirming my stand on the issue. If I am correct, then please change it.
P.S. Sorry for all the edits, I just kept thinking of clearer ways to phrase my argument.
Woojamon
00:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)