Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive 7

message: Fastfission is leading a lynch mob to try to ban Licorne, because Licorne KNOWS WHAT THE STORY IS about the fraudster plagiarist einstein. -- Fastfission's efforts  amount to CENSORSHIP. -- Licorne 20:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I personally do not find anything wrong with that. You do not make a convincing argument, especially by referring to yourself in the thrid person. Something like this should not be posted on the talk page for Albert Einstein. Delta 01:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Licorne. You brought it on yourself, Licorne. --Alvestrand 22:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with Alvestrand. Licorne no longer has anything positive to offer. According to Licorne Einstein can only plagarise or be wrong (always). He is not susceptible to argument or reason. All he can do is repeat and shout his views which we all know by now. E4mmacro 00:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Licorne, there is no one who is surprised at this -- I announced both to this page and on your page many times that I find your editing disruptive and that continuing it would lead to arbitration and eventually probably your own banning. If anybody is curious as to why I am trying to ban Licorne from Wikipedia, they are welcome to view the RFC or the RFA about it. It isn't a "lynch mob", it's well over a dozen editors who think you have consistently violated both the policies of this website and lack any ability to contribute productively. You've brought it upon yourself, and people have shown unbelieveable amounts of patience with you on this issue. --Fastfission 02:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think you get it. It isn't about the line, it's not about the facts of the article, it isn't about who agrees with you. It's about your editing behavior. If Harald came back today and said you were the greatest guy in the whole world, it wouldn't keep you from being banned, not with posts like this. --Fastfission 03:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You just hate what I say because it is true. Licorne 03:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the best you can manage by way of a response? Don't you have something more meaningful to do with your life? Come on now. Would someone who is "superior" resort to arguments like "Fastfission You Started It"? --Fastfission 03:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fastfission Wikipedia should dump you immediately for insulting people and CENSORSHIP ! -- Licorne 03:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Fastfission You set up that nasty page to insult Dr.Winterberg, the same way you insult me, it is because you hate the message that you persecute the messengers.-- You should be fired by Wikipedia fast. --Licorne 03:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Fastfission You should be FIRED for insulting Dr.Winterberg ! --Licorne 03:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your inability to take responsibility for your own actions is sad, but not unexpected. Looking forward to seeing you gone. --Fastfission 13:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fastfission is Trying to BAN Licorne from Wikipedia

message: The article simplistically and incorrectly credits Einstein with E=mc2.  In fact, Einstein never derived the equation (H.E. Ives, 1952), his derivation was a circular tautology which proved nothing.  Einstein was trying to rederive Henri Poincare's E=mc2 but could not do it.  -- The article must therefore be rewritten. -- Licorne 04:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Relativity priority dispute. --Alvestrand 04:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NO -- This is NOT a priority dispute -- Ives proved Einstein did not derive the equation -- correct the article ! -- Licorne 04:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: E=mc2 Paragraph is Misleading and Incorrect

message: The article says Einstein developed Special Relativity ?  --  Please name one thing to support this ! --  Special Relativity's DISCOVERY  was COMPLETE  before Einstein's first paper ! -- Correct the article ! -- Rephrase it. --Licorne 04:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we take Poincare at his word, SR was developed by Lorentz, and there are subtle, important, and well-known distinctions between Lorentz's version of the theory and Einstein's. Zorba 194.44.154.17 12:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Poincare COMPLETED  Relativity.  Lorentz  couldn't do it.  --  You claim there are well-known distinctions of Einstein's version ?  Reality is, there is no new interpretation whatsoever in Einstein's 1905 paper, none. So go stuff it Zorba you're just a liar. -- And Zorba you're trying to twist this into a priority dispute. --Licorne 13:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If Lorentz "couldn't do it", why did Poincare give Lorentz credit for what we now call special relativity? Are you better informed than Poincare? Zorba 194.44.154.17 14:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is NOT  a priority dispute page, Henri Poincare was a polite gentleman, who completed what Lorentz could not. You'll find your answer elsewhere in more detail but not here please. Licorne 14:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Development of Special Relativity ?

message: Kip Thorne's fallacious quote (reference 9) amounts to a sneaky priority dispute and should thus be eliminated on two counts.
Also, Wikipedia should not do as Einstein who failed to properly cite without footnotes. - The Field Equation in the article should be properly footnoted, to  David Hilbert, 20 November 1915. 
Licorne 05:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Need Use Proper Footnotes in the Article

message: I suggest that we all resist the temptation to go over all the same ground again in this talk page. E4mmacro 07:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Macrossan  once  again,  avoiding  to  answer  anything  specific, just  his  false  god  Einstein,  his  golden  calf of israel. -- Keep  the blinders on Macrossan. -- Licorne 12:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: When Harald rewrites the Intro then I'll leave. Only then. Licorne 20:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi I just came back from vacation... knowing you, even when I improve the intro, I very much doubt that you'll like it! Even more, the intro seems not to bad; there is a glitch however, but that is in the linked general relativity article intro - it's misleading to state that "General relativity (GR) is the geometrical theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915". But I was unable to explain it to the bunch of people who currently tweeks that article. Maybe someone else wants to try to explain that in 1915/1916 "general relativity"was not a "theory of gravitation"? Harald88 06:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not clear what you mean here. 66.194.98.232 22:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  GRT was a theory according to which all motion is relative , in general, just like inertial motion was in SRT. As Einstein put it (Einstein 1916), GRT "leads" to a theory of gravitation, which however he didn't give a separate name. Nowadays that unnamed theory is called "GRT". Harald88 11:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's not duplicate the previous page 

message: Concerning the new archive page: Talk:Relativity priority dispute/Archive0, which was created from content from this page. I think it would be less confusing if it were moved to "Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive 6". I will do that unless anybody objects. Paul August ☎ 20:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave it alone. These constant name changes are confusing. Zorba 193.108.45.254 11:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should move. The current name is obviously a typo. A redirect from Talk:Relativity priority dispute/Archive0 to Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive 6 should prevent confusion. The Rod (☎ Smith) 17:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the new archive0 page 

message: Jagdish Mehra 1974 Einstein, Hilbert, and the Theory of Gravitation, Reidel. -- There  Mehra  says Hilbert claimed priority and he cites Hilbert's 1924 paper as evidence.67.78.143.226 20:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hilbert Claimed Priority

message: Harald you said you would rewrite the artcle.  
: No I did not say so, you read too much into things. Harald88 01:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, several times... but if you are oversensitive to "development": in fact that word is not needed and can thus be left out (as I did now). Harald88 01:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on Harald you have much more to rewrite, don't quit now. Licorne 01:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Licorne, please back up your claims and cite where Hilbert discussed the general principle of relativity before Einstein, thanks! Harald88 01:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hilbert would not have done such a thing, because none exists, which is one more place where Einstein was wrong, and which also is why GR is only a theory of gravity, as Hilbert correctly called it.  -- Einstein never understood the theory, which Grossman had constructed, not Einstein. -- Licorne 13:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  I can not but take that as conformation that even according to you, GRT as introduced by Einstein, was really Einstein's theory - and that it's therefore not faulty to simply state that he was the author of it. You may propose to add a clarification: I already pointed out to you, that the problem is not in this article, but in the intro to general relativity where the distinction between the original GRT and what nowadays is called "GRT" is wiped under the carpet. Harald88 10:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Harald, then CORRECT  THE  INTRO. -- PS it was Grossmann's theory, not Einstein's, and it was wrong until Hilbert correctly published it. Licorne 13:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Who would want to publish wrong equations ? -- And Equivalence goes back to Newton, not Einstein. --  Einstein's 1911 equations were wrong, no one could base GPS on that, you'd get lost and crash your car. -- Also note, that in science, the AUTHOR is he who published first and correctly, which was not Einstein nor Grossmann, but Hilbert. Licorne 13:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Zorba concurs, fully and completely. Is Zorba a "green" clone? Zorba 193.108.45.247 10:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where  is Harald ?

message: comment says "see talk," but nothing there. Toblerone is a technical term that many won't understand . We have article on it so it should be linked to. GangofOne 07:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See below. Paul August ☎ 07:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toblerone

message: I've reverted the bit about Einstein approving "the patent for the mold for Toblerone".  Although there are many web pages that claim something of this sort, I am nevertheless somewhat skeptical of this claim. For example see question 22 here, this page at the Tobleone.com and this page on the history of Toblerone. Even if true (and we could find a reliable source) I'm not sure it warrants a place in the article, except perhaps in a "trivia" section. Paul August ☎ 07:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks false. The Toblerone article has a link to the patent, but Einstein's name is not on it. The patent pdf is from toblerone.com. at that site (link above) it says "The TOBLERONE brand is registered with the Federal Institute for Intellectual Property in Bern, and shortly thereafter TOBLERONE becomes the first patented milk chocolate with almonds and honey. The physicist Albert Einstein, barely thirty years old, is employed at the Institute. A few years later, he will become famous for his theory of relativity." So THEIR site doesn't even say Albert approved it. So it's bogus. GangofOne 07:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a comment: I reverted the addition of the remark about Toblerone as vandalism, but a quick web search made me think that maybe it was intended as a serious contribution, so I reverted my revert.  At any rate, even if it is true, it is a minor piece of trivia that probably does not deserve to be in the article, especially given that there are so many more important things to say about Einstein.  dbtfztalk 07:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, your actions were alll quite understandable. Paul August ☎ 18:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Einstein examined patents on electrical devices (signal transmission, clock coordination, etc.), not food or molding equipment. It would be pretty strange for him to have approved it personally; definitely not the sort of work he was certified to do. --Fastfission 22:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toblerone patent? 

message: "Important contributions to ... cosmology", looks like an understatement. I think he (almost) originated the study of cosmology by applying GR to the whole Universe. AS far as I know, the only serious cosmology before that was a realisation by someboby that Newton's Universe must be infinite to stop it collapsing under gravity, and the possibly contrary notion that if it were infinite the night sky should be much brighter (you see a star in whatever direction you look). But modern cosmology started with his "cosmological constant" paper didn't it? E4mmacro 20:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But Einstein called the cosmological constant his biggest blunder, don't you know that. 67.78.143.226 20:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, Dean, I do know that. E4mmacro 20:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thought it was there to help you in your campaign to show Einstein didn't originate SR. Probably should have been moved with the removal of priority disputes. And what does your comment have to do with cosmology? Why not start a new topic if you think this is importnat? E4mmacro 20:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cosmology 

message: I have been asked to explain what I think is inappropriate about the tone of this article. I find these questions difficult to answer with examples, because usually in cases like these I will give specific examples, and then those examples will be fixed, and then I will be expected to remove the dispute or cleanup tag even though many more remain. Therefore I will try to explain as generally as possible and give a few examples for illustrative purposes only. I think it's important that we all understand the formal tone that is expected of encyclopedia articles, and when we do, we should be able to improve everything here.
Broadly, this article reads like "hero worship". Certainly, Einstein was a remarkable person, but I think there is an undercurrent of adulation and an overall attempt to emphasize all the amazing things he did. Please understand that I am not criticizing the factual accuracy of this article, but only the method of presentation. Some examples:
*The final lecture climaxed with his introduction of an equation that replaced Newton's law of gravity, the Field Equation.
The use of the word "climax" here implies that there was something monumental about his equation.
*Einstein's postulation that light can be described not only as a wave with no kinetic energy, but also as massless discrete packets of energy called quanta with measurable kinetic energy (now known as photons) was a landmark break with the classical physics.
:: Not true? green 193.108.45.246 20:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree E4mmacro 20:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Good points, please don't hesitate to make improvememts. Harald88 11:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone of this article 

message: To Harald:  In scientific context the author is the one who first correctly publishes.
Hilbert first correctly published the discovery of general relativity on 20 November 1915.  
So Harald Please rephrase the Intro, as you had done with Special relativity. 
67.78.143.226 20:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of ''Author'' - Rephrase the Article to Avoid Misuse of Terms

message: "Einstein began to form a generalized theory of gravitation with the Universal Law of Gravitation and the electromagnetic force in his first attempt to demonstrate the unification and simplification of the fundamental forces. In 1950 he described his work in a Scientific American article. Einstein was guided by a belief in a single statistical measure of variance for the entire set of physical laws."
Is the last sentence true or high level bs? It doesn't seem to have any intelligible meaning. Moreover, iiuc, Einstein was seeking a deterministic (not statistical) theory for his Unified Field Theory. So even if the last sentence is intelligible, it seems out of sync with his research direction wrt "Generalized theory". green 193.108.45.134 21:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, it does sound like high level bs... on what source or sources is it based? Harald88 22:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no idea? There is the suggestion it comes from some Scientific American article. I just noticed some likely additional bs: "Einstein tried to unify gravity and electromagnetism in a way that also led to a new subtle understanding of quantum mechanics." What subtle new understanding is the author referring to? I'd sure like to know, and probably the rest of the physics community would as well! green 193.108.45.246 20:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess "hidden variable theories". His letters to Schrodinger late in life show that he considers himself and Schrodinger as a lonely outpost (which they were I think) believeing there must be a hidden variable theory that could work. E4mmacro 21:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: But this had nothing to do with his attempt to unify gravity and EM, which came later in his career. The EPR paper, e.g., was published in 1935. green 193.108.45.244 10:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Generalized theory