User talk:Der alte Hexenmeister/archive 1

Welcome, but please don't vandalize Wikipedia

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you.

More to the point, your edits of relativity, special relativity and postulates of special relativity have been reverted. The reasons are

1. Commentary should not be placed into articles. Instead, there are discussion pages for this kind of stuff. Please see talk:special relativity for an example. (That page can also be reached by clicking on the "Discussion" tab of special relativity.)
2. Einstein did not realize until 1911 that the perceived speed of light at distant positions was affected by gravitational fields. As a result, Einstien had to differentiate between the special principle of relativity (limiting the principal to inertial frames of reference) where it held good, and the general principle of relativity which he used as one of the underpinnings of general relativity.

Do be aware that you are actually far from being blocked since you are new to this medium and trying to find your way around. We are willing to listen to your concerns, but said concerns have to be expressed properly, and there has to be respect for the subject of any article that you edit. Thank you. --EMS | Talk 02:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The truth is it is supposed to be Einstein's relativity, not Schaefer's relativity.

Commentary such as "inertial" should not be placed into articles. Instead, there are discussion pages for this kind of "stuff", whatever "stuff" is.

It is not the policy of Wackypedia for you to publish your personal theories.

Go ahead, Schaefer, practice your threat of censorship, continue to blantantly vandalize Einstein's paper, physics and astronomy. I consider you to be disingenuous.

---Der alte Hexenmeister (talk · contribs) 13:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Der alte Hexenmeister.

Manners

First of all, hello. Second of all, please don't go around making inflammatory accusations of prejudice (which is what you did on my talk page) until you have more information about the person whom you accuse of being prejudiced. Thirdly, I'm not even sure what you were accusing me of being prejudiced for or against - was it the "Hillman-Schaefer Relativity Theory" (lol) that you referred to ? Fourthly, if you have studied Einstein's theory of relativity, you'll realise the importance of inertial frames in special relativity. Fifthly, I'm surprised that someone who claims to truly understand that 1905 paper you referred to would express their point of view in such a garbled and incoherent manner on my talk page. Sixthly, the 3 of us (and more) are academics with PhD's (not, as you said on my talk page, "prejudiced bigots") and if you are willing to engage in more rational, tempered discussions about your concerns, then we will be happy to comply. Wikipedia is a good place to discuss issues that we disagree over. MP (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Der alte Hexenmeister (talk · contribs) (Androcles/Hexenmeister, I presume): be aware that there are behavioral standards here at WP, unlike UseNet, so you should probably take the time to read WP:NPA-WP:CIV and other policies. TIA ---CH 03:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, regarding your first two edits at WP:

1. this edit is considered vandalism since this kind of comment should go to Talk:Special relativity, not the article itself. Also, a comment like "The principle editors do not appear to understand subject and predicate" violates WP:CIV and if repeated would violate WP:NPA.
2. In this edit writing "one of the fatal flaws of special relativity is that it is derived from the ridiculous premise" etc. violates WP:NPOV-WP:VERIFY-WP:NOR and is also just plain wrong.

This is not a good start, but the Wikipedia community will cut you some slack as a newbie. However, please try to learn, and in future please try to obey, our rules for behavior while you are using this website. TIA ---CH 04:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Androcles?

Ed Schaefer left a comment which orginally read as follows:

If you are Androcles, then a fond hello. Long time, no exchanges.

I must admit to being complimented by your calling the current interpretation of special relativity the "Hillman-Schaefer" theory. However, you are mistaken on a number of points. Perhaps to most severe one is that Einstein does not reference inertial motion in 1905. In fact he does, with the phrase "uniform translatory motion". You will find it in the restatement of the postulates of SR in §2. (So it seems that I need to eat my remark about Einstein not realizing this restriction until 1911.)

I have no wish to argue more with you. Let us just say that any edits favoring your viewpoint will be reverted as inappropriate. As for why, I would refer you to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Beyond that, I stand by the warning I gave you at first, and which is still at the top of this page.

--EMS | Talk 13:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Androcles/Hexenmeister thereupon intercalated his answers as follows (mildly reformatted by Chris Hillman for readability):

EMS: If you are Androcles, then a fond hello. Long time, no exchanges.

A: I have no fondness for you, Schaefer.

EMS: I must admit to being complimented by your calling the current interpretation of special relativity the "Hillman-Schaefer" theory.

A: It's not a compliment, your distortion of Einstein's paper is vandalism.

EMS: However, you are mistaken on a number of points. Perhaps to most severe one is that Einstein does not reference inertial motion in 1905. In fact he does, with the phrase "uniform translatory motion".

A: WRONG!

"If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be second slow. Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions." - Einstein.

Take out "inertial", Schaefer, and restore Einstein's relativity AS IT IS WRITTEN !

EMS: You will find it in the restatement of the postulates of SR in §2. (So it seems that I need to eat my remark about Einstein not realizing this restriction until 1911.)

A: I'm not interested in your remarks or your commentary.

You should censor Sagnac too.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm

EMS: I have no wish to argue more with you.

A: Of course you don't, you'd lose.

EMS: Let us just say that any edits favoring your viewpoint will be reverted as inappropriate.

A: But it's ok if they favour your viewpoint, right? Censorship will always prevail, to the detriment of Wackypedia.

EMS: As for why, I would refer you to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Beyond that, I stand by the warning I gave you at first, and which is still at the top of this page. --EMS | Talk 13:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A: You can shove it, Schaefer, you are dishonest.

Take out all reference to "inertial" and prejudicial commentary such as "One of the strengths", "The laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame of reference" (the laws of physics apply to all frames of reference), "The speed of light in a vacuum is constant (specifically, 299,792,458 meters per second). " since that speed is not mentioned in Einstein's paper, it is 2AB/(t'A-tA)= c, the light goes from A to A in time t'A-tA and is 0/0, confirmed by

"an observer approaching a source of light with the velocity c, this source of light must appear of infinite intensity." - IFC Einstein

"Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions." - IFC Einstein

"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity."- IFC Einstein

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img155.gif - IFC Einstein

These are all clues to division by zero and only the clueless would believe them.

The actual zero may be found in

"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img7.gif to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space."

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF

All quotations are the exact words of First Class Idiot Einstein, from

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

--Der alte Hexenmeister (talk · contribs · block log) 13:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hexenmeister, please note that writing "You can shove it, Schaefer, you are dishonest" violates WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Please respect our rules for civil behavior while you are using this site. TIA ---CH 05:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. In general, it is best to put your comment immediately after the preceding comment. You can tab it using an initial colon before each paragraph. ---CH 05:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Another exchange between EMS and Hexenmeister/Androcles

Ed Schaefer left a comment which orginally read as follows:

I think that a couple of quotes will help to describe things properly here.

From user talk:Mpatel:

There is no evidence to support Einstein’s second postulate, for it is akin to claiming a straight rod will bend when immersed in water, we can see it does. Of course what really happens is light is refracted. The same is true for light from stellar sources. What we see is a distortion, not reality, when light from a moving source is passed by light from the same source emitted earlier.

Also from above:

All quotations are the exact words of First Class Idiot Einstein

The implication is that you strongly disagree with relativity and instead subscribe to a Newtonian spacetime in which the speed of light is locally variable but a constant with respect to the emitter. That view was researched in the 19th century, and it was pointed out that the expected illusions are not seem. Distant stars as directly observed obey Newton's laws, with the only corrections needed being to account for the finite speed of light. That would not be the case under your model, and is one of the reasons for the development of relativity theory.

As for your remarks in general: They are a total violation of WP:CIVIL. I understand that you are bitter about the treatment you get from people like me, but that is not going to change any minds. I can assure you that if you continue like this, you will be banned on that basis. (It takes some work to achieve that, but if you drive people up that wall enough it will be done.) I will admit that you are being censored. However, I am far from the only editor here. If I was out of line in my reversion, someone else would have undone it.

BTW - I doubt that it is of any consolation to you, but I also have alternate ideas about relativity (as you may recall, and which I mention on my user page). However, I have never tried to promote them in the article space because they amount to original research which I have yet to succeed in getting published, and which in any case has not become a part of the general human knowledge which Wikipedia documents. Let's just say that I am comfortable with the "No orginal research" policy, and am happy to document Einstein's work as it is currently understood.

Looking above, I see that you need to learn how to edit pages. Items:

1. Indentation is created by starting a line with a colon. The more colons, the more it is indented.
2. Numbering is done by starting a line with a # sign.
   • (Additional format character after the # sign indicates a continuation of the item, and permit the main numbering to continue unimpaired.)
3. An * at the start of a line indicates a bulleted item
4. A space at the start of a line indicates displayed text (in a shaded box).

For example, the above was written as

# Indentation is created by starting a line with a colon. The more colons, the more it is indented.

# Numbering is done by starting a line with a # sign.

#* (Additional format character after the # sign indicates a continuation of the item, and permit the main numbering to continue unimpaired.)

# An * at the start of a line indicates a bulleted item

# A space at the start of a line indicates displayed text (in a shaded box).

You seem to have been trying to obtain indentation using the display technique, and the result speaks for itself. --EMS | Talk 15:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. You may have a point about the use of the word "inertial". "Uniform translatory motion" is actually a superset of intertial motion. Indeed, SR is good in any accelerated frame of reference with extends over a small enough volume such that the effects of gravitational time dilation and the like are miniscule. --EMS | Talk 15:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Androcles/Hexenmeister then intercalated his comments as follows, while removing (possibly unintentionally much of what EMS wrote):

EMS: I think that a couple of quotes will help to describe things properly here.

A: Im not interested in what you think, Schaefer. Einstein wrote a paper

(fact) and you have misrepresented his words in this online attempt at an encyclopedia by placing your personal slant upon it, as I have explained.

EMS: I would refer you to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight.

A: You are a vandal, Schaefer. My personal view of relativity is none of your business.

All articles written about yourself, your friends, your company, their business partners or products, or as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, will be deleted without further notice in accordance with our speedy deletion policies. That includes your enemies, Schaefer, and I am certainly one of them.

A: Wikipedia:Contact us/Top questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < Wikipedia:Contact us Jump to: navigation, search

A: I've been told I've vandalized an article, but I have not

If you think the message was intended for you, but you haven't vandalized an article, it's possible that you may have made an edit that isn't actually vandalism, but might not have fit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. (See these two pages for more information.) In particular, pay attention to the neutral point of view policy.

A:I want to see your neutral point of view, Schaefer. You are dishonest.

Der alte Hexenmeister 22:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Androcles/Hexenmeister, please see WP:CIV-WP:NPA. Note that if you keep violating these policies you can be blocked from using the WP. Please try to be polite in future. TIA---CH 05:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"P.S. In general, in WP talk pages it is not considered good form to delete another user's comment, unless it contains hate speech as that term is commonly understood. There are ways to archive old comments if this page fills up, which I am sure helpful Wikipedians can tell you about. ---CH 05:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution

---

--Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it.--

Schaefer reverted my edit.

Einstein wrote:

-- we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A. 

If you and Schaefer can claim the strength is two postulates then I can claim the fatal flaw is the third postulate.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF

Give up your prejudices, Hillman, put it right!

Oh, and be polite, give me a rotating gold star gif for my efforts.

Der alte Hexenmeister 08:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, this kind of sarcasm is not considered to be nice.

Also, please note that your recent edit to Theory of relativity put a signed comment in the article itself, which as I already mentioned, is not how things are done here. Comments should indeed be signed, but they go in the talk page.

You wrote "If you and Schaefer can claim the strength is two postulates then I can claim the fatal flaw is the third postulate" but I don't know what you are referring to.---CH 13:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't claim to nice, Hillman, so that comment is non-sequitur. Jowr is not nice, Hillman is not nice, Schaefer is not nice.

Einstein's third postulate is

: the time required by light to travel from A to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to A. 
You don't know what I'm am referring to because Schaefer arrogantly 

reverted my edit and adopted a bullying technique instead of making the appropriate correction, but nevertheless neither one of you are representing Einstein's paper with a neutral point of view, you are both prejudiced and imagine that a constant velocity is one that reverses direction. The public has the right to know the truth, Wiki has Hillman - Schaefer relativity, not Einstein's relativity.

Der alte Hexenmeister 20:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that a response (now deleted) from theory of relativity (the article, not the talk page, which is the reason for the deletion) will speak to the issue here:

This article does however represent the point of view af the overwhelming majority of academic, professional and industrial users, teachers, and scholars of the subject the world over. --Martin Hogbin

That is the POV an article must represent here. --EMS | Talk 22:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop.

Androcles, your behavior on sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity is reprehensible by itself. Don't pollute Wikipedia by bringing your incredibly vile and useless attitude here too. People have been explaining relativity to you for many years. It isn't their fault you do not understand, it is yours.

For everyone else, Androcles is a regular poster on the USENET groups sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity who has some severe personal issues with relativity. Specifically, he doesn't understand it.

I can't stop him from spewing his bile into USENET, but I can stop him here.

Please visit http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html to see examples of Androcles in action.

Jowr 21:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal bile from you is as water off a duck's back to me.

Go away, moron.

---—Preceding unsigned comment added by Der alte Hexenmeister (talk • contribs)

Hexenmesiter, please sign your comments. Also, please note that namecalling violates WP:CIV and that you can be banned for violations of WP policies.---CH 05:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hillman, please Also please note that 'by bringing your incredibly vile and useless attitude here' written by Jowr is offensive and that Jowr can be banned banned for violations of WP policies.

J. Sorry Androcles.

A. Thank you, you should be.

J. I am not going anywhere.

A. Then behave yourself, you can be banned banned for violations of WP policies.

J. You can killfile me on USENET but you cannot ignore me here.

A. I can ignore you anywhere I choose to ignore you.

J. If you want help understanding relativity, myself and many others would be glad to help. We are also just as glad to help you realise you are not welcome here if you decide you aren't going to be nice. We would also be glad to help you learn how to edit in Wikipedia.

Jowr 23:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

How kind of you. If you want help in understanding relativity, I'm glad to help. Please refer to

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm

Der alte Hexenmeister 08:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Jowr 21:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Your page contains many factual and conceptual errors, not to mention unsupported opinions and libel.

You make multiple mentions of c being defined as 0/0 by making the assumption there is no distance traveled, while working with several examples where the distance traveled is nonzero.

Also, your understanding of the mathematical definition of linearity is also deficient. Linearity does not mean the output of a function is linear, it means the function itself is linear in the terms mentioned. For example, the transformation equations are linear in space and time 'as Einstein demanded'.

Furthermore, your graph of the function isn't actually a graph of the function - it is just some garbage you are pretending is a graph of the function.

Finally, you openly wonder why the transformation equations don't depend on the y and z coordinates. The reason they don't is because movement has been confined to one coordinate axis (x) and there is no movement, and thus no required transformations, in the y and z directions.

I don't expect this to help much because all this has been told to you many times since you put your webpage up as a display of your.... intelligence. I could go through the rest of your website if you wish, there is a similar amount of problems on pretty much every page.

Jowr 21:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Second warning

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Theory of relativity, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --EMS | Talk 21:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Final warning

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to theory of relativity, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --EMS | Talk 02:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be afraid of the truth, Cardinals Hillman and Schaefer, why is that?

C'mon, Cardinals of the Holey Church of Relativity, explain to the world how your little tin god Einstein's religion works without the third premise:

the time required by light to travel from A to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to A, even if A and B are in relative motion.

You can't, can you? You are corrupt, evil, vandals of science, both of you. I've written to the board of trustees requesting that you both be blocked. Der alte Hexenmeister 07:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL! That is a beauty! Never mind that Einstein established t_AB = t_BA as being for the stationary system, I gather. Never mind that in §2 of On the electrodynamics of moving bodies that Einstein noted that when A and B are moving that those times actually do differ. In fact, their differing sets up something called the relativity of simultaneity, which is highly non-intuitive and yet is that thing that makes relativity self-consistent. (Without it, time dilation and length contraction being present for the "moving" frame of reference no matter which frame is the moving one would result in a self-contradiction.)

As for your claim of having contacted the board of trustees: Your contributions show that you have not posted any such request on a trustee's talk page. More importantly, noone has contacted me regarding any such request, nor do I have any good reason to expect such a thing. (If you have really contacted them, I would assume that you have used the same language that you have used here. In that case, they would not touch your request with a 10-foot pole.)

Beyond that, I stand by this warning. Vandalize again, and I will initiate a RfC against you. (Yes. I know that you believe this "third postulate" business and that Copernicus came up with the principle of relativity, but noone else does. Forcing that POV on the relativity pages is therefore vandalism. Look at it this way: What really is right is not important in Wikipedia. Instead, what is important is that which is generally known or believed to be right. Significant minority opinions also are legitimately noted here. However, it has been some time since the opposition to relativity theory has even amounted to a significant minority.) --EMS | Talk 16:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't care what you gather, Schaefer, I'm not going to discuss relativity with a vandalizing bigot, I seek neutrality.

The issue is that you have non-neutral point of view and pigheadedly refuse

to allow a factual and neutral POV edit.

The email to the board of trustees has been sent, so prattle all you want.

Oh... and I almost forgot ... LOL.

Der alte Hexenmeister 20:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As best I can tell, the only POV that you will admit as "neutral" is your own. In any case, your changing a template is an escalation in the conflict. So kindly excuse me while I make good on a threat. --EMS | Talk 21:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

---

As best as YOU can tell, what YOU gather...

You didn't answer my question, Schaefer. I'll repeat it.

C'mon, Cardinals of the Holey Church of Relativity, explain to the world how your little tin god Einstein's religion works without the third premise:

the time required by light to travel from A to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to A, even if A and B are in relative motion.

You accept the third premise despite your bullshit there are only two, yet from what YOU gather it is not important, yet in FACT it is vital and central to Einstein's paper,

[1]

But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that

[2]

Der alte Hexenmeister 00:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I guess I don't have to do anything.

This is fun as hell to watch, though. Androcles attempts to steamroll his opinions here and gets flattened in response.

Jowr

---

You do not seem very sorry, even though you lied that you were. Der alte Hexenmeister 00:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

---

You should seek treatment for your anger issues. Both Wikipedia and USENET are a poor substitute for counseling.

As I said, I would help you learn relativity. I started - again - by correcting some of the errors on your webpage which you have not even bothered to comment on.

Jowr 00:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Just remember the issue here is Hillman's and Schaefer's refusal to include Einstein's time postulate, central to his crackpottery, they are vandals.

You should seek education for your mathematics issues, nobody in their right mind would consider a constant velocity as one that changes direction.

[3]

But anyway, when one teaches, two learn. Go ahead, tell me were I went wrong on these pages, O great arrogant teacher:

[4]

[5]

(I'll improve the gif when I have time, upload it to Wiki. I like the quality of [6]

Der alte Hexenmeister 10:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Why bother with that offer? I just responded to his claims, which he rebuffed by saying "I'm not going to discuss relativity with [you]". Then he repeated his challenge as if the response and his conter-response had never occurred. IMO, I have established what kind of person we are dealing with here. Now it is time to move on to the RfC noted below. You endorsement of it would be appreciated. --EMS | Talk 01:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Because if he actually learns relativity he will stop bothering the folks on USENET with his foul and useless attitude. One less crank on sci.physics/sci.physics.relativity is great. What happens here is largely irrelevant because he will be shut out because I doubt he can control himself.

It is worth a shot, I suppose. *shrug*

Jowr 01:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, I am something of an anti-relativist myself, in that I do believe in black holes and therefore believe that general relativity is not entirely correct. What I have come to realize is that the "anti-" must convince themself of it when they are wrong. Part of that is a willingness to accept being wrong. Unfortunately, when you come into a forum thinking that you have a wonderful insight here, it is higly embittering to be told that you are wrong, and most people become very defensive in reponse. I did that myself at first 11 years ago. Somehow, I caught myself starting to act like Androcles and immediately decided that I would not be like that. That is why I can do edits on the relativity pages that people like Chris Hillman can accept while at the same time trying to publish my own theory of spacetime.

Androcles is off in this own world, rejecting those who have rejected him. He first needs to see the foolishness of his attitude before we can realistically begin to help him understand relativity. So his real challenge is not in understanding relativity, but in understanding himself. I assure you that I have tried to talk to people like Androcles about that, but unfortunately they see it as another way of telling them that they are "all wrong", and even though I am trying to be helpful it still follows that you cannot tell anyone how improve without implicitly telling them that they have it wrong in the first place.

Look again at Androcles' "third premise":

the time required by light to travel from A to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to A, even if A and B are in relative motion.

We both know that Einstein did not claim that for a signal passing between A and B with the AB system is motion, but Androcles will defend his self-image by selectively quoting Einstein to make it appear that he did claim that. So we have no choice but to defend ourself and to defend Wikipedia by opposing him. So I'm sorry but it is not going to be that easy to change this person from being an anti-relativist. --EMS | Talk 02:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

---

It will be impossible, Schaefer, for Sagnac proves Einstein was wrong.

[7]

However, the issue here is your blind arrogance and refusal to include the third premise.

The first premise is self-referential, it includes the words

"relative velocity" in the third sentence, ["der Relativbewegung von Leiter und Magnet"] and all that vague waffle about the laws of physics doesn't say what the laws of physics are.

The second premise is said to be "apparently irreconcilable" with the first, but 15 years later the simpleton has to write a chapter to explain himself, with appeals to schoolchildren.

[8]

Note that the simpleton doesn't even discuss relative motion, claiming his second postulate is a simple law. Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler, t = x'/(c-v) measured in the stationary system, and c-v is not c measured in the stationary system. Hence the simpleton is self-contradictory and there is no way you, Hillman or any moron will ever convince a rational person to accept your religious beliefs. Der alte Hexenmeister 10:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Sagnac

MathPages "Despite the ease and clarity with which special relativity accounts for the Sagnac effect, one occasionally sees claims that this effect entails a conflict with the principles of special relativity. The usual claim is that the Sagnac effect somehow falsifies the invariance of light speed with respect to all inertial coordinate systems. Of course, it does no such thing, as is obvious from the fact that the simple description of an arbitrary Sagnac device given above is based on isotropic light speed with respect to one particular system of inertial coordinates, and all other inertial coordinate systems are related to this one by Lorentz transformations, which are defined as the transformations that preserve light speed."...

Sagnac does not say what you think it says, DaH... --Desdinova 12:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Sagnac works with light guides too.

The velocity of light in a fibre optic cable is independent of the motion of the source, but for the external observer the velocity of the cable is added. The source has the same velocity. In a Sagnac interferometer the source is in motion, for if you deny it, Sagnac is reduced to a simple Michelson interferometer, which is against the supposition of motion and the empirical evidence, the fringe shifts (aka beat frequency).

This is an example of the principle of relativity:

[9]

Note that the bottle moves from left hand to right and back again, taking twice as long in one direction as it does in the other.

This is Sagnac modelled using a ball as a photon:

[10]

Note that the ball curves in one frame of reference but runs straight in the other. Remember, the laws of physics are the same in all frames of reference, Einstein said so, and he did not include "inertial", either.

Sagnac does what I say it does and not what your web page author think it does or you think it does. Here are three quotations to support my contention, in reverse chronological order.

1) "Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler" -- IFC Einstein.

2) "RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.

RULE I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes." - Sir Isaac Newton - "Principia".

3) "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" -- William of Ockham.

You may know it as Ockham's Razor. It is quite sharp, don't cut yourself.:-)

As for inertial frames of reference, there are none to be found in Nature, Einstein did not use the word "inertial". Georges Sagnac was an experimental physicist who constructed an experiment while Einstein was writing his general theory of crackpottery (which Shaefer is trying to put a dent in, LOL) with his feet up on this table, playing his violin and munching his bowl of fruit. After all, what else does a huckster need to be happy? All successful hucksters are Mr. Nice Guy, or they'd fail in their profession.

Der alte Hexenmeister 23:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

---

RfC Initiated

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Der alte Hexenmeister. Note that is may behoove you to respond politely to this. --EMS | Talk 01:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hexenmeister: since some of your previous edits have been badly formatted (enough to make it hard to tell who said what), if you add your comment at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Der alte Hexenmeister. I will figure out where it belongs and move it to the proper place on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Der alte Hexenmeister. Please be polite at times while using WP, since your behavior here will be judged in part upon your willingness to contribute in a civil manner.

I see from one of your comments that you wish to propose that Ed and I be "banned" from editing the WP. Please see also WP:DR for a summary of Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures. Please note that a Request for comment (RfC) is a typical (and mild) dispute resolution procedure. In contrast, Blocking is a much more extreme measure which would not be warranted according to WP customs regarding Ed or myself. Banning is the most extreme measure, and is quite rare. Please note that WP:DR suggests ways of avoiding escalation of a dispute. ---CH 06:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no objections to anyone correcting my formatting.

I do object to Hillman and Schaefer arrogantly refusing to include Einstein's third premise, the time postulate (which is central to relativity), and lying that there are only two premises. NPOV should be adhered to, liars should be blocked. Lying is vandalism, Schaefer and Hillman are vandals and liars. I call for them to be blocked from editing Wikipedia if they will not correct there non-neutral point of view.

Der alte Hexenmeister 10:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hexenmeister, thank you for promptly replying in the RfC. I see you found the right section to put your comment in; good. However, please note that

1. "Schaefer and Hillman are vandals and liars" and "Gisse doesnt count, he's never read the paper and wouldn't understand it if he did" appear to violate WP:NPA.
2. "He is actually a victim of the malicious lies such people as Hillman and Schaefer spread" appears to violate WP:AGF-WP:CIV.
3. Referring (I think) to Gisse: "I was nasty to the little darling after he said he was sorry and then retracted it. How naughty of me." Your sarcasm tends to violate WP:CIV. As for the comment which you objected to, I already asked him not to do that anymore, which he has agreed to, and it seems he also apologized directly to you for this comment. Why not simply accept his apology? I think you will find that if you are nice and play fair, others here will be nice/fair in return.

---CH 14:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've crossed swords with snipper Gisse before, his apology was sarcastic and disingenuous. As I understand it, he is planning to take a math course, which is about time too. Your opinions and fake politeness mean nothing to me, nor does your sarcastic comment "I see you found the right section to put your comment in; good." which tends to violate WP:CIV. Hillman, an RfC has been initiated, battle has commenced. Your options are to allow factual edits and call a truce or come under fire. We will never be friendly, but in the interests of Wikipedia and the public I'll tolerate you. Now quit whining.

Der alte Hexenmeister 19:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I came because of the vandalism but I stayed for the show.

Jowr 22:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Notice that Hillman's whining gripes are now all of a personal nature, he's bitching about sarcasm and combativeness. He hasn't found fault with my edits to the page so there was no need for this talk, and he's as guilty of arrogant combativeness and sarcasm as any relativist. Your partisanship doesn't get you any brownie points either.

I'm not nice, Gisse, I never pretend to be, and I can be downright vicious. But I am honest, particularly when it comes to mathematics and physics. Hillman isn't nice but he puts up a false front. As for you, Hillman had to wipe your mouth out with soap and water, I'll give him credit for that. He wants to wipe his shoe clean of what he stepped in, but he should have looked where he was going in the first place. He's a fully paid up member of the Flat Earth Conspirators Executive Society (FECES), which you are attempting join.

[Flat Earth[11]]

If the cap fits, wear it. Der alte Hexenmeister 07:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Gisse: No. You are not honest.

Androcles: More serious examples (of incivility) include:

Taunting -- (Gisse, Schaefer, LOL comment)

Personal attacks -- (Gisse, first comment) Racial, ethnic, and religious slurs Profanity directed at another contributor Lies -- (Schaefer, Gisse, Hillman) Defacing user pages Giving users derogatory names via Pagemove Trolling Calling for bans or blocks --(Schaefer)

Ref: WP:CIV

Wikipedia calls lies "lies". So do I.

Gisse: I can produce any number of examples where you have been wrong on basic mathematics and logic while being unwilling to admit it.

Androcles:

Prove it. 

Gisse: I can also point out that you have failed to comment on my criticisms of your various webpages, on here and USENET.

Androcles: "Failed to comment" - I plead guilty. I'm under no obligation to escalate a dispute, I'll escalate at my choosing and I can ignore you any time I wish.

Gisse: In fact, you outright ignore them.

Androcles: Yes, in fact I do. I shall continue to ignore them if I choose.

Gisse: For example, on your energy square page you mix Newtonian and Relativistic dynamics together and act surprised that there is an inconsistency, while completely ignoring the comments that tell you that you can not do that.

Androcles: Yes indeed. By your mislogic, Einstein must use his own mathematics, he is not permitted to use Newton's or Leibnitz's calculus, you cannot mix Newtonian mathematics with Relativistic mathematics. I happen to agree with you. When you've completed your Newtonian math course you can rewrite mathematics for relativity. Make it your life's work for all I care.

Gisse: Hillman has done nothing but point out this is a place that actually has standards for conduct that are enforced.

Androcles: Which you and Schaefer violated from the start. That's why Hillman slapped you. Hard.

Gisse: I have adjusted as a result - you have not.

Androcles: The record speaks for itself. You have just said I am not honest (now escalating with due forethought), you lying tord, you haven't adjusted. Apologise immediately or I shall make a direct request for you to be blocked. Blocking

Gisse: By the way. I am a junior

Androcles: Yes, we know. You have a lot to learn, boy, and the first thing you need to know is what a constant velocity is.

In Newtonian physics it is c = AB/(tB-tA), in relativistic physics it is

c = ABA/(t'A-tA) and the two cannot be mixed.

End of discussion. Der alte Hexenmeister 08:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

... studying mathematics and physics at the University of Alaska - Fairbanks. My main topic of interest is general relativity. My education extends beyond "just a math course".

Jowr 07:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"Der Alte Hexenmesiter" wrote (and edited into this form)

Gisse: I can also point out that you have failed to comment on my criticisms of your various webpages, on here and USENET.

Androcles: "Failed to comment" - I plead guilty. I'm under no obligation to escalate a dispute, I'll escalate at my choosing and I can ignore you any time I wish.

I must admit to being a little perplexed by this exchange. As I parse it, it appears that Andreocles feels that dealing with the specific comments on his views will "escalate a dispute". Yet doing things like calling the person who just offerred you commentary a "vandalizing bigot" is a very poor way of avoiding an escallation.

Androcles - I can easily rewrite my response above to leave of the "LOL!" and the "I gather"s. The trouble with doing that is that I doubt that you would respond if I did. Besides, it is easy enough for you to ignore such wording if you are at all interested in a productive dialog. --EMS | Talk 15:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You've initiated an RfC against me, Schaefer. Get used to the idea, I am not your friend. I'm not about to assist you in your perplexities, parsings, seemings, gatherings, gleanings, guesses, gisses, feelings, sarcastic LOLs, general confusions or any other displays of your misunderstandings or lack of comprehension, as far as I am concerned you can remain as ignorant now as you were in 1999. [ http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4674b29449f08fb0?hl=en] Wed, Mar 17 1999 9:00 am. As I've already told you, shove it. Ask Gisse if you are perplexed and cannot gather where. I'm not getting into a discussion with an arrogant bigot on any subject using Wikipedia as a conveyance. If you wish to do battle with me one-on-one, whether relativity or flaming, USENET is available and I'll shred you there, I can exceed you in nastiness just as I can exceed you in anything else, incuding arrogance. After Gisse fails his Newtonian mathematics course and wastes his life writing his relativistic math he'll get a nice job as a janitor or burger flipper... on second thoughts burger flippers have to be nice to stay in work, janitors do not. Relativity is of no use at all, NASA-JPL are not hiring relativists.

[12]

BTW, a sure indication of a moron's mentality is his ability to spell simple words such as "escalation" and "Androcles". That was a minor infringement of Wikipedia's civility code, so why not start another RfC and whine that I said you can't spell? But don't lie and say I called you a moron, because even if I consider you to be one, that is my personal opinion of you and I don't voice my personal opinions outside talk pages. It is morons in general that cannot spell and I did say "such as". See how polite I am?

End of discussion. Der alte Hexenmeister 22:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

---

---

Androcles, does this attitude get things done for you in real life?

I'm retired, junior, I don't have to worry about it. You do. [snip] - have a whine, raise an RfC, I snipped you.

---

Since you removed all mention of it by removing most of my reply, I will put it back for others to see. Don't bother removing it again, I'll just put it back.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/STM/Scoundrels.htm

Hexenmeister put his webpage here himself to make it appear as if I said it because the previous link to http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html makes him look bad.

Jowr 00:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hexenmeister wrote, addressing Jowr (talk · contribs): "That's why Hillman slapped you. Hard." For the record, I have never slapped anyone in my life. I ask again that all participants try to respect relevant Wikipedia policies, including WP:CIV-WP:NPA. TIA ---CH 04:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ever the diplomat, aren't you, Hillman? You chewed him out for his disgraceful conduct. I call that "slapped" and he ran with his tail between his legs. Now he wants to whine that I did not address his ignorance. This is not the forum for discussion of relativity, he's had his chance on USENET and he blew it. I'll treat others as civilly as they treat me, and I bite back, only harder.

I repeat, I have no objection to anybody correcting my formatting, but to blatantly lie about Einstein's paper is vandalism, and certainly contrary to WP policy.

I have a suggestion for you, since you seem determined to appear fair. Why don't you check the facts and edit my version yourself? Feel free to format as necessary, as long as you adhere to facts I'll accept correction. I do not accept deletion. That's the best I can offer in resolving this petty issue. The third premise is central to SR, and Schaefer is lying when his says it is built on only two. When somebody lies, I call them a LIAR, and WP:CIV does indeed refer to lies. Der alte Hexenmeister 11:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hexenmeister, you wrote "I'll treat others as civilly as they treat me". Well, that certainly has not been my experience on this talk page. Please try to tone down the unpleasant tone of your comments. Please note that Wikipedia tries to encourage civility. TIA ---CH 20:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

We are under no obligation to respect your misunderstanding of Einstein's paper. In fact, since that is your view alone, we are under an onus (under WP:NPOV#Undue_weight) not to report it "even if it is true, even if you can prove it". However, your claim is not true for the following reasons:

1. t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B (for a light signal when A and B are stationary) can only exist in all frames of reference if the second postulate holds true. Therefore it is a lemma and not a postulate.
2. It does not hold true when A and B are in "relative motion" with respect to each other, nor when A and B are in motion with respect to the observer. It only holds true in the "stationary" reference frame of an observer, meaning that A and B are not moving with respect to the observer.

It is not fair to call you a liar since you actually believe the stuff that you are posting. However, you have been consistently opposed on these points for years by many, many other people. You should know better than to try to pawn it off here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. "End of dicussion". --EMS | Talk 14:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't addressing you, Schaefer, so get off your soapboax. BTW, http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif Do you see the terms x'/(c+v), x'/(c-v) there, shithead?

They don't exist, Einstein didn't write them, right?

Der alte Hexenmeister 20:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If you claim that someone lies, it is more than a little disingenuous to expect them not to respond. What are you afraid of? The real truth? BTW - That equation is Einstein's, and is one of the items that shows that your "third postulate" is misstated to begin with, and I described in item # 2 above. --EMS | Talk 21:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

1. t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B (for a light signal when A and B are stationary) can only exist in all frames of reference if the second postulate holds true.
2. t_B - t_A = x'/(c-v)
3. t'_A - t_B = x'/(c+v)

Therefore Einstein's third premise is central to SR; SR is built upon more than two premises and you are a f * cking LIAR, placing your non-neutral point of view in place of the truth, shithead. Of course I expect you to respond, imbecile, you are an arrogant jerk who thinks he's holier than thou. Now I don't give a fat fart whether you call Einstein's third premise a definition and his first premise a postulate (it is in fact an axiom), but as you say, and I agree, the second hypothesis is baloney if t_B - t_A =/= t'_A - t_B . F * ck the all frames of reference crap, he says (Section 3) quote: "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."

Moreover, I have not mentioned any third postulate, I was careful and called it a premise, you lying shit.

BUT!! I am not interested in teaching you SR, I'm interested in truthfully reporting Einstein's paper in Wikipedia and letting the public make up their own minds, which terrifies an arsehole like you. What are you afraid of? The real truth? I'll tell you the real truth. Einstein was too intelligent to be anything other than a huckster, he was way smarter than you'll ever be. He knew how to be Mr. Nice Guy, while he picked your pocket. His crap has cost the world millions, and you are part of the bullshit, trying to show how clever you are, but you are in fact stupid and a bigot. Now have another whine, tell me again I don't understand SR, you f * ckin' moron, carry on with your pissing contest. There haven't been too many responses to your RfC, have there, you agressive combative jerk? You are up against me now, do your worst. To echo the words of Newton, said of Ptolemy,

This is the story of a scientific crime. ... I mean a crime committed by a scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the ethics and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind of fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and history.

Einstein developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it is a crime against science and scholarship.

You, Schaefer, are a liar and a fraud.

Der alte Hexenmeister 01:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's see: You claim that

I have not mentioned any third postulate, I was careful and called it a premise.

That is true, but if you are elevating this "premise" to the same level as the two postulates, then you are in effect saying that this "permise" is a postulate instead of a lemma. Of course, if you are willing to say that this premise exists under the two postulates, then I will happily agree with that.

Also, I agree with your equations numbered just above. Do note, BTW, that when v=0, equations 2 and 3 become equal. That is the case when simultaneity can be defined, as Einstein noted. BTW: The second postulate applies in each reference frame with respect to the observer. So if the AB system is in motion with respect to the observer, your equations 2 and 3 are required by the second posulate, since the "closing rate" of the light with respect to A and B must be modified if c is always the same with respect to the observer. --EMS | Talk 07:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

---

So...how much more of this is required before he is blocked?

Jowr 01:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't yet issued a request to have him blocked (or you, for that matter). Given the number of responses to his RfC, it seems pointless. We'll just go on editing out each other until he gives up as he did on USENET in 2000 or I die. One thing is certain, he can't win. If you want to issue a blocking request against him I'll second it. (Here comes the whine "I didn't mean him when I said "he"). You are out of your league, Gisse, and your prejudice shows. When are you going to teach me relativistic math and show me how a constant velocity reverses direction from +c to -c when it is still Geschwindigkeit c, junior? I want a relativistic computer like yours. Der alte Hexenmeister 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I would try to teach it to you, but there really isn't any point because you still refuse to acknowledge your misconceptions on the matter. I have already pointed out the flaws in your arguments. Since you are willing to go back and edit my responses, it is clear you did see what I said and just don't care to respond either because you don't know how or don't understand the argument.

To answer a previous question whose answer you edited...You asked for me to provide evidence for you being wrong and unwilling to admit it. Here it is. Please stop removing it from this discussion page as it is valid to the topic at hand and is not in violation of Wikipedia policy.

http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html

Jowr 02:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

When are you going to teach me relativistic math and show me how a constant velocity reverses direction from +c to -c when it is still Geschwindigkeit c, junior? I want a relativistic computer like yours and the idiot Dork Van de merde's. Schaefer has one too, but nobody will tell me where I can buy one. All the computers I know of seem to work on Newtonian math. Der alte Hexenmeister 12:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting quip, but not a bad point. That misuse of "velocity" in the translation when Einstein used the German in a way that is known to mean "speed" in English has been a nuisance more than once. Basically velocity is a vector as you correctly surmised, while speed is a scalar which is the absolute value of the velocity vector. If we use v as the scalar (as opposed to v, which is the vector since it is bolded), then by components $v={\sqrt {{{\mathbf {v} }_{x}}^{2}+{{\mathbf {v} }_{y}}^{2}+{{\mathbf {v} }_{z}}^{2}}}$. c is a scalar value, not a vector value. (If c was a vector value, your argument would be valid, BTW.) --EMS | Talk 14:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

How come you respond to questions I ask of Gisse, and Gisse responds to questions I ask of you, shithead? Junior questions are for juniors, moron.

You, Schaefer, are a liar and a fraud.

1. t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B (for a light signal when A and B are stationary) can only exist in all frames of reference if the second postulate holds true.
2. t_B - t_A = x'/(c-v)
3. t'_A - t_B = x'/(c+v)

Therefore Einstein's third premise is central to SR; SR is built upon more than two premises and you are a f * cking LIAR, placing your non-neutral point of view in place of the truth, shithead. Der alte Hexenmeister 19:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

To be honest with you, we are both having some fun with you. Gisse it trying to convert you, while I merely have decided to respond for the record, more than for you. I think that both you and me have now stated our case as best we can, so it is time for me to settle back and figure out just how to get you blocked. (Actually, your last edit to theory of relativity was an obvious type of vandalism known as blanking. You are invited to keep that up, as it will make securing a block against you much easier.)

I assure you quite kindly (even given the invectives you are hurling at me here) that you are mistaken about relativity theory. More importantly, our view (be it correct or not) is that which properly reflects the current state of human knowledge, and that is what Wikipedia is meant to document. You are free to continue to fight until we do get you blocked. I know that you are sincere, which is one reason why Jawr gets called down on that edit of his. Even so, it does not excuse your refusal to respect the purpose, processes, and civility of Wikipedia. In fact, when you do get blocked, the reason may well be your lack of civility as much as anything else. --EMS | Talk 19:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Androcles, could you at least argue about something that isn't as trivial as misunderstanding what a lemma is? The "third premise" requires the second postulate and is thus not a postulate. Since the "third premise" is only used to prove other things, it is also not a theorem and thus it is a lemma. Since you claim to have a degree in mathematics, this should make sense to you.

Jowr 21:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:EinsteinTrain.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:EinsteinTrain.gif. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Theory of relativity

Your recent edit to Theory of relativity (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 19:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Androcles - This is due to your calling me a "a f * cking LIAR" and "shithead" in this edit. Do a personal attack again, and a {{npa2}} template will be added. Another time, and a {{npa3}} template will be added and a report to the administrators made at WP:PAIN. After that, you will hopefully be blocked. In any case, you have been warned! --EMS | Talk 20:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I call a spade a spade, Schaefer. I've seen your warnings before, too. A liar is someone that tell lies. Der alte Hexenmeister 21:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

This is for calling me a "liar" again. (Please do stop and think. You really can say the same thing without labelling me a "liar", and I would not mind your "winning" this round.) --EMS | Talk 21:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I blocked you for 24h. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not prat around William M. Connolley 22:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Understood.

The heart of special relativity is Einstein's statement, reference:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

"we establish by definition that the ``time required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time it requires to travel from B to A", and as used in the equation: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif from which the so-called "Lorentz" transformations are derived. It is a LIE to say "One of the strengths of special relativity is that it can be derived from only two premises", three are essential. It is a LIE to say "The laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame of reference" The laws of physics apply in ALL frames of reference, and Einstein did use the word "inertial".

IN FACT, he said: "If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be (1/2 tv^2/c^2) second slow. Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."

A continuous curved line is not inertial.

It is a LIE to say "The speed of light in a vacuum is constant (specifically, 299,792,458 meters per second relative to the observer)." Einstein calls his speed of light 'c' and it is measured from A to A in time t'A-tA. Geschwindigkeit is the magnitude of Geschwindigkeit.

If you are here to write an encyclopedia you should not be telling lies or pratting around with things you do not understand. I am not attempting to rewrite relativity, I am concerned only with the FACTS, with a NEUTRAL point of view. There is no requirement for adjectives such as "strength" or claims of the speed of light being 299,792,458 meters per second relative to the observer. In SR, the speed of light is 'c' and is measured from A to A in time t'A-tA. Thus Wikipedia is presenting lies by Schaefer and Hillman.

Der alte Hexenmeister 12:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR rule

Androcles - Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

You have reverted theory of relativity by re-inserting the {{POV}} tag four times within 24 hours. (Note that the first time you inserted that tag does not count towards 3RR. So you actually have inserted that tag five times now.) That is a violation of this policy. However, you have not been previously warned about it, and it is a faux pas to request that you be blocked for it without your being warned first. So please consider yourself warned.

BTW - Even if you adhere to this rule from now on, you will sooner of later be called to account if you continue to place the {{POV}} tag on theory of relativity. There is a consensus that your view is improper under WP:NPOV#Undue_weight as described in talk:Theory of relativity. Because of that, your use of the tag is considered to be POV and therefore a form of vandalism. (I know that you believe what you are saying. It still does not belong here.) --EMS | Talk 05:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked you for 24h for 3rr / disruption. Please try to contribute productively William M. Connolley 07:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks (again)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --EMS | Talk 01:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)