Talk:General relativity/Archive 3

message: It is now called the "History of general relativity".  That is its topic anyway as a practical matter.  Maybe a seperate page on the development phase will be done later.  For now, I wish to call a spade a spade. --EMS | Talk 02:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The development of GR page has been moved 

message: It was I who placed the material you find objectionable, and I had signed in. Black holes are proven to exist: There is one at the center of our Galaxy.  See recent papers by Schoedel, Genzel, Ekhart and others.
There is a movie which with some calculations establishes a massive black hole ar Sag A:
The way the argument runs is that while earlier, people tried to mimic the strong gravity of a black hole by assuming a very dense star cluster or a ball of massive neutrinos, the new observations go in so close that neither of these configurations could be stable.  Everybody trying to explain the motions of stars near Sag A* with anything but a black hole gave up about 2 years ago.
The Max Planck page at  explains more - two groups UCLA and Max Planck have established the black hole is there. Also look on the web under Fulvio Melia who has given several talks on the analysis and implications.
There are also proven black holes in some X-ray binaries, which can be shown from the flicker period at the inner edge of the disk.  Fish a bit on the Web.
--your next complaint--
As for the other comments:  I fail to see how quantum states would not be preserved along null geodesics (since they have no passage of proper time).  (With the neutrinos, their quantum state apparently not being preserved is evidence that they are massive.)  I would also like to see citations of where photons and other bosons are mixed up, as well as for the other criticized portions of that text.
:Quantum States - Well maybe I was too sticky there.  It seems to me, however, that because the light cone is 3-dimensional, a bundle of rays on it must spread, so its density matrix decreases. That is the inverse square law, which holds classically and in QM. There is also some work showing polarization change in a ray's passing a region of strong gravity, I believe - but hard to look up so if you want, delete that part.
-- the boson challenge--
:Bosons:  Here is the offending sentence: "In fact, the presence of one boson in a particular quantum state actually enhances the probability of another photon entering that state." from the page:  
As to other problems, I am tired of reading that turgid attempt of someone's to put her/his own stamp on relativity. The writer is unidentified, and the discourse ranges from dilatory to heavily laden with equations, often derived in a cumbersome way, with detours.
Pdn 16:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non anonymous, not wrong 

message: Dear "CyclopsX",
The "Spacetime Myth" thread is a part of this record for better or worse.  If you find it embarassing, then so be it.  My advice is to leave it alone, and stop calling attention to it.  --EMS | Talk 03:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of threads 

message: I have finally gotten around to doing a rewrite of this article.  The draft is at User:Ems57fcva/sandbox/General_relativity_2.  Comments/suggestions/complaints are appreciated.  Outright edits can also be done (as with most any other Wikipedia entry).  All that I ask is that an explanation is given in the edit summary and/or the associated talk page (which does not exist yet, but that should not stop anyone from creating it).
As you will see, this rewrite takes a fairly different tack than the current article.  In my view it does a better job of describing what general relativity is all about.  The features include:
* an abbreviated introduction/lead,
* a sectioned-out overview of the primary features of GR,
* a sectioned and list-based overview of the important predictions of GR,
* a sectioned and detailed overview of how GR differs from classical mechanics and SR,
* a new Status section, and
* an abbreviated references section, with most of the prior material having been moved to a new page entitled "general relativity resources", which is also for now in my user space.
Please don't "promote" this on your own.  I will do so once I am sure that there is no objection to my doing so.  Or if you do, please read and implement the "TO DO" list in the comments at the top of the page.  (I disconnected some category-related stuff so that this draft would not appear in the category pages.) --EMS | Talk 04:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I won't be in a position to comment on this until much later in the week. However, if you're still looking for checking at that time, I'll do what I can to contribute. --Christopher Thomas 20:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

text: " 'The time has come ...' " - From The Walrus and the Carpenter by Lewis Carroll.
The rewrite has been moved.  Don't say that you weren't warned.
I will admit that this is not a final product and that I am still tweaking it a bit.  Then again, in Wikipedia nothing is a final product.  --EMS | Talk 22:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite ready 

message: Unless there is an objection, I will most likely move the rewrite over on Monday evening [Eastern (USA) time].
There have been some changes to it, but nothing dramatic. --EMS | Talk 02:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Call 

message: :" 'The time has come ...' " - From The Walrus and the Carpenter by Lewis Carroll.
The rewrite has been moved.  Don't say that you weren't warned.
I will admit that this is not a final product and that I am still tweaking it a bit.  Then again, in Wikipedia nothing is a final product.  --EMS | Talk 22:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Done 

message: Mpatel -
I think that your remark about the cosomological constant being "ad hoc" would be better placed in the History of general relativity article.  I would prefer to find ways to contract the History section of this article, while details such as this remark are used to expand and fully flesh out the History of GR article.  --EMS | Talk 16:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll do just that. ---Mpatel 16:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. --EMS | Talk 16:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "ad hoc" remark 

message: Can people kindly look at inertial frame of reference, and even if you don't want to change it at least watch it for a while?  I just did a major revert from this version and I think that it would be wise to ensure that it does not reappear.  Suffice it to say that any GR-related stuff on other pages needs to be kept "in line".
I have dealt before with the editor who did the rewrite of March 6 (when most of the egregious material appeared).  He means well, but does not know what he does not know.  I do not know how much support the previous version will have, but I would like people to be ready to defend the reversion just-in-case.
Thanks everyone. --EMS | Talk 02:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inertial frame of reference article 

message: This article has been created and flagged as dubious. I thought those  here would be well placed to comment.The primary author is ErkDemon.
:Hi, all, just to clarify: ErkDemon created the article General theories of relativity, and I put up a "dispute" flag, left a message on his talk page, and left a longer message on Talk:General theories of relativity.  I encourage anyone interested to join in the discussion, but please, do it in the right talk page!  TIA---CH  (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  General theories of relativity (new article by ErkDemon)