Talk:Relativity (consistent with the general principle)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Page semi-moved

The author of the article has done a cut-and-paste move of the article to Relativity (consistent with general principle).

He also cut-and-paste moved the Talk page, omitting most of the recent comments.

I'm going to suggest he request that the "new" page be deleted per WP:CSD#G7 until the discussion here is finished. If it is decided that the article should stay up under a different name he can then do a real move. If he doesn't do that I think the "new" article should immediately be AfDed. --Craig Stuntz 18:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that...would WP:CSD#A3 not be better: "a rephrasing of the title", since that's the only difference between the two pages. Alternatively, the author seems keen to have this page deleted, so this one could be speedied, which would be agreeable to all, probably, and then AfD the new one... Byrgenwulf 18:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see you meant G7, yes, that's the best, I think. Except, he isn't the only editor, so it might cause some hassles, but we shall see... Byrgenwulf 18:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
He's the only editor of the article. The only other edits to talk were from me discussing the copy-and-paste, so I don't think that should stop a G7 deletion. --Craig Stuntz 18:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's hope...will you propose it on his talk page, perhaps? Byrgenwulf 19:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Already done. --Craig Stuntz 19:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research?

I never heard of "symmetrical relativity" when I was a physics student, and Google hasn't heard of it, either. If this material isn't cited and verifiable then it's original research, whether or not you personally invented it, and it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions, but we are writing an encyclopedia here and can only use verifiable material.

If you have references you can cite for this article, then please add them. If not, I'll propose this page for deletion. --Craig Stuntz 13:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article is Not Original Research

This article is not original research. Albert Einstein formulated the theory of special relativity. He also formulated the general principle of relativity which states the equivalence of inertial acceleration and gravitational acceleration. Since special relativity governs the physics of inertial acceleration, Einstein's general principle states that the same laws apply to gravitational acceleration. I have formulated no principle, theory, or done any original research.

By rights this article should be called general relativity because it is based on the general principle. It could even be called special relativity because the general principle implicitly states that the laws of special relativity govern gravitational acceleration. Preferably, it should be just called relativity because the distinction between "general" and "special" are meaningless.

However, a historical problem arose. After formulating the general principle, Einstein went on to develop a theory of gravitation that violated the general principle. He called his theory general relativity, apparently implying that it was based on the general principle. If his theory was based on the general principle, it would govern inertial acceleration as well and there historically would not be two separate theories of relativity.

I titled this article symmetrical relativity rather than just relativity, because I did not wish to overwrite what historically has been known as relativity. It is just special relativity that is applied to gravitational acceleration as well as to inertial acceleration. Semantics do not really matter. If anyone wants to still maintain that this article contains original research, I request that he or she explain why in terms of the physics.

[edit] Reply

I already told you why it's original research. But I'll repeat myself: Here's the original research policy in a nutshell:
Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements that serves to advance a position.
Let's look at the ways the article at present violates this policy:
  • The subject of the article is a neologism.
  • No sources are cited for the claims in the article.
  • The general principle of relativity does not insofar as I'm aware imply that, as the article claims, special relativity and general relativity are "equivalent." That is, in my opinion, a "new synthesis of published arguments."
Now maybe I'm wrong (it's happened before) or maybe you are. But the correct way to handle a difference of opinion in Wikipedia is to cite sources, and that burden is on the article author.
I will place notices on the talk pages of the other articles on relativity requesting input from other people with a background in the subject. --Craig Stuntz 17:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

  • I am in the process of moving the article to another name. I did not like the word Symmetrical anyway. I meant symmetrical as an adjective to distinguish it from other relativity articles. You took the phrase Symmetric Relativity to be a neologism.
  • I added references to the general principle of relativity. It should be known to individuals who have familiarity with the development of relativity and that Einstein made this claim, not me. Please let me know if you need other specific sources. I know some internal links need to be added like to binary stars, but most individuals who claim to understand relativity would have a basic knowledge of such things.
  • The general principle states that the laws of physics take the same form for all accelerated reference frames. It is difficult for many to understand. Perhaps you can find an expert to debate the point. It is not a new synthesis.
I do not know what your rush is in writing to people. Perhaps you view it as an invasion which you want to kill off on the beach. People with knowledge of in the topic would see it sooner or later. I would prefer to respond to one on one intellectual criticism, than to an assembled goon squad. I have never killed an article, but I have no problem deleting sections that have been around a while, but are unfit. If I am intellectually confident, it does not bother me. I explain exactly why though and would never engage in goon tactics.
Wikipedia policy states that "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged." --Danras 23:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Namecalling will not help your case. Making un-cited assertions about physics will not help your case. You have not provided a single reference for the (rather outlandish) assertions made in the article. That a group of people disagree with you does not make those people a "goon squad"; it simply means that claims which appear at odds with accepted science require rock-solid citations and you, despite repeated requests, have provided none whatsoever.
I'm really serious about the namecalling, though. One more personal attack from you and I'll stop attempting to be helpful and just let the AfD run its course. If you honestly believe there is any accepted science at all in this article then you need all the help you can get to preserve what is worth keeping. It's quite clear you don't understand the basics of Wikipedia (e.g., page moving, Talk protocol, and the manual of style. If you reply to people who try to help you out by calling them vandals and goons then you are not likely to be helped again.
As for my motivation, it's quite simple: I don't want to see psuedoscience in the encyclopedia. If you're unwilling or unable the correct the mistakes here then the article needs to go. --Craig Stuntz 01:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anville's Statement

The "general principle of relativity", more commonly called the principle of equivalence, does not imply that general relativity and special relativity are "equivalent". Far from it: only by postulating the equivalence principle could Einstein move beyond special relativity to the more encompassing (and more mathematically sophisticated) theory of general relativity. This article begins with an incorrect assertion and is Original Research after that. Anville 18:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

General relativity meaning a theory of gravity does not encompass special relativity. Inertial acceleration (the subject of special relativity) is not a form of gravitational acceleration. Einstein's theory of gravity is mathematically sophisticated. It would be more so, but to solve the spacetime mathematics, he made the simplifying assumption that gravitational mass is equal to inertial mass. The assumption makes the theory violate the general principle of relativity. In Einstein's general relativity, collapsed stars can have escape velocities in excess of the speed of light, just as in classical Newtonian theory. Special relativity does not allow velocities in excess of the speed of light. --Danras 19:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael C. Price's Statements

Danras, you are spouting complete nonsense. It's also unverifiable original research. Read the Wikipedia guidelines on your talk page. --Michael C. Price talk 19:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, delete. Unacceptable OR. --Michael C. Price talk 18:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Byrgenwulf's Statement

Not only OR, but judging from the "references" which were used (two other Wikipedia articles were listed in the "references section" which has now disappeared), it is lacking reliable sources as well. Please get rid of it. Byrgenwulf 18:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MP's Statement

Never heard of 'symmetrical relativity'. It's clearly OR and should be deleted. Danras, you seem to have a lack of basic knowledge regarding GR and SR - you really should study these properly before making wild claims like (paraphrasing) 'GR, as a theory of gravity, does not encompass SR'. MP (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Einstein's general principle of relativity is that gravitational acceleration is equavalent to inertial acceleration. A theory explaining gravitational acceleration does not encompass a theory explaining inertial acceleration. The two are on equal standing. I admit GR generally agrees with SR, except in cases where escape velocities approach c. However, quantum mechanics agrees with SR too. Such a fact does not mean it encompasses SR. I am in the process of changing the article name to Relativity (consistent with the general principle) so you do not get confused that something is OR because of semantics. --Danras 23:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counter reply

You said, "I admit GR generally agrees with SR, except in cases where escape velocities approach c." - I'm not sure what you mean by the term 'generally agrees', but whatever sensible definition you use of that term, it cannot make sense. It is an incorrect statement !

And just as bad, "However, quantum mechanics agrees with SR too." - Does it ? How ? If you mean QED, then fair enough, but it's a vague statement.

Also, changing the name of the article will do absolutely nothing to answer the objections that have been raised against the article. Although we said we'd never heard of 'Symmetrical Relativity', the point of our objections was that you are writing something that looks like OR and shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of GR and SR - changing the name of the article will never solve these problems !

You claimed that you re-added the 'references'. You don't seem to understand what is meant by a 'reference' at Wikipedia (and most other places). A reference usually means a reliable source, such as a book or journal. You can give references to Einstein's work (in the form of papers, or reference to his work from standard relativity textbooks), but that is not enough for a reference for what you are writing in the article, because Einstein doesn't discuss the issues you are discussing. MP (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/l/Talk%7ERelativity_%28consistent_with_the_general_principle%29_f57b.html"