User talk:Harald88

6 November 2024
From the editors: Editing Wikipedia should not be a crime News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation shares ANI lawsuit updates; first admin elections appoint eleven sysops; first admin recalls opened; temporary accounts coming soon? In the media: An old scrimmage, politics and purported libel Special report: Wikipedia editors face litigation, censorship Gallery: Why you should take more photos and upload them In focus: Questions and answers about the court case Traffic report: Twisted tricks or tempting treats? Technology report: Wikimedia tech, the Asian News International case, and the ultra-rare BLACKLOCK Humour: Man quietly slinks away from talk page argument after realizing his argument dumb, wrong
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

T       I       R       E        D

This user is TIRED of silly disputes on Wikipedia.

Note: Just tired, and little active - but not yet completely retired! :-)

---

From Fastfission:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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)[reply]

---

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.

/sandbox3 - rough translation of French Wikipedia section on OPV-HIV hypothesis

Archive 1: User talk:Harald88/Archive1

Archive 2: User talk:Harald88/Archive2

Archive 3: User talk:Harald88/Archive3

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

For an intro into Craig's Neo-Lorentzian interpretation I'd recommended looking into this criticism of it:

• http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000525/

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's also possible to make the statement that the sun is orbiting around the earth "correct"... Harald88 08:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Actually your edit disagreed with that. It looks like you confused the two uses of centrifugal force. Harald88 08:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

PS, off-the-record: Where does your reference discuss Allais? Harald88 17:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry , where is the alleged error in Tom Roberts' paper? You haven't answered that. Moroder 17:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

harry, sounds like you are threatening me.Sounds like you have a clear antirelativistic bias as well. Moroder 17:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi Harald,

a recurrent theme in your postings is the claim that "nowadays general relativity is regarded as a theory of gravitation".

There is an assessment that takes precedence. Every physicist with a grasp of relativistic physics will endorse that the special theory of relativity is subsumed in the general theory of relativity. (I like to compare it to the way that Kepler's law of areas is subsumed in Newton's theory of motion. Both Kepler's law of areas and Newton's theory are theories of motion, but Newton's theory is way more comprehensive.)

In newtonian dynamics there are separate theories for motion on one hand and gravitation on the other hand. The special theory of relativity is - like newtonian theory of motion - purely a theory of motion. (In fact, in retrospect we know that it is inherently impossible for special relativity to accomodate gravitation.)

The general theory of relativity is way more comprehensive than any of its predecessors. Unlike Newton's universal law of gravitation, it is not just a theory of gravitation, the content of the general theory of relativity is both the full content of the special theory of relativity (theory of motion) and a theory of gravitation.

To my knowledge, the underlying issue that you seek to address, is that you want to argue that nowadays a claim that the general theory of relativity extends the principle of relativity is no longer regarded as tenable. (Problem: the expression, 'extending the principle of relativity' is highly ambiguous. I have seen the expression 'extend the principle of relativity' in several different contexts, with significant differences in intended meaning.)

One thing I can say for sure: the most naive interpretation of the expression 'extending the principle of relativity' is to suggest that acceleration is just as relative as velocity. (Of course, only a moron would suggest such a thing.) Obviously, the general theory of relativity does not extend the principle of relativity in this naive sense.

My personal opinion is that while the general theory is a much more comprehensive theory than its predecessors, the metaphor 'extension of the principle of relativity' is not a suitable methaphor to describe the achievement of the general theory of relativity. But it is just as awkward to suggest that the general theory of relativity is just a theory of gravitation. What takes precedence is that the full content of the special theory of relativity is subsumed in the general theory of relativity. --Cleonis | Talk 02:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cleon, not I make that claim; instead I took notice of that claim which can for example be found in the intro of General relativity - and note that the necessary precision that I made ("nowadays generally regarded as") is hopelessly missing! If you read old discussions on the Talk page there, you will see that I protested to the way it is phrased there. Also, I never claimed that GRT is only a theory of gravitation.

But I don't understand why you call Einstein a "moron"... Have you actually read his 1916 paper? Or his 1918 paper on the Twin paradox?

Harald88 16:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are putting words in my mouth, that is a very uncivil thing to do.

What Einstein had in mind when referring to 'extending the principle of relativity' was a scheme very different from the naive interpretation, quite a sophisticated scheme. What Einstein had in mind relied on Mach's principle (Einstein introduced that principle, and coined the name 'Mach's principle'). Around 1918 Einstein still expected that the general theory of relativity embodies Mach's principle. That turned out not to be the case, and by the early 1920's Einstein abandoned Mach's principle.

If it would have turned out that GR satisfies Mach's principle, then Einstein would have achieved the following: instead of relating acceleration to some absolute space as newtonian theory must, GR would then express acceleration as relative to the entire assembly of all inert mass in the universe. Einstein argued that as a matter of principle that was a gain. (Personally, it looks like a rather puny gain to me.) Anyway, the point is moot, GR turned out not to satisfy Mach's principle to the extend that Einstein needed (if at all). Also, GR does not need Mach's principle. --Cleonis | Talk 02:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I noticed and pointed out your uncivility - which you may regard as uncivil too.

Einstein claimed that gravitational fields can be "produced" by a mere change of coordinates.

According to Einstein in 1916-1918, one may claim that the earth is "at rest", in which case it is instead the entire universe that accelerates under influence of gravitational fields so that acceleration is truly "relative". Please explain why you think that that differs from suggesting that acceleration is just as relative as velocity.

Harald88 08:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that the relativity of velocity is defined in terms of the relative velocity of two objects with a relative velocity. Relativity of acceleration (Einstein 1918, when still expecting Mach's principle to apply) is that acceleration is defined as relative to the assembly of all the inert mass in the universe. (By contrast: a theory in which acceleraton is "just as relative as velocity" would have to be a theory in which only the relative acceleration between two objects enters the theory. Such a theory is not to be had.)

A quote from Einstein 1918 'Dialog' "To be sure, the accelerated coordinate systems cannot be called upon as real causes for the field, an opinion that a jocular critic saw fit to attribute to me on one occasion." ("Allerdings können als Realursachen für das Feld nicht die beschleunigten Koordinatentsysteme herangezogen werden, welche Meinung ein humorvoller Kritiek mir einmal zuschreiben zu müssen glaubte.")

Just to avoid misunderstandings: my personal opinion is that Einstein's 1918 interpretation of GR has unnecessary complexity. On the grounds of the demand of economy of thought I prefer the less complex interpretation that is available. --Cleonis | Talk 13:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reset indent.
I'd like to recapitulate the essentials:
I apply the following definition: a theory in which acceleration is "just as relative as velocity" would have to be a theory in which in all situations only the relative acceleration between two objects enters the theory. Such a theory is not an option.

In the case of special relativity, reference to a background structure does not enter calculations that involve only uniform velocity.
The general theory of relativity has in common with newtonian theory that in calculations that involve acceleration, reference to a background structure does enter the calculations. In this sense acceleration is not just as relative as uniform velocity, according to GR.
One of the differences between GR and newtonian is that according to the general theory of relativity, inert mass can affect the background structure (even rotate the background structure locally in the form of frame dragging), whereas the newtonian background reference is conceived as immutable.
When Einstein refers to "relativity of acceleration", he is referring to the ability of inert mass to affect the background structure. --Cleonis | Talk 15:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the above you suggest (or should suggest, for consistency) that with the relativity of velocity (as in SRT) in all situations only the relative speed between two objects enters the theory. But that isn't the case either: inertial effects of the background are included. Einstein emphasized that with GRT he extended the PoR from only applying to speed to also include acceleration in order to apply to all forms of motion, so that someone co-moving with an "accelerated" frame (that is, accelerated relative to the the assembly of all the inert mass in the universe) could equally well say to be in rest.

He specifically countered your claim that "when Einstein refers to relativity of acceleration, he is referring to the ability of inert mass to affect the background structure" with his above-cited claim that gravitational fields can be "produced" by a mere change of coordinates. This he applied to the Twin paradox.

Based on the analyses of the Twin paradox I don't consider his approach a viable option. Nowadays it has become popular to call such "gravitational" fields "pseudo"-fields instead, and I can only applaud that shift in view.

Apart of that, to get back to your title: of course SRT is included in GRT, but the change in application of Einstein's GRT makes modern GRT more like SRT with a gravitation-patch: frames in inertial motion (SRT) + gravitation (now often called GRT). That is very different from what Einstein had in mind: frames in any kind of motion (GRT) + as bonus a theory of gravitation that follows from it.

Note that this time I'm busy with PuppyLinux, so that I leave the Wikipedia a bit aside.

Regards, Harald88 21:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it would take a lot of words to address the numerous ambiguities. I suppose I should let the matter rest. I can repeat the Einstein quotes that according to me take precedence, but the very fact that you prefer other Einstein quotes than I do is related to unaddressed ambiguities.

The Einstein quotes that in my opinion take precedence:

"To be sure, the accelerated coordinate systems cannot be called upon as real causes for the field, an opinion that a jocular critic saw fit to attribute to me on one occasion." ("Allerdings können als Realursachen für das Feld nicht die beschleunigten Koordinatentsysteme herangezogen werden, welche Meinung ein humorvoller Kritiek mir einmal zuschreiben zu müssen glaubte.") Source: Einstein 1918, Naturwissenschaften

"It is not that in terms of the theory of relativity the case can be construed in such a way that "possibly it is the surroundings (of the train) after all that underwent the change in velocity". We are not dealing here with two different, mutually exclusive hypotheses about the seat of the motion, [...] ("Man darf im Sinne der Relativitätstheorie den Fall nicht in dem Sinne auffassen, "daß es möglicherweise doch die Umgebung (des Zuges) gewesen sei, welch die Geschwindigkeitsänderung erfahren habe". Es handelt sich nicht um zwei verschiedene, einander ausschliesende Hypothesen uber den Sitz der Bewegung, [...]) Source: Einstein 1918, Naturwissenschaften

These are statements about what are overall viable physics hypotheses. Can a change of coordinate system elicit a field in a physical sense? No, declares Einstein: "Allerdings nicht". In the example offered by Herrn Lenard, is it a viable physics hypothesis to suppose that after all it is the surroundings and not the train that comes to an abrupt halt when the train's brakes are slammed on? No, declares Einstein, no two different, mutually exclusive hypotheses.

--Cleonis | Talk 09:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind past editing efforts; the heresy of the Aether is now gently available at [5] [6]. Regards --Utad3 17:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the article about him is now gone from Wikipedia. I missed out on the afd, but probably I would have voted neutral anyway: an encyclopedia article about a person should not elaborate on little noted ideas. Still, thanks for the links, I also didn't know about PowerPedia! :-)

Harald88 17:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This same user Utad3 has spammed Wikipedia twice anonymously as 213.58.99.22 with links to copies of its articles on Creation: The Physical Truth and Harold Aspden at PowerPedia - please see User talk:213.58.99.22 and Special:Contributions/213.58.99.22 for details. -- Jeff G. 17:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[the below mesage ws written on my user page:]

I am partially reverting your 1950 change in mass in special relativity, because 1950 was indeed the referenced start for disuse (please see the references in the article). It is true that Feynman used it, and Melvin Schwartz, and other Nobel Prize winners, but their use was in attempts to explain things to students, to play it down. Thanks. Edgerck 18:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harald, I wonder if you could help me,I'm trying to find out if the Einstein quote "There is no resolution of the twin paradox within special relativity.", actually appears in his 1918 paper "Dialogue about objections to the Theory of Relativity". I cannot find a copy of this paper online, and I noticed you mention it a few times earlier on. Does it appear?, I would be grateful for your help. ---Swanzsteve 14:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harald, thanks for the reply, I didnt know Dingle had quoted from Einsteins 1918 paper, I'll have a look at his book again. Is "Dialogue about objections to the Theory of Relativity" the only paper he wrote in 1918? As to the Einstein quote itself: "There is no resolution of the twin paradox within special relativity.", I have seen it on several websites over the years, but couldnt track it down. Most recently I have seen it on a web page by Unnikrishnan, who seems to be quite notorious:- http://www.spectro.jussieu.fr/GREX/Paris05/Talks/Unni2.pdf.

thanks again - Swanzsteve 18:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That does not seem to be a quote but is probably a summary statement of what Einstein wrote. As you may understand from my citations, that summary is not accurate so that it can be misunderstood.

If you like, I can send you the full English text of that 1918 paper (the figures are reproduced by Dingle in his book) as well as the article by Chang on Dingle, which is the best I have seen. Harald88 17:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have downloaded a copy of Unnikrishnan's paper, and it doesnt include that quote, although the slide show he produced from it appears to show it as a quote. It seems, as you say, to be more of a summary of Einstein's position, since he uses GR to resolve the paradox completely. I would be grateful for copies of the paper and Chang's article since I cant find anywhere to download them, and I'm working in the dark a bit. Do you need my email address? - cheers - Swanzsteve 21:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I see that you did not provide your email address to Wikipedia so I can't email you. You can send an email to me by clicking on "E-mail this user" on the toolbox here on the top-left (but probably you must first provide your email to the system in your preferences). Harald88 22:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can you comment here Wikipedia talk:No original research? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some misunderstanding. The links to Jannsen were not deleted and can be found in the "secondary sources". So I have re-reverted the deletion ;-) --D.H 13:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to introduce Wikipedia:WikiProject Relativity as a subproject of Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics. In particular, I'd like to bring your attention to the 'Missing articles' section which people can get their teeth into. Hope all's well. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine but busy: and I'm afraid that a lot work is needed to improve and maintain the quality of existing articles... Harald88 17:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 00:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, TwPx, had left a request for comments on DVdm's position on our (i.e., TwPx's and DVdm's) exchange in the Twin Paradox Discussion pages. I left this on your User page and I see that it was deleted. Please start by giving me your assessment of DVdm's position and, of course, if you have separate issues, we can then discuss those as well. Thanks67.189.222.137 (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, nothing was deleted. I'll have a look at your issue. Harald88 (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The journals you are citing at tired light are all low-impact with respect to the field of interest (astronomy/cosmology). Therefore they have been removed. They will continue to be removed immediately upon you replacing them. Either use articles published in respectable journals or stop this peculiar advocacy campaign. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the answer is no! My particular advocacy is for NPOV - while yours appears to be for what you think to be "mainstream". It looks as if you forgot what Wikipedia stands for as well as everything we discussed and agreed upon in the past. :-(

Harald88 (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comments:

1. It is interesting to see how creative ScienceApologist is in bending the Wikipedia rules as part of his continuous efforts to suppress relevant viewpoints that he dislikes - suddenly references need to be "high impact"?! I happen to watch that particular article because it certainly belongs to my field of interest which is physics - even if he tries to take ownership of it with the claim that it exclusively belongs to astronomy/cosmology.

2. Note his recent removal of everything he strives to censor while marking it as "minor change"[7] (I'd call that a dirty trick)!

3. The tactic of information suppression is just one of many in the arsenal of people who try to destroy what Wikipedia stands for[8]. Harald88 (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this section will only contain my comments, comments from others will be moved or removed

See immediately above - it's such intolerant, anti-NPOV behaviour that really makes me tired...

Harald88 (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any feedback or comments about my "actual" third opinion at Talk:Tired light#Third opinion? Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 05:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Evnthough I'm definitely tired of Tired light! :-( Harald88 (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently I'm taking a long break!

I'm very demotivated by the continued success of contributors who violate the basic values of Wikipedia. In my humble opinion, cranks are not the geatest danger, as they are simply outnumbered. On the same grounds, I see indoctrination and even propaganda by people who want to push the most popular views and hide or misrepresent less popular views as the greatest danger for Wikipedia and the values that Wikipedia stands for. It appears that such people who come here with such wrong motivations (not necessarily consciously) even outnumber all the rest.

If someone would like my comments on a certain issue, please contact me by clicking on "contact this user", for I may not look for a long time. Harald88 (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You received this message because your were on the old list of WikiProject Physics participants.

On 2008-06-25, the WikiProject Physics participant list was rewritten from scratch as a way to remove all inactive participants, and to facilitate the coordination of WikiProject Physics efforts. The list now contains more information, is easier to browse, is visually more appealing, and will be maintained up to date.

If you still are an active participant of WikiProject Physics, please add yourself to the current list of WikiProject Physics participants. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above; I may come back next year or so, ãt the moment I'm mostly away and merely correct things when I stumble on them as a user. Harald88 (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above; on top of that I'm currently very busy with my job and additional consultancy. I may become active again in a year or so. Harald88 (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harald. In regard to this edit, can you please enlighten me on what other notable points of view there are on special relativity other than that of professional particle physicists and general relativity specialists? -- SCZenz (talk) 09:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As already was indicated in the same line about Okun's view, professional educators and textbook writers also have notable views (also copied to SCZenz Talk page). Harald88 (talk) 09:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Centrifugal force (planar motion), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centrifugal force (planar motion). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a very dangerous section in the NPOV policy, which I deleted and discussed on the talk page here. Now there is an RfC, I hope you will comment. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo. Although we are not always the same opinion I esteem your knowledge on the history of relativity. Maybe you have a look at s:Wikisource:WikiProject Relativity#Wikisource translations. May plan is to translate all German and French texts of s:Wikisource:Relativity into English. I've noticed that you (?) also translated some texts into English - including the first Poincaré paper. This and the long Palermo-paper were also (independently) translated by me (see June paper and July paper). Currently, I'm translating some texts by Planck and Laue, for example Laue's 1911 text, where he in fact predicted the outcome of a Sagnac type experiment - two years before Sagnac...) --D.H (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice project! See my reply on your page. Harald88 (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm currently working on Planck's lengthy 1907 article "On the Dynamics of Moving Systems". Hopefully it will be done today... --D.H (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, some further translations you might be interested in:

• Langevin: s:The Evolution of Space and Time (October 11)
• Einstein, Lenard: s:The Bad Nauheim Debate (October 17)

Regards, --D.H (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harald. Recall your sensible additions to tired light discussions in 2006, when Masreliez issues were first deleted. Now an initial personal attack from former SA has boiled down to a coatrack misgiving. Perhaps you could care to help by pouring some oil on troubled waters? /Kurtan (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. The coatrack allegations faded away to nothing serious. But I just noted that this our common adversary, SA has been blocked from editing indefinitively, which I thought might cheer you up! Sad to say, not in time to prevent me from having to work to get my article on Masreliez’s theorem back from an Afd of his. /Kurtan (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that doesn't cheer me up - over the time SA made a great number of very useful contributions, the problem was his intolerant attitude towards other views than his "own" (which he assumed to be "mainstream"). So I hoped for a more positive and constructive outcome... Harald88 (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that you are currently inactive, but would like to inform you as someone who previously started discussion on page about Herbert Ives. There is a recent discussion out there you might wish to contribute. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That article in its present state looks quite OK to me.

Note: I also had a look at your page, which states that it's an "Alternative Wikipedia account", thus a "legitimate sock puppet". Don't know what to think of that! Harald88 (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this [9]. It's not vandalism to close a talkpage discussion initiated by a user whose principle goal appears to be to promote fringe theories and to abuse other editors. Acroterion (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A talkpage discussion is not "closed" by hiding it; it is simply closed by not replying.D on't feed the trolls, it's that simple. Hiding a discussion between a number of editors as you did, is for me rude and unacceptable behaviour, worse than trolling. Harald88 (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this [10] was a mistake, would you are to undo it?Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An d with this edit [11] you have removed another post of mine.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I noticed that something went wrong, and I fixed it already. Harald88 (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! As you are one of the top contributors to Conspiracy theory, you may be interested in joining this discussion: Talk:Conspiracy theory#Lead (RfC). Thank you for your input. Leviv ich 06:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Loved your comment on the Franklin child prostitution article advocating for unbiased coverage. I'm new to editing in Wikipedia...is there anything helpful I can do to add myself to the list of people asserting that the current editor is blocking relevant edits? Does that help at all? Mudsprout (talk) 08:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]