Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Relativity

message: Let me state now that I am a firm believer in Relativity. As an example of my complaint take the article on the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment. The experiment was intended to detect the presence of the Aether notwithstanding that the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction effect might operate. The conclusion of the experiment is that the Aether hypothesis remains viable only if a second effect, time dilation as a function of Aether velocity, is also present. This conclusion is not emphasized in the article. Instead the article refers to the relevance of the experiment to Relativity. As the relative velocity between the observer (the experimenters) and the observed body (the apparatus) is zero no relativistic effects can occur. A further example of this distortion is seen in the article the Luminiferous Aether. The reasons for a belief in the Aether are not properly (if at all) given. Too much space is given to the history of the attempt to determine the properties of the Aether rather than to the latest knowledge. The article gives the impression that the reader does not need to know the arguments for and against as modern Physics accepts Relativity and denies the Aether hypothesis.  There are other articles that suffer badly from this bias towards Relativity which I will cite if required to do so.RFNo (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles are distorted by inappropriately introducing the concept of relativity. 

message: Dear Editors,
I have a secondary reference in and am trying to add features of my articles in relativity:
1) http://en.cyclopaedia.net/wiki/Light-time-correction-1
for science article on time correction and momentum and energy for inverse relationship
(Light time correction in science in very bottom of research gate)
2) my Pharmasug 2011 articles are peer review too and discuss relativity and uncertainty)
3) my Global SAS Forum 2012 paper also has reference to time calculations, energy correction,
charge/energy of electrons plus derivations.
4) Hitchhikers guide to galaxy website is also mentioning my work time correction,
http://hitchhikersgui.de/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Time_correction
5) Google Nepon japan website too mentions my site:
http://wpedia.goo.ne.jp/enwiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Time_correction
-I can mention my discussions and example of support for inverse relationships
of time and energy/momentum and velocity supported by kaufmann/Bucehrer/Neumann experiment
Agravat series graph too of decrease in velocity for trend in hyper-geometric series
- Time correction proofs that work for special relativity/momentum/photoelectric effect
- discussion of first law of thermodynamics support in AJST article of inverse relationships of momentum and energy
in New Methods of Time correction, energy, Heisenberg uncertainty principle article I discuss this in anomaly section
-Time correction and right triangle relationship exists because right triangle is discussed by Einstein plus low rest mass in E=mc2)
These are some of the points I want to add please.
Thank you,
Magravat (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a section header. I don't see any reliable secondary sources—see wp:reliable sources—that would warrant inclusion in any article of any part of your (twice) rejected article for creation. This clearly is original research (see wp:OR), which is, alas, not allowed here. - DVdm (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article on time correction 

message: As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs. 
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular pages tool update 

message: This is a notice about :Category:Relativity articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert attention 

message: There are several red-link redirects I cannot create ... could someone please do these?
The article congruence (general relativity) gives a nice discussion of congruences, expansion, and vorticity (and shear) in general relativity.  Thus, hypersurface orthogonal and vorticity tensor can be redirects to congruence (general relativity).  Then congruence of curves can be a redirect to congruence (manifolds).  
Some more mathy redlinks could use help: convergent expansion -> radius of convergence and operator product algebra -> operator product expansion  Thanks!! 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  67.198.37.16 (talk) 06:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  redirects 

message: Could we get some eyes on a draft over at AfC, Draft:Non-Inertial Reference Frames in Relativity? Any comments, direction would be greatly appreciated. Onel5969 TT me 12:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help over at AfC 

message: We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month,  will post at /Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of .
 
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
* The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
* The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
* The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).
We're grateful to  for his original , and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of , and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular pages report 

message: In the article Here, in the end of the section "Weak lensing observables>Shear and reduced shear" (section=8), it says that \langle \epsilon \rangle = \langle \gamma \rangle. However, when going through the review about GL written by Bartelmann & Schneider (the first reference in that article), it says in page 341 (p. 51 in the PDF) that \langle \epsilon \rangle = \langle g \rangle. Meaning, it's equal to the reduced shear parameter, and not to the shear parameter.
Also, it is implicitely assumed in the written definition of \epsilon that |g|<1 - see equation (4.12) in that review.
Erez Zinman (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A possible error in the article about Gravitational Lensing Formalism 

message: Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for information on WP1.0 web tool 

message: I recently made an addition to the talk page of the article Mass-energy equivalence, in which I suggested that c is not actually the speed of light. The speed of light varies depending on the medium, right? But c is the constant. It is, of course, the speed of light in a vacuum, but it's also the speed of other massless particles. So, my question is this (based on the assumption that I'm correct in any way): should the wording in the article reflect this?
I apologise for wasting anyone's time if I'm entirely wrong about this! I am not a professional in this field, and I wouldn't even call myself so much as an amateur either! --82.21.97.70 (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  c 

message: It appears that a highly used article, frequently relied on in  the Physics Stack Exchange site, is truncated substantially, so as  to  avoid a perceived infraction of excess pedagogy, the way I understand it. Community support would be welcome in tweaking the deleted background sections to read less "pedagogical" (a pejorative term in the mind of some), but still useful to the dozens of physics students I know from personal experience are using it. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community support invited 

message: A textbook by Edwin F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler (Spacetime Physics) has recently been licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. It contains a wealth of information on special relativity that ought to be examined for possible incorporation into corresponding Wikipedia articles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djkauffman (talk • contribs) 20:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excellent CC-BY relativity textbook 

message: Aether theories right now contains blatantly false information, 1) lumping all kinds of unrelated concepts in with aether theories and 2) even there not being accurate (false claims about the vacuum not being empty). I have tried removing the questionable sections giving a justification and partially sources that points out the falsehoods, but people who apparently don't have a physics background at all are reverting the changes. 77.3.233.209 (talk) 11:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aether theories article needs attention and a clean up 

message: Can someone please do something about the article Static interpretation of time? This looks the same as "block time" so it surely should go under some other article. The article does not seem very useful as it stands. IBE (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  article "static interpretation of time"