User talk:DVdm/Archive 2006

Archive 2000←Archive 2004Archive 2005Archive 2006Archive 2007Archive 2008→Archive 2010
Archives by year: 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024

RFC filed and deleted

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DVdm. Don't say that you were not warned. --EMS | Talk 02:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the rfc was deleted due to lack of endorsement. DVdm 09:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for Babylonian confusion

Hi DVdm,

my apologies for the babylonian confusion on the Twin paradox talk page.

I copy and paste from the Twin paradox Talk page:

See This is a less technical introduction, not a non-technical introduction:
"Special relativity is a physical theory based on a particular extension of Pythagoras theorem and an elementary knowledge of the mathematics of squares and square roots is required to understand it."
... combined with Mixing Time Dilation and Length Contraction, where Geometer clearly demonstrates being able to manipulate equations with squares and square roots, yet having no idea about the physical meanings of the variables in the equations he uses.
My only point was - and still is - that Pythagoras' theorem and an elementary knowledge of the mathematics of squares and square roots is not nearly sufficient to understand special relativity. DVdm 13:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

All along, my assumption was that Geometer was using the turn of phrase 'extension of pythagorean theorem' metaphorically.

I have a user subpage with an article about special relativity in which I present the aspects of special relativity that are in my view the essentials. I rely on animations that I have manufactured; the animations are doing the job of presenting the concepts. Please have a look, and tell me whether you think it approaches being sufficient for basic understanding of the physics of special relativity. --Cleonis | Talk 11:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I had seen your page and the animations. I guess everyone has his preferences. Some, like myself, prefer lots of text with a few simple drawings, whereas some, like yourself, prefer an approach with attention capturing animations.
In my opinion the only webpages that manage to provide sufficient material for a basic understanding of special relativity are parts 1 and 2 of [Relativity And FTL Travel].
However, to really get started, I don't think that anything can replace or comes even close to Robert Geroch's "General Relativity from A to B" and Taylor and Wheeler's "Spacetime Physics".
DVdm 17:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


Please explain your comments and refrain from personal attacks

I have been unable to find any clear explanations in your critiques of my suggestions. However, I have found numerous high handed comments that are basically personal attacks such as: "where Geometer clearly demonstrates being able to manipulate equations with squares and square roots, yet having no idea about the physical meanings of the variables in the equations he uses". Please stop these. Geometer 13:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't remove peer-reviewed and cited references from scientific articles

Hi I saw that you removed a peer-reviewed and cited article from Twin paradox, contrary to WP:V. Probably you overlooked that fact. Also, you motivated it with marginal and erroneous article. Please take note that "erroneous" is only a valid argument if you can cite it as an overwhelmingly held opinion by others. See also my practical suggestion on its Talk page. Harald88 21:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for cleaning out harry's antirelavistic "reference" Moroder 22:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Moroder. I removed it because it clearly is a marginal article, it is about another marginal (i.e. "unusual and rarely cited paper"), it is loaded with errors, and it is cited only by the usual handful of anti-relativity ether crackpots on Usenet. DVdm 10:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)