User talk:Ems57fcva/archive 4

Hi Edward,

I have seen that you have changed the order of the first to parts of the article. Let me explain why I did put them in that particular order.

First, I think that general relativity should be seen as a theory of gravity, and therefore non-inertial frames have a role only as an introduction. Therefore they should appear just in the beginning.

Second, historically was developed like that. Einstein thought about rotating disks before entering gravitation or equivalence principle. And I think pedagogically is better to start by non-inertial systems effects, which are a consecuence of special relativity, and to enter later the subject of gravitation.

And third, because the Pound-Rebka experiment has to be explained after both, but is more suitable inside the equivalence principle. Clock delays can be mathematically deduced for non-inertial systems, but cannot be stated directly for static frames into a gravitatory field. We need to assume the equivalence principle to say that. Therefore is not a consequence of the non-inertial systems equations. Is a consequence of the equivalence principle, that allow us to apply this equations.

For this reasons I would put non-inertial frames back in the begining, if you agree, of course.

Regards, Juan Sempere.

Then let's try it and see how it works. However, that section in and of itself needs some work, as long technical discussions about rotating disks and the like will be a turn-off to readers. Still the issue is that discussion being long and technical. if you can cover the material without being either, that is great.

Beyond that, the current series of changes have openned that door to this article being something better. It cannot go back to what it was before, but it cannot stay as it is either. My reorganizing is just the start of bringing that article back into good shape. Any help that I can get with that is appreciated, even if it sends the article in a direction that I did not intend or anticipate.

BTW - It would help if you got an account, used it, and signed your messages using the tildes (~~~~) --EMS | Talk 18:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hope all is well. If you get a chance, can you drop by my user talk page? User:ObsidianOrder is threatending to Arbcom me over wikisigning anons, "outing" Bernard Haisch, and so on. TIA ---CH 21:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it can't be protected forever. I see that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fixwiki has only made edits to the talkpage of the article so I suspect both of them are really only interested in this one article, as it appears are several other editors, MRE, ELQ22 and Barry Mingst. If you want it unprotected then I can do so. I really don't anything about the subject so I can't say which version is correct. I did see that there have been several claims of sockpuppets, so has a

You might want to ask for a second opinion on the user name at

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and use one of the tags on Fixwiki's accounts as in User:Airport Manager. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Good luck. If I'm not around any admin can unprotect it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I'll be on holidays for the next month or so and won't be able to participate. It's nice that things have quieted down, but that always seems like a temporary thing with this article. Thanks again for your interest.MRE 16:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EMS. I wonder if you could offer an opinion on the latest major edit, which inserts a large block of text on Fatio without putting it in any kind of proper context. I think it weakens the article a lot.MRE 18:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look more closely at the article, and see what I can make of it. It seems to me that more data in that article can be helpful, but I do agree that it also has to well integrated into the article. Do be advised that as time goes on my involvement in that article gets less and less useful. After all, I am not a Le Sage gravitation expert, nor am I interested in putting the level of effort into this that you, user:SJC1, and many of the other edtors are. My role has been as a counter-weight against excesses, and I will see if this new text requires me to throw my "counter-weight" around. --EMS | Talk 19:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pjacobi and I seem to be having a lot of trouble explaining something to Harald88. Can you drop by and help out? TIA---CH 02:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ed! I have been procrastinating on that because the prospect of an edit war with Harald is so disheartening. Hopefully he will hold off long enough for me to revise the article as per yourself and PJacobi! Anyway, I'll try to do this later tonight.---CH 02:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, I think your slashes on the talk page are in error! ---CH 19:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are not in error as best I can tell, unless Ehrenfest made a totally juvenille error. In both the Ehrenfest and Einstein versions, there is a length contraction noted, such that a disk-riding observer sees the circumference as being greater than that for a static observer. Double-check, but this is a sneaky paradox. If I need to, I will find the orginal Ehrenfest article, although I would prefer an English translation of it. --EMS | Talk 20:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow this is getting to be a lot of work for everyone. If you have a chance, can you read the paper by Øyvind Grøn which is available here? I think this explains very clearly that Ehrenfest applied the Lorentz contraction directly to the circumference, thus obtaining a value which is smaller by the Lorentz factor (1-v²)^1/2 instead of to the rulers which the ring-riding observers use to measure distance to nearby ring-riding observers, which they add up to obtain a value for the circumference which is larger by the reciprocal factor (1-v²)^-1/2 than the value obtained by static observers. The paper by Grøn is easy to read and fun, so this is not as much work as it might sound! Plus, these issues seem to keep coming up! ---CH 21:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this whole business is becoming a hoot! It seems that Harald88 has shown then my slashes were not in error, and that as I had initially sumised that Ehrenfest did call for the rotating disk to retain its original circumference in the rotating frame but be Lorentz contracted in the static frame. However, that is as far as Hararld's being correct goes, it seems, as he rejects the view that the rotating circumference in the static frame stays the same and instead the rods the rotating observer uses to measure it are contracted!

I do have to make a study of this. It actually relates to a difficultly that I have been having in analyzing the distortion of the Kerr solution in my FBGR theory. However, there is an irony here in that it may be that the Kerr metric is Lorentz contracted in its "phi" direction, and that needs to be taken into account. Or God is this a wierd "paradox". --EMS | Talk 15:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, Harald is a pest. I have modified the article once again to try to mollify Harald, but so far everything I do just seems to make him even more irate. ---CH 23:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Harald88 is a real pest, but in this case I think that he is at least half-right. You need to review the subthread "Ehrenfest's error" as I seem to be coming to an agreement with Peter and Harald as to what Ehrenfest was arguing and why. The gist of it is that the original "paradox" was a "reductio ad absurdu" in that Ehrenfest was showing that the assumption of Born rigidity led to self-contradictory situation. So one way of looking at it is that not only was the argument in error, but it was meant to be in error! In any case, I strongly recommend that you discuss the issue of what Ehrenfest said in 1909 with Peter and edit the article accordingly. I suspect that you may end up largely satisfying Harald if you do so, but that should not be aim of any such edits.

(BTW - I may take a crack at editing the article, but I want to be more sure of what I am doing before I do so. I also will not commit to editing the article as I continue to have other fish that need frying.) --EMS | Talk 00:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, my most recent changes address the concern expressed by Peter in the talk page regarding the details of the view I imputed to Ehrenfest 1909. I take it this is what you are referring to? As for Harald, I simply do not know what he is complaining about, since he is unable or unwilling to explain. ---CH 01:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris - C < 2π r is not for the disk-riding observer, but instead for the laboratory observer in Ehrenfest's paradox. It is still an incorrect conclusion (as C = 2π r is the actual result as Einstein showed). That perhaps is the main "pet peeve" of Harald, and the one point that I would like to see amended at this time.

As for Harald: You and him have been talking past each other. Part of the problem is that Harald seems to have a very narrow idea of what the Ehrenfest paradox is and is about. You, me, and Peter do not agree with Harald at all on that. Hence my suspiscion that we cannot fully satisfy him. However, within the narrow area of what Ehenfest was arguing in 1909, he seems to have a point and Peter agrees. You have yet to update the article to reflect that common understanding, which I described above.

Once again, if you doubt me on this, then talk to Peter, who can read the German and help translate that article for you. --EMS | Talk 03:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, given the next section, I think you haven't yet read my most recent revision (before Harald started mucking about). I did make the revision requested by Peter.

Unfortunately, youre comment could be read as saying that you think I mischaracterized what Einstein said too! I assume this is due to both of us being too sick of this to write out enough detail to make our comments here unambiguous.

I hope you will help me (and I guess Peter) revert Harald88 until I have had time to recover enough to be able to figure out how to better incorporate the change Peter wants. If we let Harald completely rewrite my version this will just completely ruin the article. You said you haven't yet studied this; please remember that I have so I think I know what I'm talking about!---CH 02:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the differences between your version and Harald's. I see two sets of edit there. One is to the introduction, and another to the body of the article. On the edits to the introduction, I think that Harald is giving the 1909 article too much prominence. The addition of some specific detail is actually nice, but the focus on the 1909 article alone in that detail is not. So something needs to be done about that, although I advise moving forward from it instead of back to your previous introduction.

As for the edits in the body of the article, you still reported that the contracted radius is observed by the disk-riding observers instead of the laboratory observers. That is the issue on which the three of us disagree with you. So I support Harald's edits in this case.

On the issue of letting Harald rewrite the article, I agree with you. That I can abide by Harald's last edit is because he focussed on a very narrow issue where he happened to be right. In a general rewrite, we will not be so fortunate. Overall, I see Harald as having read a lot but taken in very little. So I am ready to revert Harald as needed. --EMS | Talk 04:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I am approaching burnout re cruft control, but I noticed that Juansempere (talk · contribs) has been making terribly misleading claims. I tried to briefly indicate some stuff he got wrong in Twin paradox and his reply on my user talk page was quite arrogant. I looked at his most recent contribs and listed on Talk:Introduction to general relativity a few things I noticed at a glance. I am too exhausted to look at the article itself but I hope someone will figure out whether this kind of misinformation has been removed. Someone should also look at whether Sempere is also editing as an anon since those edits will also need to be checked. ---CH 00:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too am quite arrogant toward those that are dimwittedly arrogant, although I prefer not to be. Unfortunately arrogant dimwits will not respond to polite rectification of their terribly misleading claims, as I'm sure you have noticed. It is quite a good thing to be able to voice truth. This is my take on the twin pair o' dorks, which of course is my personal POV and not suitable for a wikipedian article. Enjoy and be illuminated.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Baez/TwinParadox.htm

Der alte Hexenmeister 21:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to general relativity is under control, and has been for some time. You really should check out the aticle itself when an editor has been making questionable edits, and see if they are extant before raising red flags. --EMS | Talk 02:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I plead exhaustion. See Talk:Extreme physical information for yet another clear example of POV-pushing edits by a semi-shill. ---CH 01:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if he has stopped for now and it's been 3 hours since he lasted edited. I am more concerned about his remarks at Talk:Le Sage's theory of gravitation#Revert Accounting where he seems to indicate that he will keep this up. I've warned him that if he does he will be blocked for disruptive edit warring, never mind violating 3RR. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment at the above. I must tell you thought that I don't have the expertise to know which person/s have the better version of the article in question. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EMS. I have let fixwiki know that I am going to try and help everyone resolve this, as it's pretty plain something needs to be done. Could I ask that you hold off on phrases such as "you cannot win an edit war" and "we have you outnumbered"? I don't think phrases like that are particularly constructive. I am gonna look into the whole issue in depth over the next day or so. Regards,

Oh yeah, if you would like to give me a summary of what has gone on, that would be really helpful. Thanks,

type 08:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I see you're a specialist and perhaps a little touchy about Relativity, but cmon, lighten up a little. It was a joke... and as far as I've seen, there's no disruption caused by humour on talk pages. --Dweller 15:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 12:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EMS, please follow up on your comment of 20:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC) on that page by removing your personal attack. Otherwise, I deem it necessary to speedily include appropriate comments directly following it, taking into account that Wikipedia Talk pages are publicly accessible and searchable. It's in our mutual interest not to publicly expose negative views of each other where such is not absolutely necessary. Harald88 20:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I now also removed an offensive remark by myself on the GRT page. Harald88 06:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for archiving, Schaefer, I certainly wanted it recorded you were having fun with me. If I may make a suggestion, don't do it again or I'll have fun with you. Der alte Hexenmeister 15:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again, Schaefer. I see there is a discussion above on the twin pair o' dorks. I'll add a word there. Der alte Hexenmeister 20:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you.

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Schaefer, this is in reply to your comment-- a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

You have not commented on content.

The NPOV tag specifically refers to the contradiction I stated on the DISCUSSION page. Do you know what a discussion is, Schaefer? Make your comments on the discussion page and stop making personal attacks aimed at me specifically, that is against wikipedia policy.

WP:NPOV#Undue_weight:

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list

"If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; "

A vital component: good research Disagreements over whether something is approached the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) way can usually be avoided through the practice of good research. Facts (as defined in the A simple formulation section above) are not Points Of View (POV, here used in the meaning of "opposite of NPOV") in and of themselves. A good way to help building a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to Wikipedia, and then cite that source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can. Try the library for good books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little bit of ground work can save a lot of time in trying to justify a point later.

The only other important consideration is that sources of comparable reputability might contradict. In that case the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner.

Note that the word "facts" is used.

I name Paul Langevin, Herbert Dingle, Bertrand Russell as prominent adherents to the SIGNIFICANT minority POV.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Dingle
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Langevin
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell

In 1950, Russell was made a Nobel Laureate in Literature, "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought".

1. It's time for you to write in an equally balanced manner.
2. It's time for you to perform good research, a VITAL component.
3. It's time for you to stop arguing the facts.
4. It's time for you to DISCUSS on the discussion pages.
5. It's time for you to stop making personal attacks.

In short, it is time for you to stop. ---Der alte Hexenmeister 08:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KSmrq - I'm not sure that Wikipedia is a threat to "common knowledge". I have seen various articles change and adjust to new inputs, especially as they resulted in the older editors becoming more educated in the issues. For example, the

Just so you know. OK, bye. ---CH 01:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exposition. The content is well organized and with a not-to-great level of effort I can understand it. My concern has been that if I need to exert an effort then what will an less technical reader think of it? IMO, Wikipedia articles should not require college degree (with a major in math or physics) to understand. Certainly Bell's spaceship paradox should not be like that. There are some less technical ways of expressing the solution, and they may be more useful in that article. (I won't claim that some background in relativity is not needed for this article, however.) My advice is that Chris should come to Talk:Bell's spaceship paradox and make his basic points there. --EMS | Talk 13:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I made the template, I took the theories of gravitation from the category with the same name. The reason why GR didn't appear in the template is that GR has it's own category and the GR article isn't listed in the theoriesof gravitation category (it's a subcat) - I should have noticed this and included it in the template anyway, but I made the template at 2am must have overlooked this. MP

Just as I thought - It was too obvious! I must admit being taken aback by the omission initially (hence my comment), but once I thought about it I suspected that something of this ilk was going on. --EMS | Talk 05:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in a debate about how to make the

I've swapped it; though the additions made the article an unholy mess, so I've hidden a lot of my additions behind your "arrow curtains". I hope you find some of the info and refs useful!:-) Serendipodous 21:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First my thanks for taking your share of arguing with Rod. But at some point of time the waste of time will suggest starting the formal conflict resolution process. Whatever may come out of it, due to the mixed state of Wikipedia.

On another aspect: As our resident expert on non-existence of black holes, if you will forgive me some teasing, may you have a look at Abhas Mitra? CH already gave a damning critique on USENET, but this isn't the intended method of handling a Wikipedia biography.

Pjacobi 23:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ed, you will probably be interested in this MfD. ---CH 23:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Friend Editor,

I have added this data to

"Also in recent years, another alternative model has been developed for the formation of stars (neutron stars too) and planets, including our solar system (i.e. the Earth), based on the

Hubble Constant too). This theory is integrated in the concepts of the Physics of Creation ^[1]

"

This is NOT OR. It is published work [1] and there is no published paper, as far as my knowledge, that found any failure in the concepts and formula presented by this author. There is one peer-reviewed paper which classified some of this physicist work [2] as "too numberologic"!? It is polemic because the author presents plausible alternative explanations for all the experimental data and astronomical observations currently cited in support of the special and general theories of relativity [3], and the internal inconsistencies and unwarranted assumptions of standard relativity theory have been pointed out by dozens of scientists. And as some say, only a "mad" (who I regard as a GENIUS) would challenge the so-well established Einstein, as Einstein is the foundation ground of all current-day physics. Due to this reason (and it is a strong one, as the physics conception of the reality involving us provides simultaneously the ground support for the current ideology in society), all the work of this physicist - which requires and presents in scientific terms a very different mental approach to the understanding of basic constitution of the universe (a steady evolving one, well defined and structured, as opposed to the current "caotic", relativistic, empty of any logic) - has been ignored, since the 60's, by the academic and mainstream scientific community, meaning: s u r p r e s s e d:

"Many physicists who believe Einstein’s theory of relativity to be flawed have not been able to get their papers accepted for publication in most scientific journals. Eminent scientists are intimidated and warned that they may spoil their career prospects, if they openly opposed Einstein’s relativity." Pari Spolter, Gravitational Force of the Sun, Orb Publishing Co., 1993, p. 82.

"Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma." by British physicist Dr Louis Essen, Quoted in ibid.

However, here we are dwelling in an Encyclopedia, and as such the views represented in society must to be expressed according to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I am not British citizen, but from Portugal (as you may verify from my IP) and, as you see, in this country the work of this author is also known, or in the way of starting to be understood. Thank you. --88.214.171.255 23:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Below are some lines published in 2002 by Prof. Neal Grossman (Indiana University and University of Illinois) that may help to transmit a clear picture to the lines that I have written above:

(...) Second, this experience taught me that it is important to distinguish between (a) materialism as an empirical hypothesis about the nature of the world, which is amenable to evidence one way or the other (this is the hallmark of a scientific hypothesis—that evidence is relevant for its truth or falsity) and (b) materialism as an ideology, or paradigm, about how things "must" be, which is impervious to evidence (this is the hallmark of an unscientific hypothesis—that evidence is not relevant for its truth).

My colleague believed in materialism not as a scientific hypothesis that, qua scientific hypothesis, might be false, but rather as dogma and ideology that "must" be true, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. For him, materialism is the fundamental paradigm in terms of which everything else is explained, but which is not itself open to doubt. I shall coin the term "fundamaterialist" to refer to those who believe that materialism is a necessary truth, not amenable to empirical evidence. I call it fundamaterialism to make explicit comparison with fundamentalism in religion (...).

With respect to (a), materialism held as an empirical hypothesis about the world, the evidence against it is overwhelming. With respect to (b), materialism held as an ideology, evidence against it is logically impossible. A complicating factor is that the fundamaterialist typically holds the metabelief that his belief in materialism is not ideological, but empirical. That is, he misclassifies himself under (a), while his behavior clearly falls under (b). The debunker and skeptic believe they are being "scientific" in ignoring and rejecting the evidence against materialism. But when asked what kind of evidence it would take to convince them that materialism is empirically false, they are, like my colleague, usually at a loss for what to say. If they're not familiar with the data, they'll come up with a criterion of evidence that in fact has already been met. When it is pointed out that there exist many well-documented cases that satisfy the proposed criterion, they will simply make the criterion more stringent, and at some point they cross the line between the reasonable demand for scientific evidence and the unreasonable (and unscientific) demand for logical proof.

One conclusion I have come to over the years is that both the atheist and the believer, from the fundamaterialist to the fundamentalist, share something in common. In fact, from an epistemological perspective, what they have in common is much more significant than what they disagree about. (...) The academic establishment is in the same position today as the bishop who refused to look through Galileo's telescope. Why is this the case? (...)

Sincerely hope that the above lines may aid yourself to review your position. Thank you for your time. Best Regards --88.214.171.255 23:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anon,

You claim that the work is published, but you link to a web site and not to a commercial bookseller. Unless you can show physical, non-vanity publication, that argument does not hold.

You also cite Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Perhaps you should read that more carefully, as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight states that:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.

Unless you can prove that there is at least a significant minority that favors this, its presentation in Wikipedia will not be permitted.

Thank you for your prompt answer. I will not be able to comply to the requests presented as I had already finished my long enthusiastic 3 ½ years of editions at the Wikipedia. All in all, I think it was worth to present the above points. In order to be fair, one must add that along with the work of the British physicist Dr. Harold Aspden comes also other a lifetime works, as of the forgotten Russian Astrophysicist Nikolai Kozyrev. Who knows what the future may bring in these vast fields. Anyway, thanks once again for your consideration. Regards --88.214.172.51 09:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thank you for your understanding on this issue. --EMS | Talk 14:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to use your tireless arguments on the article talk page as one of the required two dispute resolution attempts and will add another rather different one. Not that I have much hope, that Rod is interested in editing other articles, but at least this has to be pointed out to him. Failing to see some concession by him, I'll proceed to user conduct RfC. --Pjacobi 22:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. I prefer patience, but Rod has exhausted mine; and "exhausting the patience of the community" is now grounds for blocks and bans. I will support you as best I can with this. BTW - Rod just posted another response on talk:Bell's spaceship paradox (at the bottom). He really doesn't give a damn about the nature of gravitation time dilation, or about the set-up of Bell's paradox. He disregards the foundations of relativity theory, and pretends that he knows it. --EMS | Talk 03:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign the user conduct RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rod Ball#Users certifying the basis for this dispute. Feel free to change or add to the presentation of the case. --Pjacobi 15:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is best not to say that one has filed or iniated an RfC "against" someone. This is needlessly antagonistic. At least in principle RfCs are supposed to help the users improve their conduct and any hope of doing so will be reduced if the user comes into the RfC thinking it as being "against" them. Use of language such as "about your behavior" is more diplomatic. It also looks less combative to outside observers. JoshuaZ 02:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your recent RV. I'm dropping you a note to let you know that I've started a thread on the talk page of "general relativity" to discuss this issue. I feel that the rv was not warranted, and want to discuss the issue further.

On the time dilation talk page you refer to the relativity of simultaneity article. The current version of that article is written by Micheal Macrossan. To my knowledge, Michael Macrossan disagrees with the basics of relativistic physics. Almost all of the article that Michael Macrossan wrote is devoted to proclaiming that in fact Larmor was the first to present the Lorentz/Poincaré theory of electrodynamics and relativity of inertial motion.

[quote from Micheal Macrossan's relativity of simultaneity discussion ]
In Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, relative simultaneity seems to be inextricably linked with the (logically) separate phenomenon of time dilation, which concerns the different rates at which time passes (or identical clocks tick) in two different reference frames. However these two different things are not necessarily linked. For example, Einstein’s (1960) demonstration of relativity of simultaneity (lightning strikes both ends of a moving train, seen as simultaneous on the embankment but not on the train) makes no reference to clocks or the rates at which they are running. No conclusions need be drawn about the rate of moving clocks from this example alone.
[end quote from Micheal Macrossan]

--Cleonis | Talk 18:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to go on vacation for a week, so I can't deal with this now. I strongly advise that this article either be corrected or deleted. EMS | Talk 20:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notified you so that in the future you will not refer to the relativity of simultaneity article. If at some point in the future you submit a request to delete the current 'relativity of simultaneity' article (and I am around to notice the request for deletion), then I will support that.

By the way, it's possible now for you to get a bit of an overview of how strongly we disagree: I have started a website of my own, with physics articles. Among them an introduction to special relativity and an introduction to general relativity. --Cleonis | Talk 21:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced that article to being a stub. Please call the attention of others to this situation, and let's see if this effort to credit Lamor with the discovery of relativity can be beaten back. --EMS | Talk 22:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise that I disagree with "the basis of relativity physics" and I thought my claim of Larmor's priority was rectricted to one specific thing. I still can't see what exactly is thought to be wrong with the the bit quoted above, but would be glad to hear exactly what the problem is. E4mmacro 04:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported the latest examples at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/KraMuc (2nd). I tried to construct a well organized evidence page by refactoring my notes, but something seems to have gone wrong since the indents on the main page are now messed up! ---CH 05:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if most of those of us voting for Option 5, just moved our votes to Option 3, then perhaps we would have consensus, and just end this unhealthy debate once and for all. Nfitz 02:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My support is for option 1, and I will only switch if that is enough to create a sane consensus for option 3. I for one an willing to let this business rest if things don't straighten themselves out. I would prefer a consensus (even for option 3) over none at all, but a forced consensus is worse than no consensus at all.

Beyond that, please don't fret over this too much. When the time comes, the Wikipedia community will make a policy decision regarding the dwarf planets. However, there are times when no decision is the right decision, and this may be one of those times. --EMS | Talk 05:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]