View source for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Relativity

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Tabs}}
{{Physics|class=project|importance=NA|relativity=yes}}
<center>{{ArticlesByQuality |topic=relativity|project=Physics/Taskforces/Relativity}}</center>
{{archive box | title=[[Help:Archiving a talk page|Archives]] | search=yes | [[/Archive 1|Archive 1]] }}

== No evidence for length contraction ==

I hope this is the appropriate place for this request for clarification of the guidelines for inclusion of non-mainstream articles/papers on the length contraction aspect of SR. (I put in a similar request in the general "request for comments" section yesterday, but that section is not specific to relativity, so may be overlooked by SR physicists, and there have been no comments yet.) I find a general consensus that there is no direct empirical evidence for physical length contraction or contraction of the distance between objects in space. Yet this consensus is not allowed so much as a mention in the "Length contraction" section of relativity. Specifically the usual argument from "time dilation for muons" does not physically require a shorter distance traveled, as a slower rate of decay (at higher velocity) allows for an extended range of travel. Further, all cases of theoretical "physical length contraction" are (theoretical) observer/frame dependent measurement variations, which do not require physical contraction of objects or distances. Disambiguation is required to distinguish between changes in the 4-D "spacetime" *model* (as virtually viewed from different frames) and changes in physical objects themselves (and the distances between them.) Comments, please. [[User:LCcritic|LCcritic]] ([[User talk:LCcritic|talk]]) 20:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

:Please see [[Tests of special relativity#Time dilation and Length contraction]] and [[Test theories of special relativity]]. [[User:JRSpriggs|JRSpriggs]] ([[User talk:JRSpriggs|talk]]) 22:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

:Also, please see [[wp:forum shopping]]:

:* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Request_board&diff=prev&oldid=580649190 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board]
:* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=prev&oldid=580397440 Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science]
:* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2013_October_31&diff=prev&oldid=580192164 Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 October 31]
:* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Length_contraction&diff=prev&oldid=578742325 Talk:Length contraction]
:* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DVdm&diff=prev&oldid=576877807 User talk:DVdm]
:* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WikiDan61&diff=prev&oldid=576750452 User talk:WikiDan61]
: - [[User:DVdm|DVdm]] ([[User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 10:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

== Criticism of relativity not allowed ==

The whole section on Criticism of Relativity is a sham created by restrictive Wiki editorial policy because no substantive criticism is allowed.

Conclusion of the section's opening statements: “Even today there are some critics of relativity (sometimes called "anti-relativists"); however, their viewpoints are not taken seriously by the scientific community.”
In other words, no criticism of relativity is to be “taken seriously by the scientific community.”
So, according to the Wiki editor who wrote that, the whole section on criticism of relativity should just end there and dismiss all criticism.

Opening statement in the Philosophical Criticism sub-section: “The consequences of relativity, such as the change of ordinary concepts of space and time, as well as the introduction of non-Euclidean geometry in general relativity, were criticized by some philosophers of different philosophical schools. It was characteristic for many philosophical critics, that they had insufficient knowledge of the mathematical and formal basis of relativity, consequently the criticisms often missed the heart of the matter.”

In other words, philosophy is irrelevant to the math and physics of relativity. Philosophers are “not to be taken seriously." The Philosophical Criticism section should end there, though that sub-section would already be precluded by the opening section. Even the most fundamental philosophical criticism, “at the very heart of the matter” is “not allowed,” i.e., that Einstein’s philosophy was that there is *no real world,* that it all depends on differences in observation. So the obvious argument that, for instance, Earth’s diameter does not change with how it might be observed (i.e., there is in fact a "real world/Earth") is “not allowed.”

Since no critic of relativity can get credentialed in the field, all such critics are considered “cranks from the fringe,” ("Catch 22") so references to these critics (and there are many) are “not allowed.”
The result in summary is that those who criticize relativity are not credialed references, so their criticisms are “not allowed.” Will this task force on relativity please reconsider the basic editorial policy on what “is allowed” as criticism? Thanks. Ps: I hope DVdm is "not allowed" to censor this on any number of technicalities, like "forum shopping" just because there is no place "allowed" in this encyclopedia for legitimate criticism of relativity (i.e., that there is no such thing as legitimate criticism of relativity.) [[User:LCcritic|LCcritic]] ([[User talk:LCcritic|talk]]) 19:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

:'''Note''' - see our chat at [[Talk:Criticism of the theory of relativity#Einstein's denial of a "real world" as the basis for SR]]. - [[User:DVdm|DVdm]] ([[User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 20:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

::Einstein did ''not'' say that there is no real world. That is not the thrust of his theory. What you are saying makes about as much sense as if a flat-Earther were to criticize the (roughly) spherical globe as a denial of the reality of the Earth.
::What "relativity" means is that certain relationships which were previously thought to depend on only a few things must now be understood as depending on a few more things as well. For example, when I say that "the table is near", I mean that the table is near ''to me''. In other words, the notion "near" is relative to the observer rather than being absolute. It makes no sense to say that a table is near (or far) without reference to an observer. Similarly, the velocity of an object depends on the observer. And the special theory of relativity tell us that the length of an object also depends on the observer. And the rate at which processes proceed depends on the observer. Why is that so terrible? [[User:JRSpriggs|JRSpriggs]] ([[User talk:JRSpriggs|talk]]) 10:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

::: While there is a case that the problem would fit under "Philosophical criticism", adding it would give it [[WP:UNDUE]] weight. Can you find [[WP:RS|better sources]] than Lindner and Physics Essays for Einstein's position on realism and comments thereupon? [[User:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]] ([[User talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 12:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

:::: First, my 'chat' with with DVdm which he linked above resulted in no changes to the Criticisms of Relativity Wiki text, for all the technical reasons he cited. My suggested additions were stonewalled. Secondly, Einstein DID deny the "real world." Here it is again: He explicitly denied the statement,  “The physical world is real.”...  "It appears to me that the 'real' is an intrinsically empty, meaningless category... This division is, to be sure, not an arbitrary one, but instead... I concede that the natural sciences concern the 'real,' but *I am still not a realist.*" (my *...* emphasis.) See full text of quote in the linked 'chat' with DVdm above.

:::: Next, Lindler's lack of praises from credentialed relativity theorists disqualifies him from being a 'legitimate critic' only because of the "Catch 22" exclusion policy, which does not allow any substantive criticism of relativity, as I explained above. He is a philosopher with a very basic, very valid criticism, again: "If we accept the theory that *a physical Cosmos exists*, and that **our sensations and measurements result from our interactions with the Cosmos**, then we should not restrict our physics, as Einstein did, to the modeling of our sensations and measurements." (again, my *, ** emphasis.)
:::: Godel's article, via title alone, relates relativity theory to idealistic philosophy, which denies a "real world" independent of changing observations of it. “The Relationship Between Relativity Theory and Idealistic Philosophy.”

:::: Regarding (again) the opening statement in the Philosophical Criticisms sub-section (my * emphasis):
:::: “The consequences of relativity, such as the change of ordinary concepts of space and time, as well as the introduction of non-Euclidean geometry in general relativity, were criticized by some philosophers of different philosophical schools. *It was characteristic for many philosophical critics that they had insufficient knowledge of the mathematical and formal basis of relativity.*”

:::: Here is an example of a philosopher, Kelley Ross, who has a thorough understanding of the transition from Euclidean to non-Euclidean geometry and cosmology yet criticizes many of the *assumptions* required for that transition: http://www.friesian.com/curved-1.htm
:::: Examples: See the section, Curved Space and Non-Euclidean Geometry regarding intrinsic vs extrinsic (imaginary models of) curvature. See also the section on Geometry in Einstein's Theory of Relativity:
:::: “Intrinsic curvature, which was introduced by Riemann to explain how straight lines could have the properties associated with curvature without being curved in the ordinary sense, is now used to explain how something which is obviously curved, e.g. the orbit of a planet, is really straight. Something has gotten turned around.”
:::: Finally, see his Conclusion (same notation for my emphasis):
:::: "Just because the math works doesn't mean that we understand what is happening in nature. *Every physical theory has a mathematical component and a conceptual component, but these two are often confused.* Many speak as though the mathematical component confers understanding,...
:::: Nevertheless, there is often still a kind of deliberate know-nothing-ism that **the mathematics is the explanation. It isn't.** Instead, **each theory contains a conceptual interpretation that assigns meaning to its mathematical expressions.** In non-Euclidean geometry and its :::: application by Einstein, the most important conceptual question is over **the meaning of "curvature" and the ontological status of the dimensions of space, time, (ed: and ‘”spacetime”)**...

:::: Finally, JRspriggs said, "And the special theory of relativity tell us that the length of an object also depends on the observer. And the rate at which processes proceed depends on the observer. Why is that so terrible?" It is "terrible" because the length of Earth's diameter, as a very obvious example of a massive physical object, does not change with the speed and direction of an approaching relativistic observer, as relativity theory insists. It is "terrible" because Earth is a "real" physical object not just a 4D "spacetime model" subject to change with how one looks at it from various speeds and directions. The realism vs idealism philosophical debate is bedrock fundamental to the validity (or not) of an Earth which changes shape... or to the claim that the distances between stars depends on how interstellar travelers might someday measure them from various relativistic speeds and directions of travel. But this philosophical debate is **not allowed!** (Yes, DVdm, this is a "discussion" among editors, and he asked the question.)[[User:LCcritic|LCcritic]] ([[User talk:LCcritic|talk]]) 21:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

::::: The criteria for reliable sources can be found at [[WP:RS]]. Can you find anything satisfying these criteria not already in the article? [[User:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]] ([[User talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 22:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

::::: Regarding "Lindler's lack of praises from credentialed relativity theorists..." to make Lindler worth mentioning here as legitimate critic: note that [[wp:secondary sources]] need not ''praise'' the author to make his critisism worth a mention in Wikipedia. We need such credentialed sources to ''mention'' (perhaps by praising or even by denouncing—see Dingle) and discuss that author to begin with. Any MD with a hobby can play the critic of anything they weren't properly trained in, but if they are ignored, they have no place here. And that is by this place's very design. If you want to change that, you wil need to change some of the core policies.
::::: Regarding your "length of Earth's diameter as a very obvious example of a massive physical object": that length, ''as measured by an approaching relativistic observer, '''does''' change'' with the speed and direction of an approaching relativistic observer. Why is that so terrible? The speed, kinetic energy and momentum of a massive physical bullet also depend on who is making the measurements. We don't find ''that'' terrible. - [[User:DVdm|DVdm]] ([[User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 22:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

:::::: My point is that the "criteria for reliable sources" is based on credentials as approved by relativity theorists and that Wiki states specifically (opening the Criticisms section) that no critics of relativity qualify as "reliable sources" in the "scientific community" (of relativity theorists.) The "rules" exclude all philosophical discussion of the most basic issue, relativity's idealism excluding the opposing argument, realism (a world independent of observation.) Realists do not have the 'proper credentials' because they are disregarded by that community as critics of relativity, ergo "cranks" by whatever derogatory label. And around it goes. Realists argue that the changing measurements (of Earth in the above example) from all different frames do not reflect actual physical changes it Earth itself. Idealists, relativity theorists in this case, insist that that Earth does change shapes with variations in how it might be observed from relativistic frames. But that argument is not allowed as "Philosophical Criticism"... because, of course, philosophical realists are not properly credentialed by the community of relativity theorists. Is anyone following this? [[User:LCcritic|LCcritic]] ([[User talk:LCcritic|talk]]) 03:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

::::::: Please [[WP:INDENT]].
::::::: "credentials as approved by relativity theorists" Please cite [[WP:RS]] where it says that, I can't find it.
::::::: "relativity's idealism" Which reliable source says that relativity is an idealist theory?
::::::: "Is anyone following this?" You can use "Page information" in the page toolbox. [[User:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]] ([[User talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 04:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

::::::: Re {{!xt|"relativity theorists in this case, insist that that Earth does change shapes with variations in how it might be observed from relativistic frames"}}: no, for the n-th time, relativity says that the Earth, '''''as measured by other frames''''', does change shapes with variations in how it might be observed from these frames. You consistently omit that qualifier, and it is essential. - [[User:DVdm|DVdm]] ([[User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 08:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::In the Identifying Reliable Sources guidelines: 
:::::::: "This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and *not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.*” (My *)

:::::::: The opening statement in the Criticisms of Relativity section violate this guideline, as per the final statement in that opening (quoted again for easy reference): "Even today there are some critics of relativity (sometimes called "anti-relativists"); however, their viewpoints are not taken seriously by the scientific community.”

:::::::: “Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view.” The whole Criticisms section violates that with the stated opinion quoted above, which prevails throughout the section, i.e., that criticisms of relativity are “not taken seriously." This is an example of the editor, presenting as an expert on relativity, discrediting all critics, i.e., none with "approved credentials, in answer to Paradoctor's challenge. Regarding your challenge: "'relativity's idealism' Which reliable source says that relativity is an idealist theory?" Claiming that there is no real world, that there is no "reality" independent all different varieties of ways to observe the same object (as relativity does) IS idealism. Yet no discussion of that in the Philosophical Criticism subsection is allowed.

:::::::: DVdm, your "for the n-th time..." condescending, professorial attitude is not productive, nor is it civil, as required by the guidelines. JRspriggs said, "And the special theory of relativity tell us that the length of an object also depends on the observer." That is the prevailing claim. 

:::::::: The Length Contraction section opens with: "In physics, *length contraction is the phenomenon of a decrease in length* measured by an observer of objects which are traveling at any non-zero velocity relative to the observer." (my * emphasis) The phenomenon is said to be a decrease in length of an object. The way that claimed decrease is measured varies, not the object itself, as implied in the structure of the sentence.

:::::::: The most common example of length contraction is probably the pole/ladder and barn thought experiment. The claim is that a 20 foot pole will fit into a 10 foot barn, *as measured from a given relativistic frame.* However the “as measured from” phrase will not allow the above long pole to fit into the shorter barn. Differences in how objects are observed/measured can not cause differences in the physical objects themselves. Even the claim that the pole's atoms are compacted by high velocity (resulting in shorter physical length) can not possible apply to Earth's diameter with a high velocity relative to an approaching observer.

:::::::: A typical example from an “ask the physicist” website Q&A (I verified this by asking); Q: "According to relativity theory, what is the length of Earth’s diameter?" A: “It depends on who is observing it.” Clearly this is idealism in denial of realism.

:::::::: I gave an example of a well credentialed philosopher criticizing the assumptions upon which non-Euclidean geometry/cosmology and relativity are based. This was in direct reply to the claim in the "Philosophical Criticism" subsection (the personal opinion of the editor presenting that section!) that no philosophers understand the transition to non-Euclidean. My example has so far been ignored here, presumably in keeping with the editorial *opinion and policy* here that all critics of relativity are cranks.[[User:LCcritic|LCcritic]] ([[User talk:LCcritic|talk]]) 20:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

::::::::: LCcritic, while I am still [[WP:AGF|willing to extend the benefit of doubt to you]], your behavior is quickly approaching the point where this does not seem warranted to me. [[WP:INDENT]], it's not difficult, and it's part of [[WP:TOPPOST|how we do things around here]]. If you want an exception, state your case. I'm not linking to policy and guidelines out of boredom.
::::::::: You criticized the lead of [[Criticism of the theory of relativity]]. I took that as a request for [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity&diff=582881875&oldid=582670342 this edit]. Note that the applicable policy is [[WP:V]], not [[WP:RS]], as the statement is not sourced currently. You could have done this yourself, and nobody would have bat an eyelid. Even deleting the statement with an appropriate [[WP:EDSUM|edit summary]] like "unsourced" would have been acceptable.
::::::::: "This is an example of the editor, presenting as an expert on relativity, discrediting all critics" Please [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. The editor who added this sentence to the article probably thought that it fairly represented the literature. I know I do. You want a source for that, that's [[WP:CHALLENGE|entirely apropriate]], and you'll get it soon enough, I think.
:::::::::: '''Update''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity&diff=prev&oldid=582937406 Fast service] courtesy of [[User:D.H|D.H]]. [[User:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]] ([[User talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 15:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
::::::::: "in answer to Paradoctor's challenge" You didn't answer my request to cite [[WP:RS]] where it says "credentials as approved by relativity theorists". Note that [[WP:RS]] is about publications, not people. "Credentials" are mentioned only in reference to [[WP:SPS|self-published sources]].
::::::::: "Which reliable source says that relativity is an idealist theory?" That is the question I want you answer, because it is you who is making the claim: "most basic issue, relativity's idealism".
::::::::: If I was you, I'd rethink accusing DVDm of being [[WP:CIVIL|incivil]]. IMHO, he is showing restraint. I've seen experienced Wikipedians react considerably harsher in situations like this. Maybe reading [[WP:COOL]] would be a good idea.
::::::::: "Length Contraction section" There is no such section in [[Criticism of the theory of relativity]]. Which article are you talking about?
::::::::: "most common example of length contraction" Please link to articles, and talk about statements in these articles, so we have something that is appropriate to discuss here. This is core behavior in discussing articles, and not optional, per [[WP:NOTFORUM]].
::::::::: "well credentialed philosopher" Which credentials would that be? I'm not aware that Ross holds a chair in physics, or has published in the field. Neither am I aware of his work in [[Idealism|idealistic philosophy]]. If you wish to make a case that his self-published paper should count as a reliable source, provide reliable sources for such credentials.
::::::::: ""Philosophical Criticism" subsection (the personal opinion of the editor presenting that section!)" That is [[WP:AGF|not an acceptable reading]] of the intentions of the editors who have produced this section, ''and provided it with 22 citations''.
::::::::: [[User:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]] ([[User talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 23:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

{{od}}First, I apologize yet again for my obvious lack of skill at navigating this site and my ineptitude at implementing all the many required technicalities. I am a retired philosopher/psychologist who came late in life to this wonderful world of complex technology. My primary criticism of the Criticisms of Relativity section is that relativity is based on idealism in denial of a "real world," so the philosophy of realism is rejected out of hand, as are all "criticisms of relativity," (making the section title a sham), and I have cited Einstein's own words as the "father of relativity" in conformation of his denial of a real, objective world independent of observation. (I don't know how to link to that quote directly. It can be found in DVdm's link to our 'chat' above in this section.) I also cited Kurt Godel as confirming the above. Here is a link discussing his article,
“A remark about the relationship between relativity theory and idealistic philosophy”:
http://theinductivistturkey.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/godel-on-idealism-and-time-travelling/
Godel said: "Following up the consequences [of the relativity theory, particularly of the general one] [...] one obtains an unequivocal proof for the view of those philosophers who, like Parmenides, Kant, and the modern idealists, deny the objectivity of change and consider change as an illusion or an appearance due to our special mode of perception. (p. 202)"
I am told that Henry Lindler's philosophy (see* below) confirming the above is not acceptable, as he is just an MD with a "hobby" of philosophy and has no proper "training" in relativity, the requirement for credentials in the field. Yet no one who criticizes relativity can acquire such credentials. (See the problem?)*Beyond Relativity and Quantum Theory to Cosmic Theory. (the latter saying that the world is in fact "real," and independent of  our measurements of it, which "result from our interactions with the cosmos," i.e., that each different measurement does not create a different "world.")

Regarding Kelley Ross, his website http://www.friesian.com/ross/ has a list of his contributions to the field. But, of course, he does criticize the assumptions underlying relativity, so he is "not to be taken seriously" according to the editors here. I'll leave it for now and invite further comments. Ps: Wiki" Length Contraction section I mentioned is of course not a subsection of the Criticisms section being discussed here. Sorry I did not make that clear. I was replying to DVdm's statement about contracting objects (like Earth's diameter) vs variations in measurements of those objects. Also there is s section in Wiki on the ladder and barn paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox to which I referred. Again, I need to learn proper link notation.[[User:LCcritic|LCcritic]] ([[User talk:LCcritic|talk]]) 20:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

:You are not {{!xt|"told that Henry Lindler's philosophy confirming the above is not acceptable, as he is just an MD with a "hobby" of philosophy and has no proper "training" in relativity"}}. You are told ''about'' his lack of credentials, wich by the way is ''entirely irrelevant'' for Wikipedia. But it seems to be ''very relevant'' for the fact that we can't find any reliable secondary sources about him and his criticism. ''That'' lack of reliable secondary sources is the reason why we cannot include him here. As I said before, {{xt|"any MD with a hobby can play the critic of anything they weren't properly trained in, but '''if they are ignored''', they have no place here."}} This is just Wikipedia by design. You will have to accept that. - [[User:DVdm|DVdm]] ([[User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 21:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

: "lack of skill at navigating this site and my ineptitude at implementing all the many required technicalities" Nobody is out to [[WP:BITE]] new editors. If you have questions, ask them. Wikipedians are generally quite willing to help out their fellow editors with information and advice. Don't forget to listen to the answers, though. You can learning about linking at [[WP:LINK]]. The central starting pointing for help is at [[Help:Edit]]. If you have questions, just ask.
: This discussion does not turn on "technicalities", but on a core principle of Wikipedia. Let me spell it out as brutal as possible.
:: '''principle''' ''Whatever opinion you have, Wikipedia is not interested. Wikipedia is also not interested in discussing it.''
:: '''qualifier''' ''If and when your opinion is published in a reliable source, and carries due weight, then it can and should be included.''
: This implies that whatever statements you want to include must be sourced to reliable sources when challenged to do so. You have been told that Ross' and Lindler's websites do not qualify because they are [[WP:SPS|self-published]], and the authors have not been shown to be experts in the field. Ross himself only lists one(!) peer-reviewed publication. This implies that, whatever opinion he holds is either a [[WP:FRINGE]] viewpoint, or there are better sources for the same opinion.
: The Einstein quote does ''not'', in my opinion, support your claim that Einstein denied the existence of a real world. If you wish to use it in this way, find a reliable source saying that the quote is to be interpreted in this manner, or find other reliable sources to support this position. Again, do not bother to bring up opinions from self-published or otherwise unreliable sources again.
: Gödel is at least a plausible starting point. Now, before we try to find out whether this quote actually supports your claim, the first thing we need is the source of this quote. Some random blog merely claiming that Gödel said it is not good enough. Quotes are misattributed all the time. Can you provide the necessary information? For more info on citing, see [[WP:CITE]]. Take your time, there is a lot of info, and I know from experience that finding what you need to know can take quite some time. If you get stuck, you can always ask at the  [[WP:HD|help desk]]. Qapla'! [[User:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]] ([[User talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 23:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

: I already sourced the Godel quote:  http://theinductivistturkey.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/godel-on-idealism-and-time-travelling/ I have no idea what better reference you are asking for. His article is extant, historical and available. You said: "The Einstein quote does not, in my opinion, support your claim that Einstein denied the existence of a real world." Please re-read the full text of the quote. He did deny the statement affirming a 'real world' and he did grant that regardless of Study's defense of natural science investigating the "real world," that he, Einstein, was still "not a realist."
Your opinion as stated above (regardless of your seniority here) does not automatically negate my opinion that he said exactly what he meant, that he was not a realist. What do you think is the alternative to realism? It is idealism. I taught the difference as a university professor. What are your credentials supporting your opinion, as stated? [[User:LCcritic|LCcritic]] ([[User talk:LCcritic|talk]]) 01:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

:::I think that you are misunderstanding what Einstein was trying to say. He is not denying that things exist. Rather he is questioning what the word "real" means when applied to them. Are we to categorize existents as real existents versus unreal existents? What then is an unreal existent? What properties do real things have that unreal things lack (or vice versa)?
:::In ordinary speech, "reality" is a property that may or may not apply to ideas. We have an idea of chairs. This idea is real because chairs actually exist with the properties which we think they have. We have an idea of fairies. This idea is unreal because fairies do not exist. However, you are not using the word "real" in this sense. You are using it to mean something else. What do you mean by it? [[User:JRSpriggs|JRSpriggs]] ([[User talk:JRSpriggs|talk]]) 02:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

::: That you didn't indent your reply strengthen my impression that you are not exercising proper attention to detail. If you can't be bothered with simple things like that, what does that tell about your attention to Wikipedia's content rules? I didn't fix it for you this time, do it yourself.
::: As regards the source for the Gödel quote, you did not take into consideration what I said before, so I repeat it: A blog is not a reliable source. Also, I'm pretty sure that Gödel never blogged. So, from what ''reliable source'' does this quote originate? Note that the [[WP:BURDEN]] of proof is on you. It is not my job to hunt for possible citations for material ''you'' want to add. If you can't clear this hurdle, then you are in the wrong place, and some other forum would be better suited to your needs.
::: "He did deny the statement affirming a 'real world'" That is your opinion, but I don't share it. If you wish an explanation, mail me. We will not discuss this here, as it would violate [[WP:NOTFORUM]]. Again, the [[WP:BURDEN]] of proof here is on you, as you want to put this in the article.
::: "your seniority here" You have a misconception about this community. There is no concept of "seniority" on Wikipedia. I did not once make reference to myself as an authority for anything. If there were requests not sourced to community rules, cite them and I'll correct that.
::: "my opinion that he said exactly what he meant, that he was not a realist" I quote from my previous post: "Wikipedia is not interested in your opinion." Or mine, for that matter.
::: "What do you think is the alternative to realism? It is idealism. I taught the difference as a university professor." In that case, you better head over to [[philosophical realism]]. The article is in very poor shape, and would benefit very much from an expert adding reliable sources and expanding it.
::: "your credentials supporting your opinion" If you're referring to my opinion on the Einstein quote, then none are required, as stated above.
::: Don't forget to fix your indentation. [[User:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]] ([[User talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 02:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

: I hope the (:) fixed my indent above and indented this properly.(Still struggling with it.) Regarding Paradoctor's: “So, from what reliable source does this quote originate?" [Kurt Godel ref: “A remark on the relationship between relativity theory and idealistic philosophy”, Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist (Library of Living Philosophers), P. Schilpp (ed.), La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1949, pp. 555–562. Reprinted in Gödel 1990, pp. 202–207.] In the article he makes the case that relativity is based on idealism, which philosophy does in fact deny a "real world" independent of observation. As I have directly quoted here, Einstein denied the statement, "The physical world is real," and in fact said, "I concede that the natural sciences concern the “real,” but I am still not a realist." That philosophy became the basis of SR's insistence that measurements determine the length of things and the distances between them, even though measurements of the same object or distance will vary with the relativistic frame from which measurements are taken.

: Regarding the editorial denial, in the Philosophical Criticisms subsection, that any philosophers understand the non-Euclidean basis of relativity, I cited Kelley Ross, a credentialed philosopher of science, demonstrating a thorough understanding and intelligent criticisms of the underlying assumptions, yet his contribution is not here deemed an acceptable philosophical criticism. The lead statement of the  Criticisms section still stands with no debate allowed, that no criticisms of relativity are to be taken seriously. (See again my "Catch 22" reference.)Paradoctor suggests that I take my expertise on the philosophies of realism and idealism over to the Philosophical Realism section. There, "scientific realism" is presented as the new version realism, based on the preposition that measurements determine what is real (ergo, different measurements of, say Earth's diameter mean that it varies with the frame measuring it.) I see no reason to believe that my editorial contributions there would be any more acceptable than in the section discussed here. Measurements as determining "reality" remain the bedrock philosophy for relativity. (Seriously, a 4000 mile Earth diameter is considered "equally valid" with the proper length diameter measured from at rest with the Earth frame... "no preferred frame.") Proper indentation and sourcing protocol seem to be considered more important among the editors here than any fair representation of critical perspectives on relativity. [[User:LCcritic|LCcritic]] ([[User talk:LCcritic|talk]]) 19:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

::::: "I hope" [...] "indented this properly.(Still struggling with it.)" [...] "Proper indentation and sourcing protocol seem to be considered more important among the editors here than any fair representation of critical perspectives on relativity." You shouldn't "hope", you should know. The instructions are simple enough: indent one level more than the comment you're replying to. That has not happened. Assuming that [[WP:AGF|you're trying]] to comply leaves the conclusion that you have serious trouble understanding the instructions. Indenting is simple. Content rules are not quite as simple. You have been repeatedly told by several experienced editors that the content rules do not allow the changes you propose, and you have been given reasons and links for that. If you're neither capable of following instructions nor willing to listen to advice from the community, you don't belong here, plain and simple.
::::: The "[[WP:V|sourcing protocol]]" you refer to is ''fundamental'' to a "fair representation of critical perspectives on relativity". If you don't understand that, you don't belong here, plain and simple.
::::: Gödel: Closer, but still not a proper citation. Since you at last moved in the right direction, I'll make this one easy for you: [[WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT]] means that the full citation includes the blog where you found it. Which isn't a reliable source.
::::: For the sake of discussion, let's assume you actually read Gödel's paper, and the quote was in it. It still would not support your claim that Einstein denied that "The physical world is real.". It would at most allow saying that according to Gödel, relativity implies the claim made by some philosophers that ''change'' is not real. This is much less than saying that the world is not real. If you disagree with this interpretation of Gödel, that is just fine. But then you'll have to support your interpretation with reliable sources ''explicitly'' stating your point of view. In a work anyone can edit, this is not optional. Works the same for all of us.
::::: "I cited Kelley Ross" Do ''not'' bring Ross up again here. You have been told that his site is not a reliable source. If you disagree, go to [[WP:RSN]]. Read and comply with the instructions at the top of the page before posting anything there.
::::: Finally, a bit of advice. Checking your edit history shows that your contributions so far are confined trying to get a point of view included that has no [[WP:RS|adequate support]] whatsoever. You have been told repeatedly so, using up quite a few man-hours. Your behavior is quickly approaching the point where it becomes disruptive. You need to ask yourself: "Can I comply with the rules?". If the answer is "no", just go. There is no [[WP:GREATWRONGS|requirement to edit Wikipia]]. If the answer is "yes", your very first step should be to successfully fix your indentation. You're welcome to ask for help with that. If you don't do as requested, I'll take that as a sign that you're not willing to cooperate in a constructive manner. I hope it doesn't have to come to that. [[User:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]] ([[User talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 22:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

: Let us all remember that there is no hierarchy of authority here ("wink, wink!"), so when Paradoctor decides that I am "not willing to cooperate in a constructive manner" with the technical protocols here (that has a familiar ring)...
(not guilty... I am just severely lame at all such technicalities, as I have repeatedly pleaded), and when he essentially "bans", me form the editorial conversation here, please remember that not all critics of relativity are cranks (I have cited a few, all rejected)) "not to be taken seriously", as the section lead warns. That is all I have to say on the subject. There is no hope for critics of relativity to have a fair hearing among the editors here. [[User:LCcritic|LCcritic]] ([[User talk:LCcritic|talk]]) 01:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

== Articles are distorted by inappropriately introducing the concept of relativity. ==

Let me state now that I am a firm believer in Relativity. As an example of my complaint take the article on the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment. The experiment was intended to detect the presence of the Aether notwithstanding that the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction effect might operate. The conclusion of the experiment is that the Aether hypothesis remains viable only if a second effect, time dilation as a function of Aether velocity, is also present. This conclusion is not emphasized in the article. Instead the article refers to the relevance of the experiment to Relativity. As the relative velocity between the observer (the experimenters) and the observed body (the apparatus) is zero no relativistic effects can occur. A further example of this distortion is seen in the article the Luminiferous Aether. The reasons for a belief in the Aether are not properly (if at all) given. Too much space is given to the history of the attempt to determine the properties of the Aether rather than to the latest knowledge. The article gives the impression that the reader does not need to know the arguments for and against as modern Physics accepts Relativity and denies the Aether hypothesis.  There are other articles that suffer badly from this bias towards Relativity which I will cite if required to do so.[[User:RFNo|RFNo]] ([[User talk:RFNo|talk]]) 12:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

== From no archives to too many archives ==

I felt that we needed some archives for the sections of talk above. But I was careless in setting it up, and the result was that Lowercase sigmabot III created too many archives. Sorry. [[User:JRSpriggs|JRSpriggs]] ([[User talk:JRSpriggs|talk]]) 12:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

:In an edit summary, DVdm asks "Should this large number of tiny archives be consolidated by year?". Yes, I think that would be a good idea, but I worry about what to do with the archives divided by month after the consolidation. [[User:JRSpriggs|JRSpriggs]] ([[User talk:JRSpriggs|talk]]) 01:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

::After the copy we can just tag them for {{tl|db-g6}} maintenance delete. Ok if I go ahead, creating the archives, moving the content and tagging for delete? - [[User:DVdm|DVdm]] ([[User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 09:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

:: OTOH, there's so little there, that even yearly archives are too small. Perhaps we can just copy/paste everything back in here (or archive to [[/Archive 1]]) and disable automatic archiving altogether? - [[User:DVdm|DVdm]] ([[User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 10:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

:::The easiest way to do that is just to revert to the version before I put in the invocation of archiving and then re-add subsequent talk. I am doing that with this message.
:::It remains to remove the archives and create a new Archive 1. [[User:JRSpriggs|JRSpriggs]] ([[User talk:JRSpriggs|talk]]) 11:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

:::: Ok, I'll have the stray archives deleted first, and then I'll create Arch1. - [[User:DVdm|DVdm]] ([[User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 11:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
::::: {{done|Archived}} everything up to and including 2012 in [[/Archive 1]]. - [[User:DVdm|DVdm]] ([[User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 12:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

::::::To DVdm: Thank you for your help in cleaning up the mess that I made. [[User:JRSpriggs|JRSpriggs]] ([[User talk:JRSpriggs|talk]]) 00:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

::::::: No problem. Isn't creating a good mess every once in a while just what makes life interesting? {{smiley|;-)}} - [[User:DVdm|DVdm]] ([[User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 07:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

== Article on time correction ==

Dear Editors,

I have a secondary reference in and am trying to add features of my articles in relativity:
1) http://en.cyclopaedia.net/wiki/Light-time-correction-1
for science article on time correction and momentum and energy for inverse relationship
(Light time correction in science in very bottom of research gate)
2) my Pharmasug 2011 articles are peer review too and discuss relativity and uncertainty)
3) my Global SAS Forum 2012 paper also has reference to time calculations, energy correction,
charge/energy of electrons plus derivations.
4) Hitchhikers guide to galaxy website is also mentioning my work time correction,
http://hitchhikersgui.de/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Time_correction

5) Google Nepon japan website too mentions my site:
http://wpedia.goo.ne.jp/enwiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Time_correction

-I can mention my discussions and example of support for inverse relationships
of time and energy/momentum and velocity supported by kaufmann/Bucehrer/Neumann experiment
'''Agravat series graph''' too of decrease in velocity for trend in hyper-geometric series
- Time correction proofs that work for special relativity/momentum/photoelectric effect
- discussion of '''first law of thermodynamics''' support in AJST article of inverse relationships of momentum and energy
in New Methods of Time correction, energy, Heisenberg uncertainty principle article I discuss this in '''anomaly''' section
-Time correction and right triangle relationship exists because right triangle is discussed by Einstein plus low rest mass in E=mc2)

These are some of the points I want to add please.
Thank you,

[[User:Magravat|Magravat]] ([[User talk:Magravat|talk]]) 17:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)MAgravat[[User:Magravat|Magravat]] ([[User talk:Magravat|talk]]) 17:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

:I have added a section header. I don't see any reliable secondary sources—see [[wp:reliable sources]]—that would warrant inclusion in any article of any part of your (twice) rejected article for creation. This clearly is original research (see [[wp:OR]]), which is, alas, not allowed here. - [[User:DVdm|DVdm]] ([[User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 17:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear DVdm, 

Thank you. I have added some articles citation in a secondary resource Science20.com as 'Upstart Bio-statistician' column where I include many articles on Principal Quantum Number, energy and time correction, plus Bose Einstein Condensate and Energy Correction in the wikipedia Articles for creation site. Will this help the article making process for wikipedia? I also referenced one in the wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Time_correction

Thank you,

User:Magravat
'''Magravat'''  <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Magravat|Magravat]] ([[User talk:Magravat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Magravat|contribs]]) 23:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


User:Magravat
Thank you Kvng, Annie, Starry Grandma, and , Rankersbo, too.

[[User:Magravat|Magravat]]  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned"> — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 23:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Popular pages tool update ==

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to [[Wikipedia:Wikimedia Labs|Wikimedia Tool Labs]]. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at [[tools:~alexz/pop]], will become available over the next few weeks at [[toollabs:popularpages]]. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The [[toollabs:popularpages/view.php|tool to view historical data]] is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available [[toollabs:popularpages/config.php|now]] (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. [[mw:Help:OAuth|OAuth]] is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs. 

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the [[User:Mr.Z-man/Popular pages FAQ|updated FAQ]] or contact me on my talk page. [[User:Mr.Z-bot|Mr.Z-bot]] ([[User talk:Mr.Z-bot|talk]]) (for <span style="font-family:Broadway">[[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']]</span>) 05:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

== Expert attention ==

This is a notice about [[:Category:Relativity articles needing expert attention]], which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated.<!-- Template:Expert-category-notice --> [[User:Iceblock|Iceblock]] ([[User talk:Iceblock#top|talk]]) 18:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a notice about [[:Category:General relativity articles needing expert attention]], which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated.<!-- Template:Expert-category-notice --> [[User:Iceblock|Iceblock]] ([[User talk:Iceblock#top|talk]]) 21:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

== Website ==

I would like to add [http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/relcon.html  Hyper Physics] to the websites section as I think is a useful undergrad level introduction to relativity. Please feel free to comment if you have opinions.
[[User:PennyDarling|PennyDarling]] ([[User talk:PennyDarling|talk]]) 11:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

:Please don't do that. They [http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html#c1 don't understand the bug rivet paradox]. More silliness from the same site: [http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/twin.html#c1 "''Accelerations are outside the realm of special relativity and require general relativity.''"] Bad Source. To be avoided at all cost, at least for relativity. I have written them a few emails about this. Never got a reply. - [[User:DVdm|DVdm]] ([[User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 12:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

:: Can you supply a reference that you think is valid so that this can be reviewed? [[User:PennyDarling|PennyDarling]] ([[User talk:PennyDarling|talk]]) 10:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

::: I think Google might be your friend :-) - [[User:DVdm|DVdm]] ([[User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 12:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

:::: I have assumed good faith in your first reversal, but since you cannot supply citable references for removing this link, I have reversed this edit for the time being. Please cite references behind you decision as per Wikipedia policies and guidelines of NPOV, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS. This resouces has been developed by a professional with expertise in the subject and has been reviewed by, amongst others the IoP and SciLinks.  <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:PennyDarling|PennyDarling]] ([[User talk:PennyDarling|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/PennyDarling|contribs]]) 12:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::::<small>Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). Thanks.</small>
::::: I notice you just reinserted that link. I have reverted it again. The site makes two glaring errors. Let's discuss this first. See [[wp:BRD]]. - [[User:DVdm|DVdm]] ([[User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 12:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::: I really don't want this to descend in to an edit war, so I am requesting assistance. Meanwhile I would ask you to please supply citable reference for your decision and claims as per NPOV, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS. I have reverted, in the meantime (until you can supply citations), to the original state as the reference has credible citation and professional review. [[User:PennyDarling|PennyDarling]] ([[User talk:PennyDarling|talk]]) 13:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

::::::: If you don't want this to descend in to an edit war, then you don't revert again, and we keep this "article" in its original shape until the matter is resolved by consensus. See—again—[[wp:BRD]]. Per [[wp:NOCONSENSUS]] ({{xt|"'' a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.''"}}), I have restored the original content, awaiting consensus here. Do have a look at [[wp:3RR]].
::::::: By the way, for few links regarding the bug rivet paradox, see, for instance, [https://books.google.com/books?id=4m14K1PpJwMC&pg=PA151], [http://www.engr.mun.ca/~ggeorge/astron/BugRivet.pdf], [http://math.ucr.edu/~jdp/Relativity/Bug_Rivet.html], [https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-is-the-resolution-of-the-the-bug-rivet-paradox-paradox-in-special-relativity.57063/], etc...
::::::: Now, do have a serious look at, for instance, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html#c1, where they claim that "''the paradox is not resolved.''" That means that they think that there is a serious problem with special relativity. Here in http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/twin.html#c1 they say that "''accelerations are outside the realm of special relativity and require general relativity.''" So, what about you, do ''you'' think that accelerations are outside the realm of special relativity and require general relativity? Do ''you'' think that the bug rivet paradox cannot be resolved? - [[User:DVdm|DVdm]] ([[User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 20:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

:::::::: Having followed your links, these appear to be personal web pages and Forum discussion groups - I'm afraid that these are not acceptable as credible academic examples. Furthermore, this appears to me to be a NPOV issue in that you take exception to a small part of an otherwise creditable resource; I would like to reiterate that this talk section is not for the discussion of personal beliefs or theories, but to provide resource to academic, mainstream materials.  [[User:PennyDarling|PennyDarling]] ([[User talk:PennyDarling|talk]]) 08:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Please wait for the conclusion of the discussion before making edits - I will read your comments and respond in de course.
[[User:PennyDarling|PennyDarling]] ([[User talk:PennyDarling|talk]]) 20:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

:Repeat: Per [[wp:NOCONSENSUS]]: ({{xt|"'' a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.''"}}). - [[User:DVdm|DVdm]] ([[User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 21:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Please wait for the conclusion of the discussion before making edit. We have not fully discussed this yet, so we can not yet conclude that this is [[wp:NOCONSENSUS]]
[[User:PennyDarling|PennyDarling]] ([[User talk:PennyDarling|talk]]) 08:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I wold like to add further web references to this project page over the next few days. Please feel free to discuss here any of these resources here.  [[User:PennyDarling|PennyDarling]] ([[User talk:PennyDarling|talk]]) 08:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

:I have reported you for edit warring at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:PennyDarling reported by User:DVdm (Result: )]]
:Meanwhile, regarding acceleration and special relativity, see for instance
::* [[History of special relativity#Acceleration]]: since more than a century (1909) we know that accelerations are well inside the realm of special relativity.
:: and more at
::* [[History of special relativity#Time dilation and twin paradox]]
::* [[Twin paradox#Viewpoint of the traveling twin]] (last paragraph)
::* [[Twin paradox#Difference in elapsed time as a result of differences in twins' spacetime paths]]
::* [[Twin paradox#Difference in elapsed times: how to calculate it from the ship]]
::* [[Proper acceleration]] (lead, 3rd paragraph)
::* [[Proper acceleration#Viewed from a flat spacetime slice]]
::* [[Proper acceleration#Acceleration in (1+1)D]]
:  - [[User:DVdm|DVdm]] ([[User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 08:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
: By the way, that Wolfram site that you just added is even worse. Just have one look at the glaring error on http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html where they have the time dilation equation completely wrong. That should be t'=&gamma;t<sub>0</sub>. Note that I have emailed Eric Weisstein to correct this too. I got a deafening silence from there as well, just like from Hyperphysics. Perhaps we can keep these sites in the page, provided we change the header from '''Websites''' to '''Bad websites''', or to '''Websites to be avoided'''. {{Ping|JRSpriggs}}, {{Ping|Martin Hogbin}}, any thoughts? - [[User:DVdm|DVdm]] ([[User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 09:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
: Also, I'm still waiting for your answers to the questions: 
::* do you think that accelerations are outside the realm of special relativity and require general relativity?
::* do you think that the bug rivet paradox cannot be resolved?
: - [[User:DVdm|DVdm]] ([[User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 09:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
::: Firstly, this should not be not about personal opinion, this is about quality of resource. Secondly, simply because you disagree with it does not make it wrong, it is simply a different opinion - which is quite acceptable and should be reported upon. I am not prepared to get in to a discussion on beliefs; I trained in Theoretical Physics and I still don't entirely trust theorems, let alone theories. [[User:PennyDarling|PennyDarling]] ([[User talk:PennyDarling|talk]]) 13:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
:::: So I take it that you think that accelerations are outside the realm of special relativity, and that the bug rivet paradox cannot be resolved. It also shows that you have no objection to promoting non-peer reviewed websites that clearly contain elementary conceptual errors, the authors of which ignoring repeated friendly suggestions to correct these errors. This suggests that you hold a fringe view on the subject matter, and that— see [[wp:FRINGE]]—your best bet might be to avoid special relativity subjects on the Wikipedia. Note that Wikipedia works by [[wp:CONSENSUS]], and that in this case the consensus is against you. - [[User:DVdm|DVdm]] ([[User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 13:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

::I agree with DVdm.  The hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu does seem to have some serious issues and the Wolfram site does have a, rather surprising, mistake.  SR, rather like, [[centrifugal force]], is an area of physics that seem to attract many misconceptions, particularly online. We need to make sure that all links contain solid current physics. [[User:Martin Hogbin|Martin Hogbin]] ([[User talk:Martin Hogbin|talk]]) 11:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

'''Note''' - User PennyDarling was blocked for 24 hours ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&type=revision&diff=675424481&oldid=675423031]). - [[User:DVdm|DVdm]] ([[User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 14:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

:::To PennyDarling: Regarding the bug rivet paradox, there appear to be errors in the calculation, but even if one corrects those, the two events bug-squashed-by-end-of-rivet and wall-struck-by-head-of-rivet are separated by a space-like interval. So one cannot say that one event occurs before the other in all reference frames. What will happen is that the bug will be squashed (indeed vaporized or worse) and the rivet will break (or worse). The bug's argument that he will survive is based on the false assumption that the rivet and the wall are perfectly rigid. But perfect rigidity cannot exist in special relativity. Thus there is no real paradox. Because the website does not explain how the paradox is resolved, but claims falsely that it cannot be resolved, the website is actually anti-relativity and should not be used as a reference. [[User:JRSpriggs|JRSpriggs]] ([[User talk:JRSpriggs|talk]]) 06:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

:::: Hi [[User:JRSpriggs|JRSpriggs]], thanks for the input, I really appreciate it. However, I'm afraid that's not the point: solutions to the bug-rivet paradox are trivial. The issue is acceptance that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and provides a description of a subject, regardless of our personal beliefs. Many of the links I've seen here come from blogs and forums, which is not what wikipedia is really about (WP:NEWSBLOG, WP:NOTRELIABLE). I really wanted to contribute and improve the articles here because when I was at university (both of them), wikipedia was treated as a joke: it was often said that is was so badly written and referenced that it was often referred to as shittipedia. This topic is a theory - it isn't fact, it isn't a truth, it's merely a description which open to interpretation. I think that including and informing on opposing (qualified and expert) interpretations is healthy. I really think that this topic would benefit from a more neutral edit using reliable, pertinent and diverse citations; what it is not is a forum for discussion on the subject. Again, many thanks for taking time to reply - appreciate it.  [[User:PennyDarling|PennyDarling]] ([[User talk:PennyDarling|talk]]) 15:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::Penny, all science articles in WP should be written from the viewpoint of mainstream science.  The theory of special relativity is now well over 100 years old and it is well understood.  It is not a 'description which open to interpretation' but what would generally be called 'fact'.  Of course, physicist well know that SR is not exact and that it may well be superseded by a better theory one day, however, it is, within its realm of applicability, the best theory that we have today and it is part of mainstream science.  There are no 'opposing (qualified and expert) interpretations' of SR only some opposing (unqualified and wrong) interpretations.

:::::I understand your concern about bad sources and the best way to approach the problem is to look for the highest quality sources for anything you think needs one.  Good textbooks by established quality publishers and peer-reviewed journals are the best sources for science. The links you want to add are to web sites with errors and thus are not appropriate for WP but only for SP. [[User:Martin Hogbin|Martin Hogbin]] ([[User talk:Martin Hogbin|talk]]) 16:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

:::::: Hi Martin, thanks for the reply. This is a little off topic now, but you say "There are no 'opposing (qualified and expert) interpretations' of SR only some opposing (unqualified and wrong) interpretations." I'm not trying to promote any ideas here myself, but in the history  of scientific theory, none have have even been proven "right" so I really don't how you can claim that some are definitely "wrong". I think that the problem with the amateur scientist is that they lack rigour (e.g. quoting forums) and want to singly promote their own beliefs and deny others. This project is slipping down the quality scale for a reason.  [[User:PennyDarling|PennyDarling]] ([[User talk:PennyDarling|talk]]) 07:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

:::::::To be more clear, the effect of the rivet head striking the wall cannot propagate instantaneously, but only at light-speed or slower. Thus it cannot prevent the end of the rivet from squashing the bug.
:::::::We editors must use our own expert judgement to evaluate potential references. There is no automatic process for vetting references. [[User:JRSpriggs|JRSpriggs]] ([[User talk:JRSpriggs|talk]]) 06:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

:::::::: Indeed, "''at light-speed or slower''", which would effectively be at the material ''sound'' speed {{smiley}}. - [[User:DVdm|DVdm]] ([[User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 10:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::The bug-rivet is a rather poor paradox anyway because what happens in all frames is is that the bug, along with the rivet and anything else nearby, is rapidly converted to a ball of plasma.  [[User:Martin Hogbin|Martin Hogbin]] ([[User talk:Martin Hogbin|talk]]) 14:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

== redirects ==

There are several red-link redirects I cannot create ... could someone please do these?

The article [[congruence (general relativity)]] gives a nice discussion of congruences, expansion, and vorticity (and shear) in general relativity.  Thus, [[hypersurface orthogonal]] and [[vorticity tensor]] can be redirects to [[congruence (general relativity)]].  Then [[congruence of curves]] can be a redirect to [[congruence (manifolds)]].  

Some more mathy redlinks could use help: [[convergent expansion]] -> [[radius of convergence]] and [[operator product algebra]] -> [[operator product expansion]]  Thanks!! [[Special:Contributions/67.198.37.16|67.198.37.16]] ([[User talk:67.198.37.16|talk]]) 18:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
:Thanks!  [[Special:Contributions/67.198.37.16|67.198.37.16]] ([[User talk:67.198.37.16|talk]]) 06:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

== Help over at AfC ==

Could we get some eyes on a draft over at AfC, [[Draft:Non-Inertial Reference Frames in Relativity]]? Any comments, direction would be greatly appreciated. [[User:onel5969|<b><font color="#536895">Onel</font><font color="#FFB300">5969</font></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:Onel5969|<i style="color:blue">TT me</i>]]</sup> 12:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

== Popular pages report ==

We – [[m:Community Tech|Community Tech]] – are happy to announce that the [[m:Community Tech/Popular pages bot|Popular pages bot]] is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, {{no ping|Community Tech bot}} will post at [[{{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}/Popular pages]] with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of {{ROOTPAGENAME:{{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}}}.
 
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
* The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
* The report will include a link to the [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/ pageviews tool] for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
* The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to {{no ping|Mr.Z-man}} for his original {{no ping|Mr.Z-bot}}, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of {{ROOTPAGENAME:{{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}}}, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at [[m:User talk:Community Tech bot]].

Warm regards, [[m:Community Tech|the Community Tech Team]] 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Johan (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Johan_(WMF)/Target_lists/EnWikiWikiProjects201705&oldid=16776555 -->

== A possible error in the article about Gravitational Lensing Formalism ==


In the article [[Gravitational lensing formalism|Here]], in the end of the section "Weak lensing observables>Shear and reduced shear" (section=8), it says that <math>\langle \epsilon \rangle = \langle \gamma \rangle</math>. However, when going through the review about GL written by Bartelmann & Schneider (the first reference in that article), it says in page 341 (p. 51 in the PDF) that <math>\langle \epsilon \rangle = \langle g \rangle</math>. Meaning, it's equal to the '''reduced shear parameter''', and ''not'' to the '''shear parameter'''.

Also, it is implicitely assumed in the written definition of <math>\epsilon</math> that <math>|g|<1</math> - see equation (4.12) in that review.

[[User:Erez Zinman|Erez Zinman]] ([[User talk:Erez Zinman|talk]]) 14:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

== Criticism of the Lorentz Transformation   ==

The Wikipedia section Criticism of the theory of relativity is incomplete. As is the case for the sections Theory of relativity and Lorentz transformation, there is no instance which questions the viability of the Lorentz transformation (LT) in itself. It is incomplete and therefore faulty.  It ignores a contradiction between two of its most famous predictions, namely proportional time dilation (TD) and remote non-simultaneity (RNS).  This conclusion is justified upon consideration of the following four statements, which should be answered with either YES or NO with regard to their correctness:

1) Multiplying a finite number with zero always results in a value of zero;  

2) Accordingly, it is impossible for two time differences ΔT and ΔT' to always be proportional to one another (ΔT'=XΔT), where X is finite, and yet have ΔT'≠0 (non-simultaneous observation) while ΔT=0 (simultaneous observation);

3) A proportionality relationship (ΔT'=XΔT) between time differences measured for the same events by two different observers in relative motion to one another is the consequence of the phenomenon of time dilation (TD) in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (STR), while the other (ΔT=0 and ΔT'≠0), referred to as remote non-simultaneity (RNS),  is also predicted by the same theory;

4) The fact that both TD and RNS are predicted by the LT to occur in experiment and yet are shown above to be mutually exclusive is incontrovertible proof that this relationship between space and time is not valid.

Since the only correct position on all four of the above questions is YES, it follows that a key aspect of Einstein's STR is false.  In particular, it shows that the LT needs to be replaced in the theory by a different space-time transformation that a) satisfies both of Einstein's postulates of relativity, namely Galileo's Relativity Principle and the constancy of the speed of light in free space, but b) does not suffer from the above conflict inherent in the LT.   

Robert J. Buenker
--[[User:RobertJBuenker|RobertJBuenker]] ([[User talk:RobertJBuenker|talk]]) 15:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

:2) Beginner's mistake. Check the transformation in standard form: Δt'= &gamma; (Δt - v/c^2 Δx) and Δx'= &gamma; (Δx - v Δt), where, for readability, I have also adjusted your notation.
: Assuming that your X is &gamma;, the case Δt'=&gamma; Δt is only valid for events that satisfy Δx=0, i.o.w. that have the same x-coordinates, and that thus are colocal in the unprimed frame. In that special case, when you assume that also Δt=0 (simultaneous ''and'' colocal in the (x,t)-frame), you really have only one single event, and so obviously you also have Δt'=0, and of course Δx'=0. Both transformation equations trivially reduce to 0=0, or if you like, to 0=X&nbsp;0, for any X you fancy.
: Assuming that your X is 1/&gamma;, a similar argument with the inverse transformation is left as an exercise. - [[User:DVdm|DVdm]] ([[User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 16:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

:: The claim that the Δt&#39;=γΔt case is only valid for Δx=0 is wrong. The standard derivation of time dilation considers a special case in which Δx=vΔt. This point is made in Jackson&#39;s book (Classical Electrodynamics, Wiley, New York, 1962) on p. 359 (he uses z instead of x). This substitution in your equation for Δt&#39; directly to Δt/γ, where X=1/γ in my notation. The same result is obtained from the Lorentz invariance equation when the Δx=vΔt substitution is made, as pointed out in other textbooks. Time dilation is a standard prediction of the LT for the time difference of the same pair of events such as lightning strikes occurring at two different positions in the forest when observed by two different bservers in relative motion. --[[User:RobertJBuenker|RobertJBuenker]] ([[User talk:RobertJBuenker|talk]]) 12:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

:::You make the classic beginner's mistake: this is ''physics'', not just ''mathematics'', and you don't take into account (—because i.m.o. you clearly don't understand<sup>(*)</sup>—) the ''physical meaning'' of the variables x, t, x', t' in the transformation equations.
:::: <sup>(*)</sup> The equation Δt=0 does not mean "''simultaneous observation''" as you seem to think. The equation Δt=0 means that you are talking about "two events that have the same time-coordinate in the (x,t)-frame", so it means that the events are measured (or calculated) to ''be'' simultaneous. Your phrase "''simultaneous observation''" has nothing to do with that, and may very well lie at the heart of your confusion. It does not matter whether you ''observe'' the events simultaneously. The events must ''happen'' simultaneously. How or when you observe them is entirely irrelevant. 
:::: Also, regarding your declaration "''The claim that the Δt'=γ Δt case is only valid for Δx=0 is wrong''": the equation Δt'=γ Δt says that the time interval Δt' as measured in the (x',t')-frame between two ticks on a clock that is at rest in the (x,t)-frame, is longer by a factor γ than the time Δt between these ticks of the clock in its own rest frame. "''At rest in its own (x,t)-frame''" is exactly what is modeled by Δx=0 for the tick events: no spatial separation between the tick events, same x-coordinate, thus Δx=0.
:::Look at the transformation equations Δt' = &gamma; (Δt - v/c^2 Δx) and Δx' = &gamma; (Δx - v Δt) and their inverse Δt = &gamma; (Δt' + v/c^2 Δx') and Δx = &gamma; (Δx' + v Δt'). The instant you talk about two events of which the coordinates satisfy Δt'=X&nbsp;Δt, you ''immediately'' restrict the event coordinates to also satisfy Δx=0 or Δx'=0. If you then also write Δt=0 or Δt'=0, then you can algebraicly verify that everything immediately collapses to Δx=Δx'=Δt=Δt'=0. The linearity of the transformation guarantees that when ''any two'' deltas are zero, then ''all four'' deltas are zero, a trivial high-school property of linear transformations. Physically this means: when two events happen simultaneously ''and'' at the same place as measured in ''one'' inertial frame, then the events happen simultaneously and at the same place as measured in ''all'' inertial frames. In fact you are talking about '''one single event''', not about two distinct events. 

:::'''Note''': also, please be aware that Wikipedia is not the place to publish or even discuss our own original research—see for instance [[wp:NOR]] and [[wp:TPG]]. All articles should reflect the current common views, as opposed to deviating less common (fringe) views—see for instance [[wp:FRINGE]] and [[wp:UNDUE]]. And of course, Wikipedia is not the place where we are supposed to help each other getting rid of misconceptions—see [[wp:NOTFORUM]]. Perhaps you can visit a proper off-wiki discussion forum about this. It's really simply though, provided one understands the actual meaning of the variables in the equations that model the physics, ''and'' of course, basic linear algebra. Good luck! - [[User:DVdm|DVdm]] ([[User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 13:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)