User talk:12.30.216.138

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — CharlotteWebb 10:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Trolling

"Green" - IMO, you are trolling: Creating discussion where none belongs. If you do not stop now, you will be reported to the administrators for editing abuse. This is your only warning. --EMS | Talk 04:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

He is trolling and he's using disgusting language. I move that we have him banned permanently. Moroder 04:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sock Pupeteering

"green" you are also "sock pupeteering" by using a second account : 4.227.136.248 Moroder 16:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Moroder - I have seen him on a second IP, but he signed the post "green". While I would prefer that he get an account, it is not "sock pupeteering" for him to get onto another machine as long as he continues to identifty himself. Only if he is evading a block is that in an issue. --EMS | Talk 21:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gravitational potential

Green -

A gravitational potential is really just a measure of energy needed to move an object up or down in an accelerated frame of reference. Curvature makes no difference in this regard. A gravitational potential exists whenever masses appear to be accelerated by a force whose stength is proportional to the mass of the object. In free fall (which is inertial motion), there is no local gravitational potential (but becuase of curvature a tidal field can be observed at distant positions). However, between the top and bottom of a building when we are a rest with respect to the surface of the Earth, there is gravitational potential. Please note that the cause of the potential is not spacetime curvature, but instead our being in an accelerated frame of reference because whatever we are standing on keeps us from falling downwards. --EMS | Talk 21:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the Earth curve spacetime in its vicinity and isn't this the reason that objects fall toward its center? green 12.30.216.138 04:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More trolling

Green - I am going to continue to remove content until and unless you stop pushing your own personal viewpoint here. Your questions are good, but they belong on USENET, not here. That article has major issues, including obtaining the proper citations. You have become a major distraction from the issue of editing the article, and that is the issue I have with you now.

I may or may not e-mail you. You have no comprehension of what I have been trying to tell you, and instead have shown that you lack the conceptual framework needed to bridge the gap between our positions. I am not here to be your personal relativity teacher. --EMS | Talk 16:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The purpose of the talk pages

Green - You may not be intending to troll, but even so your actions do amount to trolling. I see where you are coming from: You want the content of the article to be mathematically and conceptually vetted. That is all fine and dandy, but that is not what the talk pages exist for. The issue is what the content of the article should be, and that is fundamentally driven by what the literature on the issue says. Whether of not the view in the literature is correct is a whole other issue which is beyond the scope of Wikipedia.

To help to orient a newbie on the technical aspects of a subject like the twin paradox is one thing. However, going in circles over whether the GR solution is correct or not is another. The issue here is whether the GR solution should be presented, and if so how the related facts should be presented. If you lack the knowledge needed to make sound judgements on those points, you should not be discussing that aspect of the subject. --EMS | Talk 05:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in communicating with you further. Please stop sending me messages. Do as you wish with the article. green 12.30.216.138 05:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
(Note: I will see responses posted here.) --EMS | Talk 05:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final block warning

For violations of WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL, notably this edit.[1] Bear in mind that Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy requires that articles reflect the shape of debate in peer reviewed literature rather than the ways that particular editors prefer to frame issues. DurovaCharge! 20:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fwiw, I was a software engineer for many years at a prestigious NASA laboratory, and I never come across the term "sock puppet". Hence, when I was accused of "sock puppeterring" by a user who was previously abusive (Moroder), I thought the phrase was a surrogate for "cocksucker". It is, indeed, odd that such a term was chosen for someone who tries to evade a block, which, btw, was not was I was doing at the time. My usual server was not functioning so I used an alternate. As for Wiki policies re: editing, I am well aware of same. green 12.30.216.138 00:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 48 hour block

That explanation doesn't hold much water in light of the following uncivil post[2] and continued disruption.[3] See Wikipedia:Assume good faith. DurovaCharge! 04:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sock puppet

Anon, please refrain from using sock puppets to get around a 48 hour block. Edits you make during that period will be reverted. You're welcome after the block expires to make your case. I strongly suggest you rewrite the GR section as you think is should be worded and present it in the talks page. Don't forget to list proper external sources for other editors to check. Keep scientific debates off the talks page, that is not the place for it, use newsgroups or other channels if debating is what you want to do. Tailpig 06:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What you say makes no sense in this situation. The old version of the GR section contained Einstein's alleged GR solution and some critical commentary with references, e.g., Builder. But EMS, claiming superior knowledge deleted all the critical commentary that gave balance to the section. EMS insists that he is an authority on this topic, so unless he can show that explicitly in reasoned argumentation that his position makes sense, the old version of the section should restored. If you read his recent comments carefully, it is clear that he refuses to deal with straightforward arguments I have presented, and avoids the issue in what is clearly an evasive tactic. I am supposed to assume good faith, and I did, but that time is past due to EMS's disingenuous approach to the issue under discussion. Now you appear on the scene and tell me to go another forum for the argumentation. This is a counterproductive suggestion under the circumstance. green 12.30.216.138 13:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block extended to 1 week per WP:SOCK

For block evasion on User:4.227.136.57 and User:4.227.136.245. DurovaCharge! 14:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you have no idea what's been going on wrt the twin paradox article and talkpage. In the article, an older version of the GR section contained Einstein's alleged GR solution and some critical commentary with references, e.g., G. Builder, who published in the Australian Journal of Physics in 1958. But EMS, claiming "expert" knowledge, deleted the critical commentary and references that gave balance to the section. Harald88 put a POV Tag on the article -- I believe for EMS's editing of the GR section -- because EMS was asserting his own pov by removing Builder's reference, claiming that its arguments were invalid and that the Australian journal was not sufficiently prestigious to make the Wiki (actually EMS's) cut. This behavior is obviously a blatant attempt by EMS to impose his own pov in violation of Wiki protocols. It is hypocritical for EMS to accuse me of doing that very thing when all I was arguing for was a balanced presentation based on what's in the literature, not what EMS (or yours truly) believes to be true. It was this dispute that started the physics discussion wrt the validity of Einstein's solution. I felt that if EMS could assert a private pov to the extent to deleting critical commentary and references, he should at least be able to support his claim that Einstein's solution made sense. In the course of the discussion it became clear, most recently evidenced by my final comments that you deleted, that EMS does not deserve the assumption of good intentions. Instead of directly responding concerning how the equivalence principle could be applied to the situation under discussion -- and I was very clear as to why it cannot be so applied, based on the content of the Wiki article -- he responding with the manipulative appeal that I should abide by Wiki rules and offer a citation for my pov. This is a disingenuous mode of argumentation since it was EMS who initally deleted a contrary pov based on his private opinion. I was arguing the physics issue not because I wanted my analysis included in the article (I could care less), but because I wanted to show the editors interested in this issue that EMS's "expert" opinion is incorrect and could not be the standard applied in this case (as well as being irrelevant according to Wiki rules) for truncating the GR section. In sum, what has in fact occurred, is that EMS has been defacto violating Wiki protocols and making it appear as if I am the culprit. Consistently, he removed Harald's pov tag before the issue had been resolved. Please take these facts into account in your blocking policy. green 12.30.216.138 23:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Two of your posts in the last day have begun by declaring that I don't know what I'm doing, which you follow with assertions that lack evidence. That's poor strategy. Adopt a more respectful tone and supply specific page diffs. I'm a reasonable person and I'd be willing to reevaluate this situation if you offer a solid presentation. Of course you've still violated WP:CIVIL and WP:SOCK even if your facts are completely right, so add a solemn promise to abide by site policies and take any future conflicts through the standard Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. A pledge to join Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user would help. DurovaCharge! 00:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Iirc, I didn't claim that you don't know what you're doing; rather, that imo you hadn't been reading the Talkpage and therefore made a decision from an incomplete perspective of what had transpired. Fwiw, I wasn't the initiator of uncivil behavior in recent discussions; that was Moroder. Also, it was tiresome to be repeatedly accused of wanting the article to reflect my personal research or pov. I expressly denied it several times, to no avail, which made me wonder about the level of reading comprehension. You're obviously correct about use of an alternate socket. It was frustrating that EMS did not use the equivalence principle article to refute my claims, and I see that he has modified it to reflect his position in this matter. I cannot comment on this now, as I am looking into the matter. However, given that the article defines the weak, strong, and Einstein's EP, it would be instructive if the article indicated -- even if roughly -- how EMS's latest addition follows from any one, or combination of these principles. Wrt the undue weight issue, since we are obliged to record the current state of knowledge, if we came to view that Einstein's 1918 twin analysis were flawed and literature existed that alleged same, istm that it would be appropriate to include such references even if they were not completely accurate in every detail. After all, the issue here is the "state of knowledge", and if that state is ambiguous, it should be mentioned. In this view, the number of citations of a critical review is irrelevant. Finally, I really don't have time to participate in the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user program. However, I strongly support the overall Wiki concept and have told people that I consider the concept brilliantly innovative. Regards, green 12.30.216.138 05:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
So despite my citation of WP:AGF in the original block notice, you persist in a bad faith assumption about my research? Considering that I've received three barnstars so far this month including the Barnstar of Diligence, that raises a question or two about your research. I'll look at diffs for the content dispute if you choose to provide them, but the response so far shows none of the responsiveness to feedback or willingness to abide by site policies that might persuade me to view this situation more favorably. DurovaCharge! 07:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Fwiw, I don't think I actually assumed bad faith; rather, probably, incomplete research on your part and too great a sensitivity wrt heated discussion, with the requirement that it be suspended -- that is, an overemphasis on conformity that easily turns into censorship. You seemed conspicuously absent when Moroder was behaving rudely. How could I know about your Wiki awards? When I click your link, there's a nice picture of a Russian female military officer but no information about who you are, with your Wiki and other accomplishments. Btw, I noticed on your Talkpage a note from EMS stating that I had been a "nuisance" on the general relativity talkpage. Fyi, as a factual matter, I have not participated on that talkpage. green 12.30.216.138 02:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
"green" - You write:
if we came to view that ... analysis as flawed and literature existed that alleged the same, ... it would be appropriate to include such references ....
That is not true. Our view is irrelevant! The sourcing must be reliable no matter what we think about the issue. If a viewpoint is contested and there is no reliable sourcing for it, it must be dropped. It's that simple. --EMS | Talk 05:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I beg to differ. If there are contested views, such as Builder re: Einstein's turnaround analysis, we have a make a judgement whether the critique is viable. We can't include every crank claim or article, but we have no alternative but to make educated judgements as to what is crank and what is not. green 12.30.216.138 06:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I can strongly assure you that Builder's analysis is neither viable nor notable. I would love to enable you to see the reason that it is not viable, but as I wrote before: I am not here to be your personal relativity teacher. That is why I fall back on the notability issue, which is paramount here anyway. --EMS | Talk 01:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
For the record:
  1. The last removal of Harald's POV tag was by user:Tailpig, not myself.
  2. As I researched Harald's sources for the claim that Einstein's 1918 twin paradox solution is refuted or contested, I came to realize that they were non-notable. Neither Builder nor Unnikrishkan are known or respected in the field, and Harald88 has conceded that neither work is cited by others. So the literature itself is such that inclusion is to give their viewpoint undue weight. That this viewpoint is obviously mistaken may be the least of the issues with it from the Wikipedia viewpoint.
  3. This anon does not get what the equivalence principle (EP) is or the extent of its applicability. (I have just done an edit to the EP article to clarify the later point. Maybe that will help things as this anon wants to use that article as an important source.) I have tried to educate this anon, but found that it is more of a project than it is worth.
  4. One of the points of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR is that it is not the job of the editors of this encyclopedia to determine whether something is true or not, but instead to document what the current human knowledge is.
  5. I can make a case that I have a vested interest in promoting the inclusion of material like the stuff Harald88 and this anon want included in twin paradox: I am working on an alternate theory to GR of my own, and obviously would love to seen a Wikipedia article written on it. It is not published yet, but when it is, it will initially be an obscure, unreferenced article like the Builder and Unnikrishkan articles. If the contested material could be used, then I could start talking about my theory immediately after its initial publication. However, that just plain is not in the best interests of Wikipedia.
I have tried to make these points to this anon, but to no avail. I have also tried to engage him on the issue of whether to "GR" section should be included at all given that the material is difficult to understand, but the anon keeps wanting judge whether it is true. This result is the disruption that has gotten him bannblocked. I will give this anon credit for persistence, but then again that is why the banblock got extended. --EMS | Talk 01:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Technical point on Wikiterminology, EMS: this editor has been blocked rather than banned. DurovaCharge! 02:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Oops! My apologies. I have corrected the posting. --EMS | Talk 02:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to EMS's point 3:

Firstly, I ask Durova to take note of your supercilious tone that has unfortunately become habitual in this discussion, and imo constitutes a clear violation of Wiki's civility requirement.

Secondly, as a factual matter you haven't shed any light on the issue under discussion or really explained anything in your modification of the equivalence principle article. When you were unable to demonstrate how it supports your analysis of the twin at turnaround, you simply added a few sentences restating what you previously wrote on the Talkpage. I didn't, and don't expect an exegesis on this issue in the EP article. However, minimally, you should specify in the article exactly which of the three forms of the equivalence principle you (and presumably Einstein) have applied to substantiate the sentences added. After you do that, I will explain the nature of the logical problems in the way you (and presumably Einstein) have structured the turnaround twin's conceptualizing of the gravitational time dilation of the stationary twin. Fundamentally, your analysis violates basic relativity principles, but you are unaware of same. I haven't read Builder's argument in detail, but from what was reported in the old version of the GR section of the twin paradox article, he made a substantially sensible critique of Einstein's GR solution. green 12.30.216.138 12:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What I added to the EP page actually follows from the text that preceeds it. That is why I hpoe that it will not only be clarifying, but will also prove to be a worthy addition to that article. (I gave a lot of thought to adding that text, and finally concluded that it would work. Do note that I have edited the EP article before, so you have been in effect using my own words against me!)
As for which EP I am using, the answer is the weak form, but do note that the weak form is incorporated into the other two. What is more important is the corrolaries noted in the history section: That the detection of objects falling (or accelerating) in an manner independent of their composition evidence of the presense of a gravitational field; and that if a gravitational field exists locally then the observer is in an accelerated frame of reference. Have you read Einstein's 1911 article on "the influence of gravitation of the propagation of light" yet? I have referenced it for you before and it is cited in the EP article. In that 1911 article, Einstein shows that an accelerated observer observes gravitational redshifting and gravitational time dilation. Because this predates GR, Einstein's accelerated system K' is that of an observer being accelerated in free space, just like the traveling twin at turnaround. --EMS | Talk 01:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
There's an odd disconnect in your comments above. You claim that the corollaries are "more important", yet both have nothing to do with my twin issue at turnaround. At turnaround, there's no evidence one way or the other of objects falling in a manner independent of their composition (which would indicate the presence of a gravitational field), so afaict this corollary (which I am not denying) is irrelevant to my issue; wrt the second corollary, it posits a consequence given the existence of a gravity field, whereas my issue at turnaround has alway been related to the appearance of a ubiquitous gravity field as a consequence of the twin's acceleration. Btw, given a gravity field, I have no problem with gravitational red shift, as that is simply a consequence of conservation of energy. Gravitational time dilation is a little more obscure, but probably not hard to establish if one assumes a gravity field. green 12.30.216.138 03:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Simple thought experiment: You are in an accelerating rocket. You are holding a ball in your hand. As long as that ball is in your hand, it will be accelerated with you. Now you let go of the ball. Until the floor accelerates into the ball, the ball will move inertially. Think of how that will look to you as you are being accelerated: What you will see is a falling ball. Furthermore, the rate at which you will perceive that ball to drop is that same no matter what its mass or compositions is. Indeed, it is the same even if the object is not a ball! That is the essense of a gravitational field.
This is a very clean argument for what is referred to as Einstein's EP. I wasn't doubting its validity above. I just didn't see its relevance to my issue -- which has to do with the perceptual, if not physical extention of the gravity field caused by the twin at turnaround. You've proven that acceleration establishes, or is synonomous with, the phenomena of gravity. But how do you go from local to global gravity field at turnaround? I may have somewhat resolved this issue in comments below. green 12.30.216.138 06:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
You mention the conservation of energy above. When the ball get to the floor, it will have gained kinetic energy in your frame of reference. That is the same potential to kinetic energy transistion that occurs in classical physics. Think about it. --EMS | Talk 04:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I need to look at Einstein's 1911 paper. Does he assume a gravity field and then prove gravitational red shifting and time dilation, or do these phenomena follow directly from acceleration? From the article's title, the former seems the case. Note that for the twin at turnaround, you claimed (presumably following Einstein's 1918 paper), an instantaneous and ubiquitous gravity field, albeit perceptual-only, solely due to acceleration. This concept seems anti-relativistic even if it's perceptual-only, that is, not effecting the properties of spacetime. green 12.30.216.138
One's perception cannot and does not affect the properties of spacetime. The spacetime of an accelerating observer is the same as that of an inertial observer. Under the EP, a local gravitational field and the observer accelerating are effectively synonymous. It is the acceleration that generates gravitational time dilation and gravitational red shifting. Spacetime curvature is not necessary for those phenomena to occur. --EMS | Talk 04:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't disagree, although it isn't obvious how acceleration causes gravitational time dilation. green 12.30.216.138 06:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
*Sigh*. I would advise reading up on the issue then, but here is a hint. Imagine one observer in the top of the rocket, and another at the bottom, and a third inertial obsever at rest with respect to the bottom observer when that observer sends a photon towards the top observer. It takes time for the photon to get to the top. By then, the rocket has accelerated the top observer so that he has a speed away from the inertial observer. So when the photon gets to the top observer, it is being red-shifted due to what the inertial observer interprets as being the Doppler effect. Now note that in the view of the accelerated observers, they are at rest with respect to each other. So they interpret this same effect as a gravitational redshift. Also note that if the bottom observer is sending a continuous beam of photons towards the top, the vibrations of all of them are slowed down for the top observer. This is the extention of the gravitational redshift to gravitational time dilation. I hope this helps. --EMS | Talk 14:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Why the "sigh"? I had in mind the fact that the redshift of photons as they go to higher gravitational potentials implies lower frequency via conservation of energy. Hence, as a first cut, it appears that gravitational redshift implies that clocks at higher potential run slower, not faster. Well, if frequency is cycles/second, and time is seconds/cycle, then if frequency decreases due to redshift, the time/cycle (being the inverse) increases -- which I think means that clocks speed up as gravitational potential increases. QED? green 12.30.216.138 00:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The issue is what you see. Suppose the person at the lower potential is standing by a 1 Mhz radio tower. So for every 1,000,000 cycles, 1 second of his time ticks off. However, when the upper observer gets that same signal, it is only going (for example) at 999 khz. So seeing that same 1,000,000 cycles will take ~1.001 seconds for the upper observer. Therefore, the lower clock ticks slower. "QED". --EMS | Talk 05:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
For Einstein's 1918 solution to make conceptual sense given the local character of the EP, aren't we really forced to imagine the stationary twin as being within the same frame as the traveling twin, so as to circumvent the apparently local restriction of the EP? That is, in fact there is only one frame, with both twins therein. I think I was assuming two frames -- or maybe the problem was implicitly or expressly posed that way -- and it created a "local versus global" dichotomy that made the application of the EP problematic. But if there's only one frame, I can imagine the motion of the stationary twin as local wrt the traveling twin no matter how far removed the former is from the latter. Then, I can apply the EP locally since there is nothing other than "local" in this construction of the problem. green 12.30.216.138 06:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
You are on the right track, but that is an odd use of the word "local". --EMS | Talk 14:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
What is the precise definition of "local" within the context of the EP? If the EP states that gravity and acceleration are locally indistinguishable, I think it means that no internal frame measurement, e.g., the infinitesimal motion of a test mass -- can distinguish gravity from acceleration. What is the negation of "local" in this context? I was using "local" to imply that the stationary twin is external to the frame of the traveling twin, and therefore "global" or at least nonlocal. However, my previous comments (putting both twins in the same frame) cast doubt on this interpretation. green 12.30.216.138 00:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The full term is "frame of reference". The issue is how you perceive events. Frames of reference are global constructs. They don't have boundaries. Gravitational time dilation is very much attached to your frame of reference. In a flat spacetime, only your acceleration can generate a gravitational field, and then it extends throughout the universe. It is not as bad as it sounds. As you accelerate in relativity, your spaces of simultaneity change. This gravitational time dilation is actually a way of describing how the change occurs. As the surface of simultaneity shifts, you treat the other's clock as running fast.
I can't emphasize enough that this is a matter of one perceives the universe for themselves. The gravitational field appears when you accelerate because all inertially moving masses in your view must now accelerate with respect to you! Physically it is you and not they which are accelerating, but that is irrelevant to the fact that they must accelerate with respect to you. There is nothing wrong with this kind of global gravitational field. The catch is that it is the only kind of gravitational field that can exist in SR. Curvature is needed to create gravitational fields which vary in strength and/or direction as a function of position, like the Earth's. So the reason for GR is a child's question: "What keeps the people on the other side of the Earth from falling off"? The gravitational field itself can exist without it. --EMS | Talk 05:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I have understood that frames of reference are without boundaries, but I am unclear as to what "local" means in the context of the EP. The stationary twin is obviously within the traveling twin's frame of reference, but if the FoR is imagined as having its origin at the traveling twin's variable position, how is "local" applied when using the EP? That is, what restriction does it impose, and on who or what? green 12.30.216.138 07:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I am getting tired of this, but here is the simple version: What is written in the EP article is in essense that that if you find that a gravitational field exists locally (meaning at your own position), then you are in an accelerated frame of reference. In SR (which is the domain of the standard twin paradox), if inertially moving objects are accelerating with respect to you locally, then they are doing so everywhere. Hence a gravitational field in SR exists either everywhere or nowhere, and is totally a function of whether your frame of reference is accelerated or not. --EMS | Talk 15:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Another problem is this: Firstly, I can accept that gravity is (in Einstein's view) an illusion produced by acceleration. However, since the EP is always stated exclusively in local terms, and since relativity seems to deny instantaneous phenomena of any type, the ubiquitous coming into being of even a solely perceptual gravity field seems inherently anti-relativistic even if spacetime is not physically effected. The situation is sort-of analogous to someone claiming the ability to solve such-and-such problem within the constraints of relativity but using a preferred frame as part of the solution; i.e., a inconsistent, contradictory methodology. This is why I prefer the one frame model described in the foregoing paragraph, with the added insight perhaps, that relativity might indeed permit instantaneous "fields", given that the gravity field is essentially illusory. This sounds better, maybe even correct. green 12.30.216.138 06:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
As an aside, if gravity is acceleration, how do gravitons fits into this scheme? Well, actually, I don't think they do, since if gravitons exist, we have true field theory with gravity returning as force with its mediating particle (the graviton). green 12.30.216.138 06:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Gravitons exist in GR, but as messengers of changes in curvature/gravitation instead of as mediators of gravitation itself. In this specific case, gravitons are not present, as neither curvature nor changes to curvature are present here. --EMS | Talk 14:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that neither curvature nor changes in curvature are present in the GR solution of twin problem. But there remains a conceptual issue with the "perceptual-only" interpretation of the gravity field, given that relativity is usually understood (rightly or wrongly?) as a theory that denies instantaneous phenomena and effects. The fact is that when the clocks are juxtaposed when the twins are reunited, the traveling clock will have lagged behind the stationary clock. This means the traveler's acceleration must be an objective phenomenon that has an objective effect that both twins eventually agree upon. I take this to mean that the traveler's "perceptual-only" gravity field is not real -- if it were, both twins could detect it -- but rather a device or construct used by the traveler to correctly calculate the objective effect of his objectively existing acceleration. This is important conceptually; otherwise, it is unintelligible, indeed spooky, how this illusory gravity field that only one twin can (in principle) detect and that ostensibly contradicts relativity theory, can result in a correct calculation of the final clock readings. Cmiiaw, but I think the proper name for the "perceptual-only" gravitational potential is "pseudo-potential". green 12.30.216.138 04:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Fwiw, I think the GR solution should be included in the article with these issues in mind, since it will serve readers who want to understand the subtleties involved. It will also be a serious challenge for the editors to explain it with decent clarity. Of course, one needs to build a foundation with the easier SR solutions and concepts. green 12.30.216.138 00:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
As for gravitons, I don't believe they exist in GR as you describe -- as messengers of change. Afaik, physics doesn't explain changes in phenomena in terms of physical processes, but rather as logical inferences from principles. E.g., when I argued for gravitational redshift using conservation of energy, I could only "prove" that by applying a certain principle (CoE), a particular phenomenon (redshift) must occur. I could not explain, in process terms, how the photon's change in frequency comes about. Similarly, when there is a change in curvature, I am skeptical that GR can explain the change in terms of processes, e.g., your messenger gravitons, however imagined -- but only in terms of what must logically follow from applying the principles of GR. That is, there is likely nothing in GR that moves through spacetime to effect changes in curvature, even though effects or changes propagate at lightspeed or slower. green 12.30.216.138 00:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
See gravitational wave and quantum mechanics. Under QM, gravitions are the constituents of gravitational waves. --EMS | Talk 05:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
You made a claim above as to what gravitons are in GR. That's what we were discussing -- the process whereby spacetime changes in GR. QM has nothing to do with this, particularly since, as you surely know, there's no quantum theory of gravity. Why do you raise this obfuscating issue and reference? green 12.30.216.138 07:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
QM has everything to do with it. Under GR, you have gravitational waves transmitting the curvature change information. Under QM, all waves are made of particles. Hence at the junction of the two you have gravitons, but they are not your run-of-the-mill QFT gravitons. BTW - binary pulsars have orbital periods that are observed to be decreasing in accord with the predicted rate of emission of gravitational radiation/waves by said systems. --EMS | Talk 07:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
You're flying in extremely rarified air, perhaps even hot air! When you made the claim that gravitons exist in GR and have such-and-such properties, I was naive enough to think you were, indeed, saying something about GR. What they are in a theory that doesn't exist and might never exist is another matter -- entirely speculative. So, again, do gravitons exist in GR, and if so, how are they defined or conceptualized? Btw, I am aware that the existence of gravitational waves have been confirmed by a particular binary pulsar system and that Nobel Prizes resulted. green 12.30.216.138 07:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I wrote that gravitons exist at the junction of GR and QM, not in GR alone. You need to read what I wrote. GR also requires that gravitons be spin-2 particles, and that they can only be generated by mass configurations with a quadrupole moment or higher-order multipole moment. (The mulipole moment requirement is related to gravitons transmitting information on changes to curvature instaead of curvature itself.) --EMS | Talk 15:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
See 'Gravitational Potential' section above for new comment. green 12.30.216.138 04:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFCU

I have filed a checkuser request regarding this edit.[4] Be aware that, if the result comes back positive, this situation enters the realm where Wikipedia:Disruptive editing applies. The next step would be to seek the opinions of uninvolved editors, preferably Wikipedians who have an expertise in physics. DurovaCharge! 15:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You may be getting a bit paranoid. I did not make that edit. Actually, I don't know what that editor meant in his Dingle remark. Fwiw, I am not an anti-relativist. Perhaps you thought otherwise and therefore associated me with the Dingle comment. I have been merely arguing that Einstein's 1918 treatment of the twin paradox is flawed, and that the article should include Builder's criticism. green 12.30.216.138 20:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I will vouch for "green" on this count. The "ghost" has a very different agenda than "green". --EMS | Talk 01:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Considering the recent history on that page it seemed worth checking out. Since both sides agree this is unnecessary I'll withdraw the request. DurovaCharge! 01:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A modest proposal

One thing that often clears the air in edit disputes is to bring in additional opinions. Wikipedia:Requests for comment is the usual way to do this. Green, when your block expires how about an article comment request in the RFC science section? DurovaCharge! 04:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It time for me to stop this

Green - I am starting to get frustrated again. You seem to be treating all of this as an intellectual game. However, we are here to create an encyclopedia, not to play games.

I have told you what I can about the twin paradox and gravitons. If that is not enough, then buy some good textbooks on the related topics and study them. Or better yet, take some college courses in those topics.

I shouldn't have brought up the subject of gravitons since it's an off-topic, but then, imo, you shouldn't have stated that "Gravitons exist in GR". (This is what you wrote, and this is what I responded to after bringing the subject up.) When I discuss technical issues with those highly educated in a given subject, I reflexively expect a certain level of rigor to be habitual. Thus, for me, your quoted statement had the same status as, say, the claim that photons exists in QED. But GR is a classical, continuous (tensor) field theory. Hence, it seemed astonishing that gravitons could exist in GR. This would be analogous to the claim that photons exist in Maxwell's classical, continuous field theory of electrodynamics. What you really meant, I think, is IF we had a quantum theory of gravity, and IF that theory were consistent with GR (as we would expect it to be), then gravitons would exist in that quantum theory and have such-and-such properties implied by GR. Wrt intellectual games, if you are referring to purely egoistic behavior, I rarely indulge. I'm always focused on ascertaining what is, and advancing the envelope. green 12.30.216.138 00:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If you come back to the twin paradox article, I expect the focus to be on the article and not on vetting the content. If you don't understand something, then just say so. If you need to take our word on something, then so be it! That article has to stand on its own. If you cannot understand the "GR resolution" section, then that IMO is a serious strike against it, and that is the real issue. Be reminded that our job is not to vet whether a topic or sub-topic is correct, but whether it is notable either on its own or in the context of the article. (I was willing to give the refutations of Einstein's view the benefit of a doubt until I realized that the supporting references were so obviously flawed that no reputable scientist would have anything to do with them. That for me was direct evidence that the refutations are not notable, and no evidence has appeared to contradict that view.) --EMS | Talk 16:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weak Equivalence Principle

I am not exactly sure what you mean by "vetting" an article. If Einstein expressly stated that he was using the Weak Equivalence Principle in his proposed GR solution of twin paradox, I think you mean we should document that and be done with it. My problem with this approach is that I imagine a Wiki reader scratching his head after hitting the referenced equivalence principle link. It states that principle as follows:

The trajectory of a falling test body depends only on its initial position and velocity, and is independent of its composition; or
All bodies at the same spacetime point in a given gravitational field will undergo the same acceleration.

If you read these statements very carefully, with a strict respect for logic, there is nothing in them that ostensibly allows one to conclude that when the turnaround twin fires his rocket and sees all inertial objects accelerating wrt him/her, that this twin is now entitled to claim that a gravity field exists throughout space. Either something is missing from these statements of the weak equivalence principle, or some other argument is needed to allow what is alleged. green 12.30.216.138 00:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)