Talk:Herbert E. Ives

message: A set of edits on 25 Sep 2013 systematically removed all the material describing Ives' opposition to special relativity, and his attempts to disprove it.  Those edits are not good, because this is all well-sourced and notable.  Also, the edits claimed that Ives' followed Lorentz, but that is not true, because Lorentz understood the empirical equivalence of his theory and special relativity, whereas Ives claimed to have experimentally refuted special relativity.  Also, Lorentz never claimed that Einstein's reasoning for mass-energy equivalence was fallacious, whereas Ives did. (This too, along with the reference, was edited out on 25 Sep.)  This article isn't the place for non-mainstream anti-Einstein advocates to present their views.Urgent01 (talk) 07:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, what "anti-Einstein advocates" do you mean? Ives? Current version does reflect his views on special relativity. My very best wishes (talk) 01:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Several recent edits have systematically removed well-sourced material describing one of the most notable aspects of the subject, Ives' anti-relativity efforts.  For example, the quote from Ives' friend Robertson has been truncated to remove the statement that Ives' refused to believe that his alternative "theory" was in fact equivalent to special relativity.  Why should this part of the quote be removed?  Likewise the recent edits have attempted to expunge all references to Ives' anti-relativity stance.  We can supply plenty of direct quotes from Ives, in his later writings, saying that the principles of special relativity are contrary to the experimental facts and also logically self-contradictory.  The reputable literature is replete with sources on this.  See for example, the recent review article "Herbert Ives, Anti-Relativity in Action", published in Feb 2013.  So, I think to conform with Wikipedia policy we need the article to reflect these verifiable facts, regardless of our own personal beliefs.Urgent01 (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I added a part of quotation you are talking about. He is not primarily known as someone who tried to disprove special relativity, but as someone who provided experimental support for the theory. Please note that my edits reflect previous consensus on this talk page (see "Opposition to Einstein's philosophy, not to SRT" above). If you think something was missing, please add this to current version (rather than revert a lot of work), and see if your additions are acceptable.My very best wishes (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Every reputable source I've ever seen that discusses Herbert Ives talks about his anti-relativity stance.  In fact, even in generic physics text books, such as the venerable Halliday & Resnick, after presenting the results of the Ives and Stillwell experiment, it notes that "Ives and Stillwell did not present their experimental results as evidence for the support of special relativity but rather gave them an alternative theoretical explanation..."  Please see the recent scholarly review of Ives' scientific career, by Roberto Lalli of MIT entitled "Anti-Relativity in Action: The Scientific Activity of Hervert E Ives".  Also, see the papers of Ives themselves, which include statements such as the claim that the principles of special relativity are contradicted by the experimental facts, and that special relativity is logically inconsistent.  Ives was also notable for challenging the attribution of special relativity to Einstein (much like Whittaker).  In view of all this, it is surely appropriate to note in the lead of the article this aspect of Ives' biography.  I'll make the edits to restore the balanced NPOV content.Urgent01 (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. So, Halliday & Resnick tell us the following: "Ives and Stillwell did not present their experimental results as evidence for the support of special relativity but rather gave them an alternative theoretical explanation..."  (repeat your quote). That's fine. My very best wishes (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad we agreed about views by Ives. However, your next edit is something I disagree with. You removed a secondary RS, which is needed to support the statement (we can not rely only on citations of articles by Ives, since those are primary sources). On which grounds do you consider this book problematic? I would not comment about English translation and edition, however Russian edition (here) was printed by major Soviet and Russian publishing house "Prosveshenie" :ru:Просвещение (издательство) after review by physicists from Lebedev Physical Institute. If you want to bring more reliable sources about work by Ives, please do. Thank you, My very best wishes (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ives' Attempts to Refute Special Relativity 

message: Given the discussion above, perhaps it would make a lot sense to create an additional subsection to explain scientific views by Ives, possibly with Figures. As about the sources, I do not really care. These can be any RS you might be able to bring. OK? My very best wishes (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This was already answered in response to your numbered item 1 in the previous section.  Again, Ives explicitly stated that his results were in support of the theory of Lorentz and Larmour.  Ives did not add anything to that theory.  The relevant references are to the works of Lorentz, and to the extensive secondary literature describing the Lorentzian approach to relativity. For example, J.S.Bell's 1976 paper on "How to Teach Relativity", in which he clearly explains how relativistic phenomena (including length contraction and time dilation) can be described as a consequence of the (Lorentz invariant) laws of physics expressed in terms of a single reference frame, ala Lorentz.  This is not new.  Unfortunately it is re-discovered every year by newbies, who rush into print, thinking they have made some great discovery that they need to share with the world.  But the world is already well aware of it.  It is very disappointing for each new "discoverer" to learn that he really didn't discover anything new.  There is a vast literature on the Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity, going back more than a century.Urgent01 (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, the "Lorentzian approach" to length contraction and time dilation is relatively well known (I do not see this adequately described on our pages Length contraction and time dilation), however the book "Non-postulated relativity" tells also about "Lorentzian interpretation" of relativity of simultaneity (!) and some other relativistic effects. If you know any good secondary sources about "Lorentzian interpretation" of relativity of simultaneity, tell them here with pages, please. My very best wishes (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Current version claims about a serious controversy between views by Ives and SR, however, it does not explain what this controversy was really about. This should be explained. However, this is difficult to discuss without making actual edits in the article. Perhaps I will make them later, as time allows. My very best wishes (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your questions have already been answered multiple times.  Again, the relevant reference for the Lorentzian derivation of the relativity of simultaneity is Hendrik Lorentz.  Lorentz's local time included the relativity of simultaneity.  If you want to learn about the various interpretations of the relativity of simultaneity, as discussed in the literature, you should read the works of Reichenbach, Robb, Winnie, Grunbaum, Bridgeman, Eddington, Salmon, Arzelies, Van Fraassen, Janis, Ellis, Bowman, Ohanian, Giannoni, Mehlberg, Torretti, Ohrstrom, Prokhovnik, etc.  ALL these authors (and many more) discuss the physical significance of simultaneity, in relation to things like slow clock transport, causality, and other simple physical criteria, leading to the standard relativistic simultaneity relations.  There is absolutely nothing in Lomize's "From High School Physics to Relativity" that is not already thoroughly discussed in countless more reputable and verifiable references.  I know this is disappointing for you to hear, but it is the truth.  Read and learn.Urgent01 (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, but you probably did not understand my question. I am not asking about this subject in general. What I mean are materials presented in chapter 2.4. of "Non-postulated relativity". Where else relativity of simultaneity was explained in this way - any source with pages? And no, there is nothing disappointing. I like your claim that There is absolutely nothing in Lomize's "From High School Physics to Relativity" that is not already thoroughly discussed in countless more reputable and verifiable references. Assuming you are right, it means this is just another secondary source/book on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  The discussion in chapter 2.4 of the non-mainstream book you are striving to promote is just a banal description of synchronization by means of slow clock transport.  The author is excited to discover that the equations of special relativity are algebraically self-consistent!  You see, this is precisely the mistake that countless high school students make every year... They take the time dilation formula, and consider the effect of moving clocks at low speeds relative to each other, and they are amazed to discover that the clock readings at separate locations automatically exhibit the standard simultaneity of special relativity.  They think they have made a tremendous discovery!  Where is my Nobel prize?!  But of course it is no discovery at all.  It is self-evident.  The actual mainstream scholars who have written about slow clock transport, as well as other even more fundamental kinds of synchronization, provide far more insightful and meaningful explanations and discussions, and don't make the naïve mistake of thinking this is the only possible kind of synchronization.  This leads to the debate about the conventionality of simultaneity, etc.  There are profound issues related to this subject that are covered in many reputable sources (see the authors I listed for you, that you ignored), but the juvenile algebra presented in the book you are trying to promote is not up to that level.  It is not a verifiable publication from a reputable publisher, and does not qualify as a good source for Wikipedia.Urgent01 (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. I had a good look at the book, and i.m.o. it is just appalling. To be avoided. - DVdm (talk) 07:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! Now I can see what you think. However, this should be discussed in article relativity of simultaneity, and in connection with any specific changes to be made out there. As about "the Lorentzian approach" Urgent01 was talking above with the reference to paper by Bell, it should be described (with Figures!) here and/or possibly in time dilation. My very best wishes (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think that this should be discussed elsewhere. I fully agree with Urgent's phrase  and with the last sentence in their comment, i.e. with the phrase  In that respect there is not much to be discussed here—let alone elsewhere. - DVdm (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, but in my last comment (and in the first, opening paragraph of this thread) I did not tell anything about "Non-postulated relativity". I was talking about sources in general, such as paper by Bell mentioned by Urgent01. It was Urgent01 who brought discussion of the book here. Obviously, we must use multiple sources per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Note - Ban was lifted. See . - DVdm (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: New subsection?

message: The existing article says Ives had three children, including Herbert Ives Jr, but I can find no source supporting the latter assertion.  In fact, this web page
http://www.nndb.com/people/456/000169946/
says his three children were
Daughter: Barbara Ives Beyer (history teacher)
Son: Kenneth Ives (accountant)
Son: Ronald Ives (aeronautical engineer)
I don't know if this is a reliable source, but in the absence of a source for the claim about "Herbert Ives Jr", I think we should delete that from the article.  After all, there is no need to name just one of Ives' children.  We should either name all of them (suitably sourced), or none of them.  I vote for none of them, since the names of his children are not notable.IVLeeg (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Another source for Ives' children is the Biography of Ives hosted on the National Academy of Science website:  
http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/ives-herbert.pdf
It lists the same names as noted above, and confirms that there was no Herbert Ives Jr.IVLeeg (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children of Herbert Ives 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Herbert E. Ives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090120044158/http://osa.org/aboutosa/leadership/pastpresidents/default.aspx to http://www.osa.org/aboutosa/leadership/pastpresidents/default.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Herbert E. Ives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060212170014/http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/recording/television1.html to http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/recording/television1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified