User talk:Harald88

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wikipedia Signpost
Volume 2, Issue 50 — 11 December 2006

Archives·Newsroom·Tip line·Single-page·Subscribe

Welcome!

Hello Harald88, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --Fastfission 03:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

My sandboxes are here:

/sandbox - on OWLS, meant for Special relativity or a side article - low priority.
/sandbox2 - draft for a replacement article for (rightly deleted) articles about relativity critics.


Archive 1: User talk:Harald88/Archive1
Archive 2: User talk:Harald88/Archive2
Archive 3: User talk:Harald88/Archive3

Contents

[edit] Memo: Wikipedia:Scientific_citation_guidelines

I plan to use some of that advice in writing articles, in particular how to distinguish between the sourcing of statements vs. providing good references. Harald88 21:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] RfC

You may like to weigh in here [1] as I notice you have an interest in this page. bunix 11:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good edit.

This was a good edit. CWC(talk) 09:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :-) IMO links must clearly relate to the subject matter, as based on reliable sources. Harald88 11:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References code

Hi Harald, Something's wrong here, if I'm not mistaken. I suspect that there is only half a code, and it's screwing up my attempts to add a references section at the bottom. I have made several attempts, but I can't see anything there. Please take a look at it. -- Fyslee 22:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I also saw it but it took me a moment to see how to fix it. Now it's OK I think. Harald88 22:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] added and withdrawn comment about primary etc. sources?

Hi I saw that you added a comment but next deleted it again. Change of mind, reconsideration, ...?

Regards, Harald88 00:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I realised I had spoken for the sake of speaking, without adding anything to what you already observed. I must cure myself of agreeing with people in order to agree with myself. Also, I think that page is going nowhere; the proposed page Wikipedia:Attribution is much more promising, in my opinion; the proposed text is pleasingly light on the distinction between types of sources. qp10qp 14:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, But please don't forget that opinions are more taken into account when they are shown to be not lonely opinions but shared by others.
I also noticed that new proposal which indeed is already better, although the fundamental mistake of suggesting that such classification is beneficial is still maintained. I'll put a similar remark on that page. Harald88 14:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lo and behold

I've found a contempary anti-relativist, of undisputed relevance, verifiable career in academics, enough notability for longish Wikipedia article: William Lane Craig. But whether the argument that an absolute frame of reference is needed for the existence of God will earn him many points here? Nevertheless I'll write Neo-Lorentzian interpretation [2] once I've got enough stuff together. But I won't spend >100 Euro for his ISBN 0792366689. Perhaps KraMuc can buy it ;-) --Pjacobi 17:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting! I must confess that I never heard of Craig eventhough I know the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity theory very well, and IMO in any case Lorentzian relativity/Physical relativity deserves an article of its own, as I suggested to Biophys (see User_talk:Biophys#Non-postulated_relativity_by_Lev_Lomize).
When you call him an "anti-relativist" I suppose you mean his philosophy and not his physics (what on earth is Neo-Lorentzian?! Next we're sure to get "Neo-Einsteinian" as well...).
Note: I still have in mind to get ahead with the replacement for the trashed anti-relativity article. I was held up for a while due to other occupations and because I needed time to figure out how to deal with citations to scientifically unreliabale sources for verifiability, without suggesting that they are reliable - but that's all clear now.
Regards, Harald88 23:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
For an intro into Craig's Neo-Lorentzian interpretation I'd recommended looking into this criticism of it:
At least, all my few knowledge about it comes from there.
And from that I'd consider him to be a sort-of anti-relativist in the physical sense too.
You may also want to have a look at David B. Malament and Einstein synchronisation.
Pjacobi 20:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fictitious

Note that even though the centrifugal force is described as 'fictitious' this does not make it any less real. Many other everyday forces such as the force of gravity are actually fictitious forces (in the case of gravity, caused by the distortion of space/time around any object). In a rotating frame of reference the "fictitious" centrifugal force has very real effects, and because of this many people prefer the term 'pseudo force' to denote this.

Saying that it is fictitous implies that it simply doesn't exist; that it's wholy imaginary. The point is that it isn't fictitious, because it is an effect of momentum, which is real.

Thus its fictitiousness is a misnomer.

OTOH:

pseu‧do  /ˈsudoʊ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[soo-doh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1. not actually but having the appearance of; pretended; false or spurious; sham. 2. almost, approaching, or trying to be.

Seems to me to be precisely true.

(Actually forces in general are arguably pseudo to start with, energy seems much more fundamental, but that's another issue!)WolfKeeper 02:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a mistake to think that fictitious is a misnomer, and actually, the article Centrifugal force even explains rather well why it is correct, much more than with gravity. See for example Don Kok's explanation in [3].
It's not correct; it's a misnomer. If it was truly fictitious there would be no movement when seen from a rotating reference frame.WolfKeeper 03:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
What is seen is motion relative to the the reference frame which is in rotational motion (acceleration). It is falsely claimed to be due to a mysterious force without a source -- a fictitious or pseudo force.
Incidentally, Don Kok's explanation that the centrifugal force doesn't hold the moon up has a basic error. There does indeed exist a non inertial frame where the combination of coriolis and centrifugal forces hold the moon up (even though the moon is not in a circular orbit). Kok's entire argument rests on the assumption that von Braun is using a single frame thoughout, but it doesn't seem to me that he really is; but even if he was being strictly incorrect, it's perfectly possible to make von Braun's argument correct.WolfKeeper 03:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
It's also possible to make the statement that the sun is orbiting around the earth "correct"... Harald88 08:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Moreover, the article points out what people in a merry-go-round feel: a real centripetal force.
I'm not disagreeing with that at all.WolfKeeper 03:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually your edit disagreed with that. It looks like you confused the two uses of centrifugal force. Harald88 08:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed a ficititious force is a force that does not exist but that is kept for bookkeeping.
Aren't all forces bookkeeping? Potential energy seems to be the real underlying object if anything.WolfKeeper 03:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
The same qualification is valid for potential energy in a rotating frame: kinetic energy there plays the role of potential energy. However, it works for bookkeeping, as the article shows. Harald88 08:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Inertia (what you call momentum) causes a real (inertial or reactive) centrifugal force under centripetal acceleration, as the article also makes clear; and the article makes a disambiguation between the two uses. Harald88 03:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
There's also the important point that searching google with 'centrifugal force pseudo' gives twice as many hits as 'centrifugal force fictitious'. This suggests that we should use 'pseudo' in preference to 'fictitious' wherever possible, not only is pseudo it not a misnomer, it actually seems to be more common.WolfKeeper 03:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
If you think that the two designations of fictitious/pseudo are not fairly presented, please present your arguments on the article's Talk page. But if that is your main point, please present it first at the Fictitious force article, as that is based on a definition with which you apparently disagree. Harald88 09:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theimer

Do you know/can you recommend:

  • Walter Theimer, Die Relativitätstheorie Lehre-Wirkung-Kritik, ISBN 3900800022

Seems to be a KraMuc recommendation, which gives me some reservations. --Pjacobi 14:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maurice Allais

Harald, why do you keep removing the Tom Roberts reference that clearly disporoves Allais' (mis)interpretation of the Dayton-Miller experiment? Just because it is not published (yet), it doen't mean that it is not correct. The Tom Roberts paper is a very valuable refutation of all the fringe antirelativists misconceptions about the Dayton-Miller experiment. Moroder 16:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Moroder, please take heed of the policy to only refer to peer-reviewed articles in respected journals in science articles. IMO his article has a serious flaw; but thanks to the policy we editors must abstain from doing our own reviews. Harald88 17:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
harry, what would the "flaw" be? The fact that it is one of the best mathematical refutations of the Dayton Miller experimental misinterpretations? Moroder 17:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
From your above un-answer to my explanation of Wikipedia rules I can only fear the worst concerning your complying with them. And on a lighter note, please don't call me "harry", or I will call you "Morry" :-) Harald88 17:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
PS, off-the-record: Where does your reference discuss Allais? Harald88 17:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Harry , where is the alleged error in Tom Roberts' paper? You haven't answered that. Moroder 17:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Morry, I did not claim that there is an "error" in that paper; but I *did* answer that we editors are not allowed to do WP:Original research on Wikipedia - that includes both inserting unpublished opinions of others and of ourselves. My un-Wikipedian claim that it is IMO flawed was a reply to your un-Wikipedian suggestion that it is correct. And apparently his paper doesn't even address Allais' analysis.
Harald88 18:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
harry,
Would you please show where the error is in the Tom Roberts paper? BTW, TR's paper shows how BOTH Allais and Dayton Miller were wrong. I will show you the many errors in the Unnikrishnan paper. If I do that, will you take down the inept Unnikrishnan paper? At least, wiki shouldn't be the platform for your antirelativistic views, should it , harry? Can you spot the errors in the paper that you inserted? They are many and obvious.... Moroder 21:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Morry about "Disbelievers", did he really use that word?! I doubt it, for scientists are inherently sceptics. I am not an "Antirelativist" as far as physics is concerned. In contrast, from your remarks it appears that you identify yourself as a "Relativist", with a corresponding risk of one-sided reporting from your side.
"Flaw" is much softer than "error", and this is all a matter of opinions (no simple thing like 2+2=5). And I hope that TR will improve his article before it gets published. I can send you an email about that, as Wikipedia is not the place for it. I am also interested to see your list of errors (you can send it by email), but that is irrelevant for the citation, see Talk where I propose to make it a simple footnote.


BTW, we had an article "Antirelativity" but it became messed up due to edit wars and inserted crank science. We decided that a replacement article that more broadly discusses criticisms needs to be included in Wikipedia, but it has not yet come from the ground. Harald88 22:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Why email? Why on the side, hidden? Why not in the open? I prefer to list the errors in the Unnikrishnan papers right here, in the open, for everybody to be able to see. Question: can't you see them? At least one or two? (there are many). Moroder 01:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a discussion group for doing WP:Original research, and I do not agree to have my user page used for your blog nor for doing original research. And I don't feel inclined in joining such discussions on Wikipedia as they incite opposition to the policies that instruct us to fairly report published opinions. See also Wikipedia: what wikipedia is not.
Practical discussions about how to render such opinions correctly is of course a different matter; for that each article has a Talk page. Harald88 11:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Non-peer reviewed reference to Allais paper

harry, please stop adding the reference to a non-peer reviewed Allais paper. You know very well that this is contrary to wiki policy. In addition to this, you are lifting it from the number 1 crank site, the Anti-Relativity Forum. Moroder 16:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unscientific views about "Twin Paradox"

harald, why do you keep inserting the incorrect paper by Uniikrishnan as a reference to the "Twin Paradox" article? Even if it was peer reviewed (in an Indian journal!?), it is clearly incorrect. Uniikrishnan uses his own misunderstandings as "corrections" to the mainstream interpretations. Moroder 16:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Moroder, Please keep your opinions to yourself. It doesn't matter if you ridicule certain countries (as long as you don't do it here!), nor does it matter if you think that scientists who have their own opinions are "unscientific" or 'incorrect". Before getting into trouble I advice you to read the policies, starting with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Harald88 17:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

harry, sounds like you are threatening me.Sounds like you have a clear antirelativistic bias as well. Moroder 17:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Moroder, Wikipedia only accepts editors who are willing to play by the rules, which are based on fair presentation of existing information. And no personal bias may show up in editing, only knowledge of notable sources. See also the instruction page Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. Harald88
Harry, does that mean that quoting papers that are wrong is part of wikipidia attempt to educate the masses? The Unnikrishnan paper is grossly incorrect, why do you keep pushing it? Do you want a list of errors? I would be more than happy to supply itMoroder 17:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Morry I can also provide a list of errors (IMO) in a number of papers that are cited, including that one. Regretfully few papers are error-free; and that paper was cited for its explanation of mainstream criticism of Einstein's 1918 paper (with which it agrees) while it also gives a modern overview plus a new look at it.
For the last time: please read WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. All your questions are answered there. And if you have remarks about the motivation for specific edits in articles, please use the corresponding Talk pages. Harald88 18:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Harry, we are not talking about "papers that are cited", we are talking about the Unnikrishnan paper that you introduced in supporting your POV. If I show you all the errors, would you take it down? Wiki shouldn't be the platform of your antirelativistic POV, right? Moroder 21:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Never mind, another editor took out the junk. I am still volunteering for proving why the "reference" you inserted is wrong, I will do it right here, ok? You up for it? I do physics for a living, not as a hobby and I think people should be given the truth, not some crackpot paper that was passed by some incompetent reviewers. Moroder 22:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
See above; and Wikipedia is not the place for WP:OR or "your POV against my POV" or even "The Truth" --see WP:NPOV!. Please send me an email, I look forward to see it! :-))
And Morry please stop calling me "Harry" or "Antirelativist" or I won't reply but just delete. But you can call me Harald instead of Harald88. Harald88 22:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I must admit, I'm having trouble with this reference Harald. The article makes some very good points, but the conclusions basically reintroduces an absolute reference frame as a physically significant one:

"The failure of the accepted views and resolutions can be traced to the fact that the special relativity principle formulated originally for physics in empty space is not valid in the matter-filled universe. Planck’s assertion2 that there is no physical method of measurement of the velocity of motion through space is made void by the various markers available in cosmology, especially the dipole anisotropy of the CMBR."

In other words the author denies the relativity principle. Maybe this is some subtle argument from general relativity? It just seems a bit odd to me. It needs to be put into context.WolfKeeper 23:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
He seems to refer to GRT, with his own interpretation (with which I don't agree, if I understand him well). But I reduced it to a footnote, as the reference is simply about his agreement with Builder on his criticism of Einstein's "real" gravitational fields due to acceleration that nowadays are called "pseudo fields", in disagreement with Einstein's 1918 POV -- see [4]. Harald88 23:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh Harald88! By all means you know, that there are zillions of scientific papers published every year. We are advised to use standard textbooks and review papers if available, and use editorial judgement (with the help of the citataion indexes, despite all voiced doubts about their relevance) whether and which research papers to include. --Pjacobi 23:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pjacobi, see above, I wanted to ask you to watch people here who delete the note that general relativity nowadays is regarded as a theory of gravitation. If you know another recent paper that criticizes Einstein's 1918 Twin paradox paper please add it, thanks.
BTW why are you all typing here instead of on the Talk page?? I will now move this discussion to hte appropriate page. Harald88 23:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/r/User_talk%7EHarald88_9e75.html"