User talk:Cadwgan Gedrych

I'm interested in why you are so opposed to the Special Relativity article's second postulate treatment, and yet you don't go to the article to correct it. If the article is completely and demonstrably wrong on that point, people would support you if you corrected it. And why pretend to be two or three different editors? Slim

The Wiki Way is to Talk about major changes first. And I did not pretend to be 2 people; a colleague of mine made the second peer review vote. Cadwgan_Gedrych

That's the WikiWay up to a point. If you know there's a mistake in an article, you are meant to change it. See Wikipedia:Verifiability Claims must be referenced, especially when challenged. You can remove that sentence (the second postulate experiment sentence). Cut and paste it onto the Talk page. Ask someone to provide a reference. Wait a week. If no reference is provided, delete the sentence. You'd be perfectly within your rights to do this. Or if there are different views on the extent to which the second postulate has been shown to be correct, then the sentence can be re-written. X believes that . . . (reference) but Y maintains that . . . (reference). In other words, it should be written as though it were an academic paper. Slim

Thanks for the advice and explicit instructions; I'll carry them out Monday (12-13-2004). Cadwgan_Gedrych

I looked through the edit history and the person who added the claim seems to have been Sokane. I have therefore left a note on his Talk page and sent him an e-mail asking him to provide a reference. If he doesn't respond within a reasonable period, you are more than entitled to remove the claim and any of its implications.

Anyone is entitled to edit Wikipedia articles. The advice is "Be bold." In reality, most editors prefer to discuss issues on the Talk pages before making substantial changes. But if a claim is challenged, they must provide a reference, and it should be from a reputable (preferably peer-reviewed) journal, not from someone's weblog. Anyone who engages in an edit war with you by re-inserting an unsubstantiated claim is in the wrong, and you could approach first a mediator to help sort out the dispute, and if that doesn't work, the arbitration committee. Note also that no editor is allowed to revert an article more than three times in 24 hours (the so-called 3RR rule). If anyone does, they are subject to a ban of, I believe, 24 hours. Other pages that might help you are: Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute, Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and the one I gave you already, Wikipedia:Verifiability. I'll let you know if I hear back from Sokane. Hope this helps. Slim 02:47, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

You have been very helpful. Many thanks! See my reply to your message to Sokane at "Sokane's place." Dec 13, 2004 Cadwgan_Gedrych

Good faith

Cadwgan -

You claim in a now archive talk:special relativity that you are acting "in good faith". I will acknowledge that you are sincere about your beliefs. However, while that is necessary to establish good faith, it is not sufficient.

You are trying to do battle against special relativity itself. However, this is not venue where you can do that. As a general rule, your viewpoints are excluded from Wikipedia as "original research". LIke it or not, part of acting in good faith is in censoring yourself so as to be productive member of this community. I am doing that with my own alternate ideas regading general relativity, and am productive here as a result. You, on the other hand, seem to want to use this as a venue for basking SR. That is not proper, and your bias in this are is a reason why you should rerfain from editing in that page (just as my bias against black holes keeps me from editing articles on them).

The bottom like is this: Wikipedia exists to documewnt human knowledge. It is not a part of general human knowledge that you are right in you assertions against SR or even that you may be right. Without that, your views do not belong here, per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. --EMS | Talk 03:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[My reply to EMS:]

No, I am not trying to bash SR in this case, as should be evident from any or all of my current comments at the SR discussion page; I am simply pointing out the problems with the SR article's treatment of the 2nd postulate.

Can you show how to experimentally measure light's one-way speed between two clocks that are not moving relative to each other? The 2nd postulate portion of the SR article implied that this could be done.

Contrary to your sole rebuttal above, it is definitely a part of current human knowledge that no one has ever measured light's speed between two same-frame clocks, which is obviously the definitive light speed experiment, and the only one to which the 2nd postulate could have pertained to at the time it was given. Cadwgan Gedrych 15:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The Einstein synchonization procedure is based on c being uniform and isotropic in all frames of reference. So once the clocks are synchornized, your two-clock experiment is the measurement of the propagation time of the beam as it travels between the synchronized clocks.

However, this is not the only possible verification of the second postulate: It is known for instance that the Michelson-Morely experiment, the transverse Doppler effect, and the Kennedy-Thorndyke experients results combined can only be explained through special relativity. (See [1]) That in an of itself is a confirmation of the second postulate.

Overall, I am not impressed by you or your arguments. Most scientists (including myself) consider SR to be well verified. That is what is important in the special relativity article. --EMS | Talk 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

To EMS: You said "two-clock experiment," as if it could actually be performed, or even had already been performed, but you cannot tell us how to perform it. What is wrong with this picture?

You claim above that things such as the MMx confirmed the second postulate, and could be explained only by SR. Neither of these claims is true according to relativists such as John A. Wheeler (who co-wrote "Spacetime Physics"), who stated that the extended Lorentzian theory can physically explain all known experimental results. (Whereas SR physically explains nothing at all.)

Yes, any null result is consistent with the second postulate, but as of today the only way Einstein's second postulate differs from the viable Lorentzian theory is in the case of light's one-way speed between two same-frame clocks, a case which remains open.

Please see my latest stuff at the SR talk page. Cadwgan Gedrych 19:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

We are now solidly into the realm of WP:NOR. It is up to you to show where in a respectable publication your allegations are made. If you cannot do that, then under Wikipedia policy your views are the ones that suspect. Even for the Wheeler remark I would like to know the reference so that I can verify that it says what you claim it says.

Beyond that, you have blatantly chosen to ignore my description of how the two-clock measurement can be done, and my noting that it is a combination of three experiments that confirm special relativity as a whole. Between that and you blatant SR-bashing in saying that "SR ... explains nothing at all" leads me to conclude that arguing with you is a waste of time. --EMS | Talk 02:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, I quoted Einstein. If that is not respectable enough for you, then I would like to know what is. And you can check out Wheeler's book at the library. Also, many respectable sources have stated that special relativity is a theory of principle, not one of physical explanation, and I assumed that you were at least knowledgeable enough to know these simple facts. But you can easily prove them to yourself (I can only hope) by trying to tell us (for just one example) how the special relativity of relativity physically explains the Michelson-Morley experimental null result. I want a specific physical explanation, not a hand-waving, mathematical statement. And while you are at it, tell me exactly how Einstein's clocks differ from Galileo's. Cadwgan Gedrych 19:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

RFC filed against DVdm

Please feel free to endorse it. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DVdm. --EMS | Talk 02:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Special relativity

In talk:special relativity, you wrote:

The article's second postulate section still mentions measuring light's speed, but Einstein never mentioned doing this. What he did mention was presetting clocks to obtain a prechosen value "c." (This is given explicitly in John Wheeler's book Spacetime Physics, in case you need a ref.) (Of course, it was also stated by Einstein, but not as clearly as by Wheeler.) (Think about it: If the travel "time" is given up front, then there is no actual speed measurement being made.)

Do you honestly think the article is OK in this case? (And this is not the only major problem, as I have tried to point out.)

There are all kinds of things wrong here. For example:

The article's second postulate section still mentions measuring light's speed

No it does not mention measuring the speed. Instead it establishes a convention as to what the speed is. More important to the second posulate that any given value for the speed is light's motion being isotropic.

Here is the article's second postulate section:

"Second postulate - Invariance of c - The speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant (c) which is independent of the motion of the light source."

"The power of Einstein's argument stems from the manner in which he derived startling and seemingly implausible results from two simple assumptions that were founded on observation. An observer attempting to measure the speed of light's propagation will get the same answer no matter how the observer or the system's components are moving."

Do you not see the word "measure"? And where is anything about a convention?

What he did mention was presetting clocks to obtain a prechosen value "c."

Once again I disagree. Einstein outlined a procedure for synchronizing clocks which are at rest with respect to each other, and which assumes the validity of the second postulate in all frames of reference. Einstein also shows how this procedure and the postulates of relativity combine to produce the relativity of simultaneity given under SR.

Here are Einstein's words - disagree with them if you will:

"...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."

Note his quotes around the word "time"; that means that it was not an actual time measured by actual clocks, but was merely a stipulated "time."

This was done prior to the second postulate, and the time of the speed of light within the second postulate is based solely on the given definition, which merely sets clocks to get c in all directions in all frames, as Einstein said.

In no way did - as you claim - the definition "assume the validity of the second postulate" because the former came first.

The second postulate could not exist sans the definition.

I don't know if this view makes any sense to you, but I doubt that you are willing to do the hard work needed to figure it out (although you seem to have a good head on your shoulders such that you are capable of doing so). SR is very non-intuitive, and requires you to give up certain ideals of Newtonian phsyics which experiment and experience have shown just do not work in the real world for objects moving at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light.

Overall, my experience has been that this type of discussion proves nothing to either side. In the end the "anti" has to convince himself of it when he is wrong. I have convinced myself of being wrong on several issues regarding general relativity and my own attempt to modilfy it, but the context of that work is such that I cannot see anything similar happenning to me in regards to my acceptance of SR. --EMS | Talk 20:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you even look at John Wheeler's SR book Spacetime Physics to see how he presented the definition, or did you just make up your mind sans any facts?

If you really think that you know SR, then why not tell me the simple difference between Einstein's clocks and those of classical physics.

Also, tell me exactly why there has been no experiment - not even on paper - in the one-way case.

You simply try to go on your merry way while completely ignoring all of these important questions and issues. Cadwgan Gedrych 18:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Cadwgan wrote:

... the time of the speed of light within the second postulate is based solely on the given definition, which merely sets clocks to get c in all directions in all frames, as Einstein said.

Kindly explain how it is is possible to set the clocks like that if c is not uniform and isotropic in all frames of reference.

On Wheeler's definition: I assume that you are refering to the second postulate. No, I have not read that book, but if his definition is like Rindler's then the first postulate is implied in the wording and it indeed declares the uniform constancy of c on its own. That's not quite the way Einstein intended it, but so be it.

That is all that I will respond to, and is more than I should. The simple truth of the matter is that if you permitted yourself to view special relativity in its own terms, the answers would be obvious. I am sure that all of your questions have been answered on the USENET. If you have not raised any of those issues there by now, then you should. Just be aware that your refusing the accept the answer you get does not mean that the issue has not been dealt with. For myself, I see no reason to argue with someone who will define my answers as wrong. --EMS | Talk 03:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"That is all I will respond to" does not tell us why no one has ever performed the unidirectional version of the Michelson-Morley experiment (i.e., no one has ever measured light's one-way speed between two clocks in any given frame).

If you do not know the answer, then you cannot understand SR.

"That is all I will respond to" does not tell us the difference between Einstein's and Newton's clocks.

If you do not know the answer, then you cannot understand SR.

I am not being flippant. I am being honest.

Let me see if you can "view relativity in its own terms":

(i) Show us how - if only on paper - we can measure light's one-way speed between two same-frame clocks.

(ii) Show us the precise (math) difference between Einstein's clocks and Galileo's clocks.

This is vital because the prime difference between SR and Lorentzian physics is the manner in which Einstein's clocks are related temporally. (As Einstein said, given the clocks of classical physics, light's one-way speed varies as in his own equation w = c - v.)

You have so far refused to show the derivation of this equation, even though this single simple equation prompted the very creation of SR.

And no one has answered any of my questions in the Newsgroups. On the contrary, they studiously avoid even talking about such questions. (Indeed, you yourself saw Dirk come in from the Groups, and not say a word about my simple SR challenges.)

"Kindly explain how it is is possible to set the clocks like that if c is not uniform and isotropic in all frames of reference."

As Einstein's equation w = c - v told us, c is not "uniform and isotropic" unless Einstein's clocks are used.

Do you not know the difference between relative time and absolute time? The only way to see the difference is by looking at a pair of clocks in each of two frames, one Galilean and one Einsteinian.

But you refuse to do this. And yet you somehow blame me for not "viewing relativity in its own terms," whatever that is supposed to mean. Don't be afraid to find out the truth about SR. You have no real vested interest in the "theory," do you?

For example, look at Wheeler's book where he fully and carefully describes Einstein's "synchronization" process. Basically, all that happens is that the distant clock is PRESET by Einstein to read the baselessly prechosen value x/c, where x is the ruler-measured distance between the clocks. Naturally, once this has been done, the "result" will be c for light's one-way "speed."

But can you in all honesty call this a measured speed?

Nope, because there was no actual experiment. (As I said, the one-way experiment has yet to be performed, even on paper.)

Can you tell us why it has not been performed? Cadwgan Gedrych 20:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Cadwgan wrote:

... the prime difference between SR and Lorentzian physics is the manner in which Einstein's clocks are related temporally.

Amazing. You ask how Einstein's and Galileo's clocks are related, and then state the answer yourself. If you want to understand relativity, then all you have to do is to accept it on its own terms. "There are none so blind as those who will not see". You know the answers to these questions already. So stop acting dogmatic, and ask how SR can be true instead of how it can't be.

I won't say more. It won't do either on us any good if I did. --EMS | Talk 00:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

That was not amazing because it was not the answer.

The answer must be given by you as proof that you understand SR.

The answer must be in the following form:

clock 1                             clock 2
[?]------classical frame A-----------[?]

[?]------Einsteinian frame B---------[?]
clock 3                             clock 4

What is dogmatic about this? Cadwgan Gedrych 18:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing to prove to you. Unlike you, I am quite comfortable with SR, and see no need to tear it down. I admit that dealing with you is tempting, since you have shown yourself to be intelligent, throughtful, and considerate here even as you have engaged in your inappropriate campaign. But what do I get out of it if I answer? Am I going to be helping you to see SR as those who accept it see it? Or am I going to be getting into the standard "this can't be right" cycle that I have been through countless times on the newsgroups (and which you have no doubt been on the other side of many times yourself)? --EMS | Talk 18:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

All physical postulates must pertain to some future physical experiment. To which future physical experiment does the "second postulate" pertain? Cadwgan Gedrych 20:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Please explain

You wrote:

... even though the round-trip experiment was performed in 1887, no one-way experiment has ever been performed, not even on paper using ideal rulers and clocks.

I do not see the need for a "one-way" experiment if you are willing to consider the MMX a "round-trip" experiment. After all, the MMX is meant to detect anisotropies in c, not to measure it directly (although that can be done with a variation of the MMX).

Just to review, in Newtonian physics if the speed of light is c is some base frame, then if one is in a frame which is moving with respect to the base frame at a rate of v, then the speed of light will be $c{\sqrt {1-v^{2}/c^{2}}}$ when the light is moving perpendicular to the relative motion of the frame with respect to the base frame. At the same time if light is going in the direction of the relative veloctiy of the current frame with respect to the base frame, then the speed will be c - v. At the same time, movement of the light against the frame's movements will make the speed of light c + v. These combine to make the average speed of light for an out-and-back trip $c(1-v^{2}/c^{2})$. Using the fringes from a beam light which is split and later reconmbines after going down perpendicular paths can detect the difference between light going at $c{\sqrt {1-v^{2}/c^{2}}}$ and at $c(1-v^{2}/c^{2})$. The MMX did that test, and it came up empty.

My point is that even though it is a two-way test, it can none-the-less detect one-way anisotropies. Given that, why to you keep asking for an explicit one-way test? --EMS | Talk 19:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It is possible for physical clock slowing and/or physical rod length contractions to completely conceal any and all round-trip anisotropies, but it is - contrastingly - impossible to conceal any one-way anistropies as long as synchronous clocks are used, as Einstein pointed out with his simple equation w = c - v.

(For example, as John Wheeler carefully pointed out, one can easily have full round-trip nullness even without physical clock slowing by simply giving the rods an extra general contraction, where both rods get shorter in addition to the standard Lorentz shrinkage of the horizontal rod. (And of course, we could also have the vertical rod get longer, but this strains the imagination.)

Thus, Einstein was forced to replace synchronous clocks with his specially-designed asynchronous clocks in order to obtain his baselessly prechosen "one-way nullness."

As Einstein and Wheeler knew and know, even if rods shrink and clocks slow (thereby concealing any round-trip anisotropies), we can still have one-way variance because clock slowing and rod shrinkage are independent of clock synchronization.

You can easily see this on paper by using a pair of slowed clocks placed at the end points of a shrunken horizontal rod.

Basically, the physical reasons for this are as follow:

[a] It is impossible to measure light's one-way speed without using two clocks, and

[b] not even slowed clocks and a shrunken rod cannot hide the physical fact that each frame moves differently past a passing light ray.

As I have pointed out, no one has yet performed the one-way version of the Michelson-Morley experiment, which proves that the round-trip case and the one-way trip case differ fundamentally. Cadwgan Gedrych 13:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A one-way MMX is an oxymoron to begin with, given the modus operndi on the experiment. Indeed, I cannot figure out the use of the one-way experiment given that the clocks must be synchronized to give c in that direction first. Now I will admit that if you don't get c in the other direction (after having gotten it in the first direction) that there is a problem. But then again, what would that mean, other than there there is an anisotropy in c to begin with?

Fundamentally, the issue is not the one-way value of c but whether there are any anisotropies in c. The anisotropies are much easier to detect that a direct discrepancy in c anyway. Note that the Kennedy-Thorndyke experiment, by using arms of dissimilar lengths, tested for the hiding of the aether effects due to length contraction and found none. Also note that by the time Lorentz was done theorizing about the aether, he had created a substance that made the spacetime appear to be in perfect accord with special relativity. In fact, as Einstien foresaw in his 1905 paper, Lorentz had created an aether that was superfluous because it could never be detected!

I think that you should step back and look again at the issues involved with SR and the experimentation done regarding it. The clocks are the same as Galileo's, but their spacetime is something different. You must stop demanding that "good" clocks synchronize (except when they are at rest wrt each other), or at least try doing so in a thought experiment. In essense, you need to let yourself see spacetime as Einstein came to see it.

Beyond that, if you don't care for that then so be it. Your constructive comments are welcome, and you do seem to be able to be constructive in that you are flagging real misunderstandings on the part of other editors. Even so, your anti-relativity stand is a bother here. It would be nice if you could at least see things as the rest of us do even in you don't want to accept it. As-is, you are amazingly close to doing so, to the point where, as I just wrote, you are actually somewhat constructive here. Let's just say that as long as your postings remain at least as constructive as your more recent ones, I will not invoke my threat to remove them. Even so, it would be nice if you were more "with the program" here. --EMS | Talk 14:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as light's measured speed is concerned, an atomic clock has only the single physical property of intrinsic atomic vibration. Therefore, once a clock has been given a constant speed through space, its intrinsic atomic vibrational rate is set, and nothing more can happen to the clock to alter its recorded time (given an SR environment).

Similarly, as far as light's measured speed it concerned, a ruler has only the single physical property of intrinsic length, and once a ruler has been given a certain constant velocity through space, its unique physical length is set, and nothing more can be done to alter any of its recorded distance measurements (given an SR environment).

Suppose we are given that clocks physically slow and rulers physically contract as the move through space. Supposed they change according to the formula
1/sqr(1 - v²/c²),
where v/c is the ratio of a clock's or ruler's speed v through space to light's speed through space c (as per Maxwell's equations).

Only if we are given these (or similarly physically distorted) rulers and clocks can light's round-trip, one-clock speed be c in all directions in all inertial frames.

However, even given slowed clocks and contracted rulers, light's one-way, two-clock speed will still vary with frame velocity according to the formula w = c²/(c - v), as long as the clocks are absolutely synchronous.

The above proves that one-way, two-clock variance must occur when absolutely synchronous clocks are used, even if clocks are slowed, and rods are contracted. It also proves that the only way to obtain SR's one-way invariance (using two same-frame clocks) is by replacing absolutely synchronous clocks with absolutely asynchronous clocks, and then setting (forcing) the latter to get "c" one-way via a definition, as did Einstein.

After noting that round-trip invariance/isotropy was given (for all practical purposes) by the Michelson-Morley experiment (even though their names were omitted), Einstein [1905] noted that the time portion of light's one-way speed must be given by definition because we have no means of absolutely synchronizing clocks. He also noted in his book that light's one-way speed would be c ± v if synchronous clocks were used.

Einstein also noted in his book that in order to get his wished-for (albeit baselessly wished-for) one-way invariance, we must simply and summarily abandon absolutely synchronous clocks. (Special Relativity, 1961 Edition, page 27, "... if we discard [the assumption of absolute time or absolutely synchronous clocks], then the conflict between the law of propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity disappears.")

Clearly, Einstein's definition of clock "synchronization" is a vital part of light's one-way speed, and clearly, light's one-way speed is the only speed about which special relativity could have postulated, given round-trip invariance via experiment.

Does the WIKI relativity article's second postulate section mention anything about a definition of "synchronization"? Does it mention that light's one-way speed would vary given absolutely synchronous clocks? Does it mention that Einstein was forced to discard synchronous clocks, and then had to force clocks via a definition to obtain one-way invariance? Does it mention the fact that even given slowed clocks and shrunken rods and round-trip invariance, light's one-way speed can still vary as long as truly or absolutely synchronous clocks are used? Cadwgan Gedrych 15:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You wrote:

However, even given slowed clocks and contracted rulers, light's one-way, two-clock speed will still vary with frame velocity according to the formula w = c²/(c - v), as long as the clocks are absolutely synchronous.

Kindly show me how you reach that odd conclusion, as it seems to be the crux of the issue here. --EMS | Talk 20:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you not been following the discussion? Did you not see my direct reference to Einstein's own equation w = c - v?

There is nothing odd about my above merely extended version of Einstein's own equation. Just as Einstein did, I used absolute synchronization, and merely added slowed clocks and contracted rods, as I stated above.

You can do the simple algebra (I hope).

Suspiscion: You are neglecting the relativity of simultaneity, meaning that you are basing this assertion on a subset of the relativitic effects instead of using the full Lorentz contractions. In that case, all that you are proving is that SR is incompatible with absolute synchronization. I agree. Maybe you need to explain why that bothers you instead. --EMS | Talk 20:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for anyone to "prove that SR is incompatible with absolute time"; that's a given if there ever was one. All I have been trying to do here since day one is to show the many inadequacies of the WIKI SR 2nd postulate section. I feel that I have done this beyond the call of duty, so I hereby "resign" from trying to clear up the pitiful WIKI version of the all-important 2nd postulate. Cadwgan Gedrych 13:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You have been trying to show the inadequacies of the second postulate iteslf! To the extent that you efforts are not original research they are already well-refuted and in any case fall under the WP:NPOV#Undue_weight category of belonging to an "extremely small minority" such that they are not worthy of coverage in the SR article.

Be my guest with trying to impose global synchronisation on spacetime. I will admit that the relativity of simultaneity is a difficult concept to get used to, as it means that motion "tilts" time (or rather your "time axis"). All that I can say is that your efforts to refute SR fall into the category of "making Newtonian demands": By claiming the absolute simultaneity must exist, you are only showing the relativity and Newtonian physics are incompatible.

In any case, I accept your "resignation". Even so, I thank you for asking some astute questions. Let's just say that I have more respect for you than for another pro-relativity editor. I wish you luck, but once again advise trying to see how relativity works instead of how is does not. (You are a smart person, and my own experience with trying to change GR [which is ongoing], is that it very much helps to "know thy enemy".) --EMS | Talk 14:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No 2nd Postulate Needed for SR

Hi, I noticed your comments about the 2nd postulate. I wrote up a short piece about how the 2nd postulate is not really needed. You might be interested in its perspective:

Albert Einstein's 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" introduced the special theory of relativity. Special relativity considers that observers in inertial reference frames, which are in uniform motion relative to one another, cannot perform any experiment to determine which one of them is "stationary". This is actually Galileo's principle of relativity; Einstein's contribution was to explicitly include electromagnetism within this principle by replacing, in the formalism, the Galilean transformations with Lorentz transformations and to see that this led to many surprising consequences. In particular it overthrew the Newtonian concept of absolute time and required the speed of light in a vacuum to be the same for all these observers, regardless of their motion, or the motion of the source of the light, since the invariance of the speed of light is a consequence of Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism.

This is the strength of special relativity, that it can be derived from such a single, basic principle: the invariance of the laws of physics under a shift of inertial reference frames, known as Lorentz covariance.

--Michael C. Price ^talk 19:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI Mega Society Judgement

As you may have heard the Mega Society article was deleted awhile ago, at the end of an acrimonious AfD/DRV process. There is a wide divergence between deletion policy (as defined by various policy guideline documents) and deletion practice, as implemented by admins (who claim to be following the "spirit" of the law). Consequently there are lessons to be learnt from the experience, which will not be obvious from reading the guidelines. Here are some tips for future conduct:

• Single purpose users are frowned upon and were a frequent bone of contention during the AfD and DRV processes. So I urge you all to "establish" yourself as Wikipedians: create, edit and even ... delete articles! There are plenty of articles that need attention.
• It is a very good idea to put something on your user page, (it doesn't matter what) to avoid showing up as redlinked users -- being redlinked will count against you in any debate.
• When voting, include brief reasons which are grounded in policy (votes not backed by reasoning may be discounted; too much reasoning will be ignored).

Given the bias against soliciting (see judgement) I may not be able to contact you again, so I suggest you put the Mega Society in your watchlists.

The closing admin's comments on the Mega Society:

Within the argumentation of the debate, the most significant point raised by those who supported the article was that a new draft was available. The article is not protected, so this may be posted at any time and (assuming it is not substantially similiar to the older version) it will be judged anew on its merits. This is good news for you.

The bad news for you is that it is well-established practice within Wikipedia to ignore completely floods of newer, obviously "single-issue POV", contributors at all our deletion fora. I'm among the most "process-wonkish" of Wikipedians, believe me, and even process-wonks accept that these sorts of voters are completely discountable. Wikipedia is not a pure democracy; though consensus matters, the opinion of newcomers unfamiliar with policy is given very little weight. Your vote, that of Tim Shell, and that wjhonson were not discounted. The others supporting your view were. I promise you that it is almost always true that, within Wikipedia, any argument supported by a flood of new users will lose, no matter how many of the new users make their voices known. In the digital age, where sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting are as easy as posting to any message board, this is as it should be for the sake of encyclopedic integrity. It is a firm practice within Wikipedia, and it is what every policy and guideline mean to imply, however vaguely they may be worded. (I do agree that our policies, written by laypeople mostly, could do with a once-over from an attorney such as myself; however, most laypeople hate lawyers, so efforts to tighten wording are typically met with dissent.)

If your supporters were more familiar with Wikipedia, they would realize that, invariably, the most effective way to establish an article after it has been deleted in a close AfD is to rewrite it: make it "faster, better, stronger." This is, in fact, what you claim to have done with your draft. Good show. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So the outcome was not entirely negative, although I was disappointed by the admin's rather cavalier approach evidenced by the response to my enquiry:

.... why did you discount the votes of, say, User:GregorB or User:Canon? They are not new users, nor did I solicit them. I presume by Tim Shell you mean Tim Smith? ...... --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

to which I received this rather off-hand reply:

User:GregorB offered a very brief comment not supported by policy. User:Canon did take the time to offer analysis at DRV, but he had been among the first voters at the AfD to offer a mere "Keep" without explanation; therefore, I assumed he had been solicited by someone. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

which didn't fill me with confidence about Wiki-"due process".

Anyway, my grumpiness aside, the Mega Society article, is presently under userfied open-development at User:MichaelCPrice/mega, and will reappear at some point, when (hopefully) some of the ill-feeling evidenced during the debate has cooled. I am very heartened by the article's continued development, and by the development of associated articles. Thanks for everyone's help!

--Michael C. Price ^talk 14:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)