Talk:Introduction to special relativity/Archive 2

message: This article gives a clear explanation of the statement on the first few pages of most modern, advanced textbooks on relativity: the space-time interval is invariant under rotations in space and time. If students can understand this statement they can understand relativity. The history of relativity and the, nowdays, pointless debates about the ether and light propagation are unnecessary here. Worse still, for this article they are a diversion and should be removed whenever anyone adds them. The purpose of this article is solely to introduce the modern reasoning behind the theory. 
The maths of the modern theory is unimpeachable.  Physicists have determined that this maths describes the classical physics within the scope of the theory.  It is possible in the future that experiments will show that the maths is a simplistic description or even an incorrect description of the world, when this happens a new mathematical description will be applied and science will advance a further step. The only issue confronting the scientist is whether the modern theory fits the physical data - not whether "Einstein was wrong" - the modern theory is actually rather different from Einstein's original work although it produces the same net result in the form of the same Lorentz transformations. Geometer 12:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Purpose of this article

message: I hope you will forgive me for putting this article back in for GA nomination but the previous critique was excellent and has led to numerous changes. However, if the history of the article is inspected it will be seen that these changes are largely changes in presentation and style, not changes in content. Geometer 13:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Application for GA status

message: As can be seen above, someone with a particular viewpoint can just block an article in Wikipedia. The section on "Caveats" is non standard and unreferenced. It has been shown to be incorrect but it must remain.  The common reasoning where length contraction is derived from time dilation has also been blocked.  I will remove the application for GA and stop bothering with this article now. Geometer 21:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the fact that two people who both appear to know what they're talking about to an exernal observer who's only vaguely following the discussion illsutrates that the topic under discussion is not an introductory issue. I have therefore remove the entire section as being inappropriate for this introductory article. I'm sure the discussion would be better received and more widely discussed on the main Special relativity article. GDallimore (Talk) 09:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I've moved it there myself. GDallimore (Talk) 09:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it is extremely basic and entirely correct, it's a good idea to move the section to the main article. As a matter of fact, I was planning to do it myself, since this introduction seems to have become Geometer's private project anyway, and for obvious reasons I don't feel like revising it. DVdm 12:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Failing in Wikipedia 

message: This article is now very much imporved.  It is much more direct and readable.  However, some failings still remain.  There is no discussion of why SR was developed and what it achieves.  The postulates are not discussed.  The effects are not summarized at the start.  So I strongly adivse keeping what Geometer has done, but get it "packaged" in supproting text that helps to orient a reader to what is going on.
This is a topic that is going to be in need to development and enhancement for some time to come.  I believe that there is a good way to orient people to what SR is about and that this is the place to do so.  However, figuring out how to do it is a serious issue, and it seems to me that this puzzle has not been properly figured out yet. --EMS | Talk 15:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due regard to Geometer's careful edits, I fully agree and think EMC has hit on a number of important points which I had doubts about myself. These articles take time. Let's not rush it. I mean, Einstein isn't going to care if it takes a little while longer... GDallimore (Talk) 15:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much improved, but still needs work 

message: This item has the misconception itself that mass increases with speed. It also fails to mention other misconceptions. Ems57fcva saw that I edited it and reverted without discussion. I think this is not good form and represents vandalism. To Ems57fcva: please either discuss here what you object to or put back my version. Thanks. Edgerck 10:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The NPOV flag is crazy, the article talks about relativistic KINETIC ENERGY as the source of Newtonian physics and is correct in this sense.  The use of "mass" in this context is arithmetically correct but is indeed a bone of contention amongst some physicists. Wikipedia is a place where articles should agree with most textbooks and the note on relativistic mass and Newtonian physics does indeed agree with most textbooks. It is clear that Edgerck loves the relativistic mass debate but this introductory article is hardly the place to indulge it! 86.11.125.124 09:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm no expert but I think this depends on how you define mass: you can either define it so it remains constant, then momentum = gamma * mass * velocity, or you can define mass so that it changes with speed (relative to the observer, of course) and keep the non-relativistic definition of momentum.  I believe some sources use one convention and some another.  Can anyone confirm this? Bistromathic 16:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Take this debate to the main article on relativity. Why are you indulging it here? 86.11.125.124 09:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: From my observation it's Edgerck who is doing the POV pushing here. As some of the references he has been citing actually confirm, the notion of relativistic mass has been used, and was never a misconception or an error, but simply a different use of language and a different bookkeeping method. Yes, it's an unfashionable one currently, and I'm happy to defer to the physicists on the point that there are good reasons for that -- but a misconception it is not. It is not WP's function to enforce linguistic uniformity; we should report these usages neutrally, and also report which ones contemporary physicists prefer. --Trovatore 21:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It does appear that in this particular case I misguessed what the dispute was, and I apologize for not having looked beforehand. The apology is limited to this one instance and should not be taken as buying your claim that you are promoting a neutral POV. --Trovatore 07:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Common misconceptions