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)
My sandboxes are here:
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 (Einstein plagiarizes an unpublished result by using a different method and getting a different (correct) result ??!!).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)
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)
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)
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)
4.158.177.227 18:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Hi, I'm very new here! But I am a Physicist.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
At Talk:Redshift regarding your most recent change. Thanks, -- ScienceApologist 19:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't work for me. It seems the URL includes some identifier. Can re-check please? -- Pjacobi 20:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
- 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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Harald - You wrote
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rod Ball. -- EMS | Talk 16:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Trying to reach an infobox consensus here: [5]. Please can you weigh-in with your opinion? SureFire 00:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
My sandboxes are here:
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)
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)
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)
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)
4.158.177.227 18:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Hi, I'm very new here! But I am a Physicist.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
At Talk:Redshift regarding your most recent change. Thanks, -- ScienceApologist 19:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't work for me. It seems the URL includes some identifier. Can re-check please? -- Pjacobi 20:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
- 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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Harald - You wrote
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rod Ball. -- EMS | Talk 16:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Trying to reach an infobox consensus here: [5]. Please can you weigh-in with your opinion? SureFire 00:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
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)