Talk:General relativity/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Evolution equations

The introduction to the "evolution equations" section seems rather odd to me:

Each solution of Einstein's equation encompasses the whole history of a universe—it is not just some snapshot of how things are, but a whole, possibly matter-filled, spacetime. It describes the state of matter and geometry everywhere and at every moment in that particular universe.

What exactly is the distinction being made here?

Surely the "solution" of an evolution equation is equally the whole history of the system it describes, exactly analogously.

Is this section in fact talking about boundary conditions? Is it saying that it is not immediately obvious that the description of the universe can be mapped forward from a complete description on an initial space-like surface?

Or is the point that there are restrictions, and not any such initial configuration is possible?

I'm not clear about the distinction the section is trying to draw. -- Jheald (talk) 12:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that it is simply making the point for the non-technical reader that a single solution describes spacetime not a spatial configuration at a single instant (as might be imagined by the reader) in time. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Why no mention of Weinberg's approach?

In 1965, Steven Weinberg published the paper "Photons and gravitons in perturbation theory: Derivation of Maxwell's and Einstein's Equations" Physical Review B 138, 988 - 1002 .

This is what Misner, Thorne and Wheeler ("MTW") call the "spin 2 derivation" and seem to believe it is somehow "inelegant" compared to the geometric derivation, but it appears equally valid and the resulting equations are the same. To make an analogy, quantum mechanics can be formulated either in the "Heisenberg picture" or the "Schrödinger picture", which make identical predictions but describe things differently. Neither is better than the other. In keeping with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, shouldn't we talk about both viewpoints? Einstein believed in the power of Occam's razor, but ironically Weinberg's approach actually has fewer axioms (i.e. the equivalence principle does not have to be put in ad hoc).

69.140.12.180 (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Nightvid

Unfortunately, I have not read the paper to which you refer. However, I would like to make the following points: (1) Quantum mechanics and spinors are even harder to understand than classical GTR. (2) It is not enough that a theory leads to the correct result; it must also not lead to false results. I have heard that attempts to combine quantum mechanics and GTR always lead to inconsistencies, i.e. false results. (3) The equivalence principle is not some arbitrary add-on to GTR; it is the essence of what distinguishes the force of gravity from other forces, that is, it is the defining characteristic of gravity. (4) Using perturbation theory is like the derivation of GTR by developing an infinite sequence of tensor fields, beginning with the Minkowski metric and adding them together. This is certainly very inelegant compared to treating the metric as a single whole tensor. JRSpriggs (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean giving equal importance to everything. Actually WP also has a policy of not giving *undue* weight to a particular person, point of view, or authority; since the geometric approach is the most commonly used approach, it makes sense to concentrate on it. And WP has a policy of making articles accessible to the general reader, whereas the kind of change you're talking about would have the effect of making this article less accessible than it already is. GR is a huge field. One article can't cover everything.--75.83.69.196 (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

simple explanation of SR basis of GR

A discussion of a relativistic rocket accelerating past a line of evenly spaced stationary synchronized clocks would be an obvious way to explain the principles of general relativity without getting too technical. It only requires o good grasp of special relativity.

Since, from the point of view of the rocket, the clocks are becoming more and more out of sych, while at the same time the entire line is shrinking and moving past the rocket, there is a point behind the rocket where the clocks 'pile up' and time slows to a halt. A kind of 'black hole'. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Correctness of the main image

Some have commented that the image File:Black Hole Milkyway.jpg may not be accurate. Thoughts? Shawnc (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've commented at that talk page (and split comments into proper threads). The only substantial complaint that I can see is that light near the hole should be dimmer (it's lensed to spread out over a larger solid angle), but I'm not sure that would make the image a better teaching tool. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Incoming /b/ attack

Some people from the /b/ forum have decided to vandalize this page, just a heads up.

-- ScaldingHotSoup ^(talk) 03:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Slightly misleading illustration

The illustration of the elevator principle is slightly misleading, as the rocket ship is shown leaning to the right. Really to be most accurate and easiest to understand, it should be exactly vertical, so that the ball falls in the same fashion as on the ground. In other words, if the rocket ship is leaning to the right, the ball will still fall according to gravity, so it will end up falling somewhere toward the rightmost side of the rocket-ship, or a straight line vertical drop regardless of the tilt of the rocket ship. In the illustration, it appears to suggest that the tilt of the rocket ship will alter the way the ball falls to the ground, which really is the opposite of what the article is conveying. I know it's a little nit-picky, but it would make the illustration a lot clearer. The basic principle is that gravity will have the same effect regardless of the velocity, tilt, or trajectory of the elevator. For instance (not the same example but a similar one), if a person is falling free fall in an elevator that has lost control and is falling to the ground, jumping up in the air at the last minute will not change the total impact of the fall. Similarly, if a rocket ship shoots up into the air, even if it turns or changes direction somehow, the force of gravity is still acting in the same direction. The center of gravity is still the earth and not the floor of the rocket ship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplistic Linguist (talk • contribs) 18:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the picture is correct as it stands. The rocket falls in the ambient gravitational field which cancels out the first-order effects of any external field. However, the acceleration due to the rocket's propulsion creates an additional "gravitational field" inside the rocket which is directed to the rear of the rocket in the internal frame of reference. So the picture is right. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Is time curved?

I think it is weird that the article(and/or the theory of relativity) mentions the "curvature" of spacetime (space and time). Time is not curved. Time is an interval. Perhaps the better words would be "space and movement through space". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsolebello (talk • contribs) 16:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Spacetime is a manifold on which coordinate axes for space and time can be drawn (in any number of ways). What you are calling "time" is the distance between two points as measured along one such arbitrarily-defined axis. This is not related to whether the axis line, or the spacetime surface in which it's embedded, is curved. In practice, because the time axis chosen for coordinates is usually an inertial frame (at rest from at least one observer's point of view), it follows a geodesic, which could be considered "straight" depending on your definitions. That doesn't change the fact that the "surface" on which it's drawn (the manifold representing spacetime) is itself curved.

I hope this answer is useful to you. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

To Jsolebello: To see how naive your comment is, consider this analogy to the curvature of the surface of the Earth: << Latitude is not curved. Latitude is an interval. Perhaps the better words would be "longitude and movement through longitude". >>. JRSpriggs (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I got it. Thanks for your help. It sounds like outer-space is wavy(like an ocean), and not simply curved. And, it depends on where you are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.186.17 (talk • contribs) on 18:13, 2 August 2010

Spacetime is curved (not just "wavy"). "Space" is a slice of this four-dimensional surface taken in an arbitrary direction (many valid directions exist, depending on what reference frame you choose to call "at rest"). For most of the universe, "space-like" slices look pretty flat. Gravitational waves could be thought of as moving ripples in space (or a stationary wake-like pattern in spacetime), but that doesn't seem to be what you were asking about. The gravity wells of planets, stars, and so forth don't make wave-like patterns, but instead make negative-curvature regions that don't have a really good visual analog.

For more information, I suggest following one of the links listed at the top of this talk page. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Fix links

This article has two dead link, see here. Please update link. Earthandmoon (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. I've only fixed the ones that were flagged as broken, not the other problems flagged by that link. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

an electron near the nuclei of an atom

In considerations to Schwarzschild radius and spacetime curvature, it may indicate that the space near an atom is denser in energy near the atom. The electron going from a lesser energy orbit further form the nuclei, to a deeper orbit near the nuclei will cause the spacetime curvature near the nuclei to omit energy-pulse in the form of a photon, away form the nuclei in exchange for the volume of space near the nuclei that the electron will occupies closer to the nuclei in the newer orbit. Noteing, that photon, electron, and nuclei all have electric and magnetic filed and that electron and nuclei have mass's and in order to observe energy conservation at all levels. In other words, every point of space or so called "vacuum" has an energy value specific to the point location. A volume in space is to be replaced "suddenly" by mass will cause the space or "vacuum" to go certain geometrical energy distribution and conformational changes to accommodate that changes which is now occupied by mass. A conclusion my be deduced that space is homogeneous to its own and when forced to accommodate a change in its energy distribution as in the addition of a mass to point location in it, it undergo certain changes to maintain that equilibrium or to observe the new physical system in place equilibrium.--e:Y,?:G 19:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by E:Y,?:G (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a good place to propose your own new ideas about physical phenomena (per WP:NOR). All it can report is things that have been published already in appropriate sources (per WP:RS).

The nuclei of atoms are far larger than their schwarzschild radius, so effects due to general relativity are minimal. Electrons circling these nuclei can have energies high enough that special relativity becomes relevant; this is already well-known and its effects are well-understood. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Quantum fields theory in curved space time

Has Quantum fields theory in curved space time been confirmed by experimental or observed evidence ? by which evidences? 222.252.111.226 (talk) 06:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Not to the best of my knowledge. The only place to test it would be near the surface of a neutron star or near the event horizon of a black hole, as otherwise spacetime is close enough to flat for differences from flat spacetime predictions to be unmeasurably small.

That said, there are about four different arguments from completely different approaches that predict Hawking radiation. The fact that a semiclassical approximation produces the same prediction is a point in its favour. The key word here is "approximation". "QFT in curved spacetime" is an approximate way of formulating QFT that doesn't require a complete theory of quantum gravity. The goal is to produce more accurate predictions than flat-spacetime QFT would in situations where "flat spacetime" is not a good approximation of reality. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

So what are obstacles to against QFT in curved spacetime to become a complete theory of quantum gravity? Thanks you for your answer! 222.252.117.191 (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The obstacle is that curved-spacetime QFT still has the structure of spacetime specified as a fixed, externally-imposed condition. Perturbations to it are allowed (gravity waves and so forth), but a full theory of quantum gravity could evolve arbitrarily changing geometry. GR can do this in a non-quantized manner, but trying to quantize these changes leads to difficulties (per the quantum gravity article). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Einstein-Cartan theory

In the section where Einstein-Cartan Theory (EC) is mentioned, "Einstein's Equations", I added one paragraph that says that EC is proven to be a necessary extension of GR, in order to model spin and spin-orbit coupling correctly. For decades, EC was regarded as one of the haze of speculations surrounding GR, and a theory that requires additional assumptions beyond GR. The Wikipedia article on Einstein-Cartan Theory caused some controversy several years ago, and I credit the editors with getting expert outside review to resolve the matter. If anyone wants to remove this paragaph or substantially change its content, please check with the editor responsible for the article on EC, and I would like to be involved in the discussion. Thank you. Richard Petti (rjpetti@alum.mit.edu) Rjpetti (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

In the past two days, someone deleted my edit in the section "Einstein's equations" mentioning that Einstein-Cartan theory is a necessary extension of GR in order to model spin angular momentum correctly. Can the party responsible at least leave me a comment here or email me at rjpetti@alum.mit.edu so we can discuss this? The idea of taking such action without any recourse, identification or discussion is not the way to do this. Thank you. rjpetti Rjpetti (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Please show that it is impossible to model spin angular momentum without modifying the Einstein equations. In particular, without making them non-symmetric. Why can one not merely add terms to the expressions for the momenta of spinning particles which are the curl/divergence of an anti-symmetric tensor (the circulating momentum of the field), and then convert those momenta into symmetric stress-energy tensors in the usual manner? JRSpriggs (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It is time to bury general relativity

Off-topic per wp:talk page guidelines. This is the place where we discuss the article - not the subject.

General relativity was invented in order to get rid of the gravitational action at a distance, which was so abhorred by Einstein (he tried to ridicule nonlocality by devising the EPR paradox). By geometrizing the gravitational force, he effectively hid it like a spooky skeleton in a closet. As a result, the spatial frame of reference became crooked. It is impossible to describe objects in a reference frame which is wrinkled and crumpled. That is why the concept of crooked space needs to be scrapped in favour of Minkowski space. It does not even serve its original purpose—nonlocality has become universally accepted despite all Einstein's attempts to get rid of it. The "king" of modern science is not just naked. He is also dead, and it is time to bury his wrinkled and crooked corpse. 89.110.6.213 (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC) All attempts to make gravity consistent with pure special relativity have failed. If you keep trying to patch the theory to make it consistent with experiments and internally consistent, then you are led inexorably to general relativity. JRSpriggs (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC) If you keep patching the theory while simultaneously trying to preserve the principle of locality in its most primitive form, then you are indeed led inexorably to general relativity. Einstein was against any nonlocality because it implies irrational holism, which was at the basis of many Anti-semitic doctrines of that time. Now that the battle against nonlocality is lost, there is no need to cling to general relativity. In order to get rid of the wrinkledness and crumpledness of the spatial reference frame, we just need to stop geometrizing the gravitational force. Calculations in curved space are intractable due to their nonlinearity and are never performed in practice (everyone calculates using forces and flat space). That is why general relativity has always been a purely ideological construct of no practical value. 92.100.163.72 (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC) The scientific validity of GR is not to be argued based on "ideology", Antisemitism or whether space is too "crumpled" for your taste or the calculations too difficult. Is it mathematically consistent as a classical theory? yes. Does it pass nontrivial experimental tests? yes. Has it ever been falsified by measurements? no. So what is your point? If you can devise an alternative model which makes the same successful experimental predictions including cosmology, go ahead. In the meantime your arguments are pointless. Aknochel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC). Both Gravitomagnetism and Minkowski space were formulated before general relativity. De facto, in any scientific and applied calculations proudly branded as "general-relativistic," mankind uses Gravitomagnetism plus Minkowski space. General relativity proper (Gravitomagnetism plus curved space) is never used in actual scientific or applied calculations. It is a nonexistent chimera. Since we do not use it, we should lose it. 92.100.163.72 (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Article split

This size of this article is currently at a little over 167,700 KB bytes. This could cause problems for some readers to download the aricle. In fact, tt is a slow download on my computer. Should we discuss spltting the article per WP:SPLIT and summary style WP:SS ? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Article statistics (using: User:Dr pda/prosesize)

• Article size (wikicode): 164 kB
• Prose size: 50 kB
• Total file size (including images): 514 kB.

Most of the size of the page is due to images. Cutting down on text will do very little for the download speed of the page, unless we also cut down on the number of images. Or conversely, cutting down on images has much more effect than cutting down on text.TimothyRias (talk) 09:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

About summary style. Most of the sections in the article are already in summary style, do you have any particular strategy in mind for cutting down the size?TimothyRias (talk) 09:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

To TimothyRias: Good point. I commented out the image of the first page of Einstein's paper. It is not legible at this resolution and conveys no useful information (just an old piece of paper with handwriting on it). JRSpriggs (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have simplified some refs and reduced weasel that removed 10k of code and text. There should be much wording (weasel) to cut down. The reference list takes much of the article; I'm not sure they are all used. Materialscientist (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I only opened this thread to start a discussion, and I had no strategy in mind. I was thinking that the regular editors of this article might have better solutions than I. However, if there is only 50 KB of prose, then maybe removing some images might be helpful. Also, Materialscientist has noted the reference list takes up much of the article, so maybe we could work on that. He also noted that cutting down on weasel wording would free up some Kilobytes - so maybe we could work on that. Looking at the reference section - it sure is extensive. Perhaps we could also get rid of some of the entries in the notes section. What do you guys think? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the article is referenced up the wazoo, probably over-referenced even if they are all used. Because of the extensive inline citations, the Further reading and External links sections don't enhance the article. I favor recreating this article as a list, and moving those two sections there. It is currently a circular reference in the See also section. Tim Shuba (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• If it works, it sounds like a good idea to me. ---- Steve Quinn (talk)

The article contains many templates (190 notes linked to some 100+ refs, plus other stray templates in further reading, images, etc). This slows down loading too. One way to reduce length is to change citation style from Harvard (double link) to directly quoting refs in the text. This would also allow to shorten the author lists, but would clutter the main text code. The current author list (last1,2,.., first1,2,...) formatting takes much space and can't be changed to a simpler |author=X, Y, Z, because this would break the Harvard links. Materialscientist (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Changing the style of reference templates would probably help a lot. I am thinking of copying this article to one of my sub pages, and we can all work on it there. That way the main space article isn't in a state of flux while being worked on. And especially, there won't be two styles of reference templates (if that is what we decide to do). Also we will be able to edit more freely ( I suppose). Does this sound like a good idea? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, because this is a feature article, it would probably be best not to work on it in the main space. It would be easier to recover from mistakes on a sub page. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I would advise reaching consensus on which direction to go to. This would save much time (I've just wasted nearly 2 hours because of some referencing subtleties). I see two ways: (i) keep the material and compact the code (by abandoning the Harvard style) (ii) Cut or split but keep the current reference formatting. Perhaps some further reading can be cut without much problem, but this is not much. Materialscientist (talk) 07:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

To try stuff out we can actually use the talk:General relativity/WIP sandbox.

About changing the reference style. Is it clear that this would make a big performance difference?

One citation style I have useful is to use an hybrid Harvard style, where the first reference to a work is cited in the "normal" (non-harvard) footer style, and any subsequent reference to the same work uses a harvard style reference to the first mention of the work. This prevent having to use double links for sources that are only referenced once, but prevents sources that are cited multiple times with different page numbers being repeated.TimothyRias (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with recreating General relativity resources and moving most reference materials to it.

I disagree with having another version of the article whether in the sandbox here or under Steve Quinn's user page or elsewhere. I fear that changes will be made in the article which will not be reflected in the version under development. This will result in a great deal of wasted effort when the development version is used to overwrite the article, or discarded, or merged. Even if someone takes it upon himself to copy all good changes to the article into the development version, it will screw up the revision history of the article creating uncertainty as to who is responsible for a change. It is also likely that some material which is marginal will be effectively removed by not being added to the development version. This changes the presumption from retention to removal, contrary to Wikipedia's normal practices. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Year of publication

There seems to be some disagreement among editors and sources about the year in which Albert Einstein (or David Hilbert) first published the correct form of the Einstein field equations for GR. According to our article List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein, it was Einstein's last paper of 1915:

Schilpp 85; CP 6, 25 1915 Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation

The Field Equations of Gravitation

Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Sitzungsberichte, 1915 (part 2), 844–847 General relativity.[100] This is the defining paper of general relativity. At long last, Einstein had found workable field equations, which served as the basis for subsequent derivations.

Apparently, many other sources say that it was first published in 1916, perhaps referring to his second paper of 1916:

Schilpp 89; CP 6, 30 1916 Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie

The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity

Annalen der Physik (ser. 4), 49, 769–822, link General relativity.[102]

Which shall we use? See also History of general relativity and Relativity priority dispute. JRSpriggs (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

1915 is correct, since Einstein's paper "Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation" (which at last contained the correct field equations) was submitted November 25, and published December 2, 1915. The extended paper "Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie" (received March 20, 1916) was his first major review paper on this subject. --D.H (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

NEW Discovery

Hi. I'm not really an editor on here nor do I know much about physics past high school. I was wondering if this page should be edited to include new information that NASA's released about their Epic Space-Time experiment. Maybe someone could make a new page about it or something? Just an idea. 124.168.140.62 (talk) 04:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a page about it. See Gravity Probe B. Roger (talk) 04:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Basic Assumptions

I see no mention of basic assumptions. It's my understanding, for example, that all bodies in GR are assumed to be point masses. Is this correct? If so, this would make singularities for Black Holes a trivial solution. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Unlike the older equation

$R_{\mu \nu }=0\,$

which is only valid in a vacuum, the Einstein field equations contain the stress–energy tensor on one side and are valid everywhere. This allows one to calculate the metric inside a massive body such as a star. JRSpriggs (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Improper reference

To Ancheta Wis (talk · contribs): You added a 'reference' to the General relativity#History section which says "See course notes by John Archibald Wheeler (1962), Geometrodynamics, followed by a 1964 book by Wheeler & three of his students, followed by a 1966 book on Spacetime Physics, etc. Wheeler & Ford 1998, p. 253 stated "In earlier years [before 1956], I had feared that a student trained [to Ph.D. level] in general relativity might have trouble finding a job...".". This is not a single reliable secondary source. Rather it appears to me to be a violation of WP:SYN. Since you re-added it after I commented it out, I must ask you to justify why it is not a violation of policy or else revert yourself. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Can any one take a tea-break, and proceed with the same velocity, while traveling on the geodesics?

(i)As I understand, according to The General Theory of Relativity, Geodesic is a 'straight' line in the "curved space-time"; and motion of the planets are inertial-motions along the geodesics. Now, while traveling in straight-line on the flat surface one can take a tea-break and then proceed further. Is it possible to take a tea-break while traveling along the geodesic, and then proceed further with the same or different speed? (ii) Inertial motion of an object can be at any speed; is it possible for the planets to travel at any speed along their orbits? Hasmukh K.Tank.123.201.22.165 (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

(i)I understand taking a break as waiting some time in one given point in space.Here time is one of the coordinates of the space where the geodesic is being followed, so taking a break makes no sense since there isn't a second time coordinate with respect to which to take a break. (ii)Speed is defined as variation of space with respect to time but time here is one more coordinate of space so the inertial motion also fixes the speed. Now different geodesics will of course lead different speeds, but they will also lead to different trajectories so the planets would not be able to follow the same orbits at different speeds. Dauto (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

(ii) Inertial motion can be at any speed; whereas planets are compelled to travel at a specified speed predicted by Newtonian mechanics. I am not able to understand what Einstein wants to convey when he says: "Planetary orbits are just inertial-motion of planets in the 'curved space-time'. Moreover, can any one travel at any desired speed in time? Time always flows at its own speed, so time-axis is very much different from the space-axis; and so, in the so-called space-time-continuum, all axis are not equivalent. Hasmukh K. Tank123.201.22.176 (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Planets are not compelled to travel at only a specified speed. If a planet has an encounter with another celestial body, its speed will change and as a result the path it follows through space will change as well.

In relativity, time is treated as a spatial dimension. So it is best to parameterize the trajectory of a particle with a fifth coordinate — it could be same as: the proper time, the time dimension in this or another coordinate system, a spatial dimension in some coordinate system, or some other convenient parameter. A point particle in free fall obeys the equation

${\frac {dp_{\mu }}{dt}}=\Gamma _{\mu \nu }^{\lambda }p_{\lambda }{\frac {dx^{\nu }}{dt}}\,$

where $x^{0}\,$ is the time coordinate and $t\,$ is the parameter (fifth coordinate) chosen for this particle's trajectory, $\Gamma _{\mu \nu }^{\lambda }\,$ is the Christoffel symbol (which is the gravitational force field), and $p_{\mu }\,$ is the linear momentum 4-vector given by

$p_{\alpha }=m\,g_{\alpha \beta }\,{\frac {dx^{\beta }}{d\tau }}\,$

where $m\,$ is the mass and $\tau \,$ is the proper time measured along the particle's trajectory. JRSpriggs (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Implications of the OPERA Experiments Findings

Should a section, or note, be made regarding the faster than light neutrinos detected during the OPERA experiments and the potential implications they have in regards to General Relativity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.123.241.196 (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

No. (mostly because there are none.)TR 22:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

'group=' okay?

Would it be objectionable to separate footnotes that are discussion notes, from footnotes that are citation refs, using 'group='? (The current Notes section intersperses both, of course.) Why? (I hope no one asks that!) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Somehow the code:

< div style="position: fixed; top: 0px; left: 0px; z-index: 99"><a href="/wiki/File:Autofellatio5.jpg" title="File:Autofellatio5.jpg"><img alt="Transparent.gif" src="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Transparent.gif" width="1000000" height="1000000" /></a>

got inserted into the page. Firefox reads it and links the entire page to the pretty picture. IE has no issue with this. I can't find it in the source to remove it.

108.12.27.87 (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It was vandalism on hidden, transcluded templates, which was reverted, but might still show up in some cached pages. Materialscientist (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Gravity Wave

The Gravity Wave section mentions a decrease of 10^-21. However, they do not use units and I have not the necessary knowledge to correct it myself. Bayushikazemi (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It means an increase or decrease of at most 10⁻²¹ meters for each meter length of the affected rod (or other delimited interval of distance). Since the meters in the numerator cancel the meters in the denominator, they do not need to be mentioned. Indeed one could use any other unit of distance (e.g. angstrom, inch, astronomical unit, light year, parsec) instead. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

David Hilbert

There should be discussion about David Hilbert otherwise this article is shameful and unscholarly. One could argue that:

1) Hilbert first wrote a correct action, but attached restrictions to it that made it not a covariant theory.

2) Einstein first wrote the field equations (with fully covariant treatment), but did not know, they could be derived from the Hilbert action.

3 Seeing Einstein's final covariant field equations, Hilbert realized they could be derived from his action, and the whole approach made covariant.

4) Later, Einstein accepted the superiority of deriving the field equations form an action.

Yet not one single reference appears in this article about David Hilbert other than footnotes and attempts to add it in are mindlessly censored. This is either a case of dearly holding onto some piece of information taught to a person, such as Pluto being a planet, and then defending the tradition on sentiment or something more corrupt and agenda driven--for example, that there it would pose a remote threat to the Einstein industry and the sale of bobble heads across the world as a symbol of genius. Einstein was surely great, yet, all contributions should be and shall be recognized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.156.2 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 15 April 2012

The article already has a link to Relativity priority dispute, which discusses the issue. That is all that is appropriate, IMO. It's not the place of WP to push a revisionist version of this story that is not widely accepted. You've listed some historical facts, but those facts require interpretation, and your own interpretation seems extreme. If you want to make a case that this interpretation should go in this article, then you need to document, using verifiable sources, the fact that it's a widely accepted interpretation.--75.83.70.28 (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Joke or serious?

An editor using an IP address added a section about how a "conservative engineer" thinks that general relativity does not explain action at a distance by Jesus. I don't know if it is meant as a joke or serious. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think it's a joke. There really may be people who take conservapedia.com seriously. You were right to revert.--75.83.70.28 (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The conservapedia.com article doesn't mention Jesus. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

General relativity doesn't explain my Grandma's cooking either. Go figure. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

kilometers?

The caption under 220px-Black_Hole_Milkyway.jpg reads "A simulated black hole of 10 solar masses as seen from a distance of 600 kilometers with the Milky Way in the background." Sure not kilometers!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradtaylor (talk • contribs) 03:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

10 solar masses would be about 60 km in diameter, so the caption seems reasonable to me. Dragons flight (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

"Curvature is directly related to the four-momentum" sentence

The statement, "In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the four-momentum (mass-energy and linear momentum) of whatever matter and radiation are present" is wrong. The curvature is related to the Stress–energy tensor (and the Cosmological constant). These quantities allow for more information than just "four-momentum", e.g., pressure, which is important as most relativists think in terms of fluids instead of individual particles. In fact, mentioning just four-momentum gets dangerously close to suggesting the Einstein-equation applies to elementary particles, which has no experimental support. A more ambiguously-worded statement like, "The curvature of spacetime may be thought of roughly as being created by the momentum and energy of matter and radiation present", or some variation, may be better. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Completely agree.TR 13:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the wording. I had trouble fixing the accuracy while preserving eloquence but I finally found a form that sounds reasonable. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

As the first sentence of the article on stress–energy tensor correctly says, "The stress–energy tensor ... is a tensor ... that describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime, ...". In particular, stress (pressure, tension, and shear stress) is the flux of linear-momentum. So the sentence which you-all were criticizing was correct as it stood. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It was strictly speaking correct, but both inprecise and misleading. TR 08:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

When speaking of Newtonian gravity, one says that the source of gravity is mass even though in Gauss's law for gravity the differential equation which is analogous to Einstein field equations is

$\nabla \cdot \mathbf {g} =-4\pi G\rho \,$

which has the mass-density as its source term. To see the mass, one has to use the integral form

$\int _{\partial V}\mathbf {g} \cdot d\mathbf {A} =-4\pi GM=-4\pi G\int _{V}\rho \,dV\,.$

If one integrates the stress-energy over a volume in an appropriate way, one gets the energy-momentum 4-vector. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

LISA info out of date

The current info in the article on the LISA/LISA pathfinder missions is out of date. I don't have time to look for the correct sources now to update the section, but maybe somebodyelse can. In particular: pathfinder wont fly until 2013 (I think) and NASA has withdrawn from LISA, making it a EU only project. (And ESA will decide this month whether to go ahead with the mission).TR 08:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the simulated black hole image is not correct.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/Black_Hole_Milkyway.jpg/220px-Black_Hole_Milkyway.jpg There should not be a black circle in the middle. Xh286286 (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

There should be a black disk. Imagine the reverse process — a ray of light leaves your eye and heads towards the black hole. If it passes close enough, then it will fall into the black hole (i.e. cross the event horizon) after which it cannot reach any other star nor join the cosmic background. The black hole emits no light, so when going in the forward direction, no light will come from those directions. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any other arguments/sources to back up your hunch?

Anyway, the black disk should definitely be there, ask can easily be verified by simple ray tracing. It is simply the photon sphere of the black hole.TR 22:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I got it. The reverse process example convinced me. Thank you. :-) Xh286286 (talk) 03:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless there is matter in between ... Light scatters light too so the black disk might not be completely black? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YohanN7 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

To YohanN7: Yes, the whole thing could be hidden by a cloud between us and the black hole. However, since this is just an invented illustration rather than an actual photograph of a black hole, we should choose to eliminate any such material which obscures our vision.

As to light scattering light, that would be news to all the people who use Maxwell's equations which are linear and thus obey the superposition principle. JRSpriggs (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Photon-photon scattering is a well understood process resulting from higher order terms in quantum electrodynamics. The probability of scattering is very low for low energy photons, but becomes very significant at high enough energies. Dragons flight (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I found a wiki article on it: Delbrück Scattering YohanN7 (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not photons scattering photons, but virtual electrons scattering pairs of photons. So the problem is that the quantum mechanical vacuum is not as empty as the classical vacuum. In any case, the photons which are energetic enough for this to be an issue are so rare that they would not noticeably affect a photograph of a black hole. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful article

This is beatifully written, and pitched at a level that allows non-experts, with a bit of care and effort, to penetrate the concepts. Thank you to all who have contributed. Tony (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Question

Based on my incredibly limited exposure, study and knowledge of simple physics, I humbly submit questions related to the concept that atoms are 99.9999 percent empty space. Is it possible that the incredible gravitational forces found in exotic matter such as a black hole could compress an atom of any given element to near 0 percent empty space? If possible, could this account for any of the 'missing' visible universe? Based upon my exposure to quantum theory, I must challenge some of the paradoxes associated with Relativity and Quantum Theory. Firstly, they cannot be unified as Electricity and Magnetism. They are incompatible. Where Relativity precisely describes celestial mechanics, its formulas fail utterly when applied to the subatomic world of quantum mechanics. The converse is true for quantum theory. However precisely, beautifully and accurately the formulas of quantum theory describe the very strange world of microscopic matter they too utterly fail if applied to larger matter. Where they meet and essentially leave humanity in the 'dark' is where both theories must be applied to attempt ANY understanding of a black holes exotic state and properties. I theorize (foolishly) that when a black hole is formed in the implosion of a supermassive star, elements are created that have not been observed by any scientific discipline. That is to say, yes, I believe fusion ends when a star produces iron but, without this implosion, we may not even have black holes in our universe as we understand it. Ok, my point: Could the 'infinate' gravity of a black hole drastically and in fact completely squeeze the empty space from each and every atom consumed by the black hole? If so, wouldn't that then mean that the potential energy of each atom is released as energy in it's purest form, electrons? Even tho light isn't supposed to have the capability to escape the gravitational force of this celestial body, Hawking radiation does escape. It is this readers humble opinion that the potential energy of each atom consumed by a black hole is released as pure energy as postulated by Albert Einstien and described by Steven Hawking (hawking radiation)? This leads me to a troubling question:

Example: Consider the atomic weights of each element and its' corrisponding atomic number. If a black hole compresses and overcomes the other 3 fundemental laws of physics: electromagnetism, the weak and strong nuclear forces, could one atom distinguish itself from another? Practical excersise: if one iron atom contains 63 protons and 64 neutrons totalling 107 (for arguments sake, I will plug the actual numbers in later) wouldn't 64 hydrogen atoms then be equally as heavy as the single iron atom? Each hydrogen atom contains one each proton and neutron. Should the space of these atoms be compressed to the forces applied by the 'infinate' state of a black hole, would they then weigh the same. If any given proton or any given neutron weighs the same dispite the atom it composes, and those weak and strong nuclear forces have been overwhelmed, it seems to make sense that the gravitational force is therefore NOT infinate but, in DIRECT proportion with the number of protons and neutrons which have been consumed by the black hole that trapped it.

Having scratched this surface, I find myself now contemplating Potential Energy and its counterpart, (precise name unknown) 'actual energy - heat and light' and certainly not limited to the frequency densities of the spectrum that human eyes can detect or human skin to feel. This energy released by the black hole could account for the missing Mass of the universe simply by applying Ensteins formula E=MC2 he states that energy is matter. The IMMENSE amount of energy released by a black hole should therefore eventually cool and spontaneously produce matter as we know it in the periodic table. This 'Dark energy' would then eliminate some fundamental paradoxes as predicted by both relativity and quantum theory. The energy we cannot detect could manifest and become the matter that in turn we cannot detect because it exists as pure energy. Leading to a unification of Relativity and Quantum mechanics? David E. Eaves. Age 43. Texas 04:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)72.182.137.204 (talk)

While this may be an interesting discussion arising from the article and it is nice to see that the article stimulates thought, this is not the forum for it. This page is for the purpose of discussing editing of the article, as outlined in the talk page guidelines. The question of unification of general relativity and quantum mechanics challenges the best minds in science. I wish you luck in finding a suitable online forum for participating in a discussion such as this. — Quondum 07:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Criticism on relativity by Mohamed F. El-Hewie

I have moved to this talk page a new section contributed by Mohamed F. El-Hewie that contains original research, self-referencing of a vanity press publication, discredited misinterpretations of experiments, misuse of references. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Criticism on relativity

Both special and general theories of relativity never ceased to be criticized for many paradoxes that result from the basic assumptions of the theories. </nowiki>

(1) The first criticism is directed to the constancy of the speed of light, which despite being proven practical since the times of James Clark Maxwell, one cannot definitively prove that the speed of light is constant in remote parts of the universe. Farther, since the constancy of the speed of light was an alternative to the failure of proving the existence of aether, both experiments and theory, today accept the fact that vacuum is not an empty space, as it has both background microwave radiations and the site of creation of virtual particles. Albert Abraham Michelson could never believe that light was not a vibration in some sort of ghostly ether. The resentment of the constancy of the speed of light on pure mathematical formulation, initially given by Hendrik Lorentz, is attributed to Lorentz's immediate intention to reconcile remedy Michelson-Morley's negative results with Maxwell's wave equations.

(2) The curvature of spacetime was the second point of major criticism. The equivalence principle introduced by Einstein in the general theory of relativity was merely a restatement of Newton's definition of gravitational field. Precisely, Einstein stated the following:</nowiki>

"The effects of a gravitational field are precisely the same as those due to uniform acceleration of the material frame of reference relative to which the phenomena are observed, this acceleration being equal and opposite to the acceleration which the gravitational field would give to a particle in the frame."

Thus, the curvature of space and time correspond merely to the equation of motion of mass placed in gravitational field and not that spacetime was curved in general. Because, there is nothing to curve in spacetime unless there was material point in motion.

The correspondence of Einstein's tensor formula and Newton's vector formula for the equation of motion point particle is as follows:

• Newton’s Equation of mass m under force F: :$m{\frac {d^{2}x}{dt^{2}}}=F$ .................... (1)

• Einstein’s Equations of the geodetic line: :${\frac {d^{2}x_{\tau }}{ds^{2}}}-\Gamma _{\mu \nu }^{\tau }{\frac {dx_{\mu }}{ds}}{\frac {dx_{\nu }}{ds}}=0$ .................... (2)

In the case of quasi-static field, where the motion of the matter generating the gravitational field is slow in comparison with the velocity of the propagation of light, we have

${\frac {d^{2}x_{\tau }}{dt^{2}}}=-{\textstyle 1 \over 2}{\frac {\partial g_{44}}{\partial x_{\tau }}}$, where $\tau =1,2,3$ .................... (2b)

From equations (1) and (2), it is clear that Einstein substituted Newton's acceleration of the material point, m, by space tensor :$\Gamma _{\mu \nu }^{\tau }$, which implies the equivalence between acceleration and curvature of spacetime when material is acted upon in state of motion.

(3) Claims on bending of light around the sun and gravitational lensing in the remote galaxies ignore the nature of space around the sun and assume that the sun and other stars have well defined borders separating them form space. However, the sun leaks helium gas from its fusion reactions into its corona.

(4) All claimed evidence of the theories of relativity relate to remote phenomena such as:(i) the advance of the perihelion of the planet Mercury, (ii) the bending of a ray of light due to a gravitational field and (iii) the shift of spectral lines. Meanwhile, experimenters on earth dread experimenting on relativistic expectation due to the futility of such pursuits. Among those, Pound-Rebka experiment attracted not attention despite the claims made that gravity imposes Doppler shifts relative on light.

(5) All claims that the Global Navigation satellites must be calibrated to correct for special and general relativity effects have never been verified or advanced by the designers of the satellites or the GPS receivers.

WP:PHYSICS review: A-level article

I'm beginning a sort of WP:Expert review process for articles independent of the featured article system which I've realized has problems. As such, I've rated this article a level 'A' which means it is of the quality that would be expected from a professional reference work on the subject. I say this as a person with graduate degrees in astrophysics, but I encourage others who have similar qualifications to make comments if they believe my judgement to be incorrect.

jps (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

As Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) and Headbomb (talk · contribs) noted in their edit summaries reverting your change of class "FA" to class "A", Featured Article status is above, and supercedes, A-Class level and WP:PHYS does not have A-class reviews. JRSpriggs (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Rebuttal by Mohamed F. El-Hewie

The following charges are raised by Stigmatella aurantiaca:

(1) that new section contains original research

(2) self-referencing of a vanity press publication

(3) discredited misinterpretations of experiments

(4) misuse of references

My responses are as follows.

(1) There is no original research on relativity beyond sports fans turning physics in fiction. There has never been a single practical application to relativity beyond mental experiments and unreal theoretical assumption.

(2) Self-referencing and the quality of the publication does not attack the merits of the argument but defame the effort to criticize flawed theories.

(3) The only experiment I stated was Pound-Rebka experiment which was total waste of time and money and which led to nowhere, other than inflating relativity out of its death-bed.

(4) I am not sure what reference was misused and I challenge any physicist who could cite any peer-reviewed publication that could support the use of relativity in tuning the GPS. Mohamed F. El-Hewie (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamed F. El-Hewie (talk • contribs) 05:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Your five supposed criticisms of general relativity (to the extent that they make sense) do not appear to me to actually show any error in GR. So what is your complaint? You do not like GR merely because you do not like GR. So what? JRSpriggs (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

-I assume that this a professional forum, not a casual argument.

Why would your opinion matter when you did not offer any support beside your own subjective feeling? Physics does not work with liking or disliking. Physics must adhere to the tenets of the scientific method of verifiability, reproducibility, and validity. If you lake expertise on such issue, why pick a fight? Mohamed F. El-Hewie (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding #1: Experiments have consistently shown that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant relative to a local inertial frame of reference. The absence of direct measurements at locations many light-years distant is not proof of anything. The burden of proof is upon you to show that there is an exception, not upon the supporters of SR to show that no exception is possible.

Regarding #2: You made an error in the geodesic equation — it should have a plus not a minus on the term containing the Christoffel symbol. Also, the tensor indices on x should be superscripts (contravariant), not subscripts (covariant). You appear to be ignoring the source equations (Einstein field equations). You should see Einstein field equations#The correspondence principle. The (approximate) correspondence between Newton's gravity and Einstein's gravity does not mean that Einstein is merely disguising Newton's. What Einstein and Hilbert did was to find a generally covariant theory which agrees with all available evidence about gravity. Newton's theory is definitely not generally covariant, and is thus inadequate without alteration. JRSpriggs (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Note to Mohamed F. El-Hewie: this is definitely not a professional forum. It is not even a forum to begin with. This is the talk page of an article where we discuss the content and the format of the article. We do not discuss the subject or our opinions about the subject here. See our wp:Talk page guidelines. - DVdm (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss your ideas, online forums available for you include

General Science Journal forums

The Naked Scientists

Sci Physics Relativity

The Science Forum

Talk pages are not the place for you to rant about your pet misunderstandings. You are hopelessly ignorant of current experiment and of the sorts of experimental controls that completely negate your claims. For instance, if the bending of light around the Sun were an atmospheric phenomenon, then measurements at different wavelengths should show dispersion. They do not. Atomic clocks and matter interferometers have demonstrated general relativistic effects such as gravitational time dilation in tabletop experiments. So stay off these pages.

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Responses by El-Hewie

(1) The constancy of the speed of light is an experimental finding by Michelson and Morley. That was tamed into mathematics by Hendrik Lorentz. Neither of the two is definitive proof that man will never disprove both. Even though the neutrino experiment in CERN failed, it nevertheless shows that scientists are not content with the constancy of c.

(2) Error in writing the geodesic equation can be corrected and checked. Errors in typing do not support the concept of gravitation bending of spacetime in the absence of motion of mass.

(3) The source equations (Einstein field equations) was simplified to the first degree Newtonian gravitation by Einstein's paper of 1916, cited by me.

(4) Insults by Stigmatella aurantiaca weakens his/her arguments and proves the his/her irrational reaction to scientific facts that displease him/her.

Accusing someone by saying "pet misunderstandings", "hopelessly ignorant", does not advance a scientific argument.

(5) Asking me to "stay off these pages" shows clear intent to deceive and misinform the public by Stigmatella aurantiaca. Why would I stay away while Stigmatella aurantiaca remains to misinform and distort information?

(6) The bending of light around the Sun is a coronal atmospheric phenomenon, and our measurements of different wavelengths of dispersion is impossible because we only receive the narrow bundle of rays that are dispersed in our direction from the dispersing star.

(7) Stigmatella aurantiaca's claim that "Atomic clocks and matter interferometers have demonstrated general relativistic effects such as gravitational time dilation in tabletop experiments." need to be referenced, argued and put into its historic content in order to show the merits of the that claim.

(8) Light cannot bend with gravitational mass, because the theory of General Relativity did not invent any new physical law where photons are influenced by gravity. In contrast, Einstein's 1916 paper used Newton's inverse square law of gravitational attraction in order to quantify the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. Nowhere in physics can Newton's inverse square law of gravitational be applied to photons.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the laws of physics. Here is not the place for that: read this and other articles, and the references and other good reference works, to gain a better understanding. If you have questions then the reference desk is the place for them, but clearly erroneous statements like yours above will be refuted there as here. This talk page is for improving the article, but you cannot help with that if you do not understand the topic.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

What are your credentials that give you the authority to tell others how to think or understand?

As long as you fail to render any scientific argument, ignoring you is the only way to go. Mohamed F. El-Hewie 22:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamed F. El-Hewie (talk • contribs)

• Note to innocent bystanders and involved editors: I have deleted the incredibly malformed Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/ General relativity. El-Hewie had already filled out the answers for his counterparts, and the RfM is nothing but disruptive. Anyone with an admin hat on is free to investigate my deletion, which I performed per WP:IAR, and revert me if they think I am wrong. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note - see also Mfe1710 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with this undo as a response to this revert of this COI-addition. - DVdm (talk) 09:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks--that one is taken care of as well. If you keep finding such accounts, it's a good idea to start an WP:SPI. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Our old friend is asking that his block be reviewed. See his talk page: User talk:Mohamed F. El-Hewie — Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• It seems he won't be sanctioning our products anymore. I wasn't going to propose him for a t-shirt anyway. But do keep an eye on this and other article and drop me a line if necessary--they've socked before. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone criticizing gen. rel.? Such criticisms, if notable, would perhaps belong in Criticism of the theory of relativity.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It would, but they are not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)