Talk:Length contraction

Visual effects/optical predictions

The recent contribution that User:DVdm reverted in this edit is a mixture of documentable fact on the one hand, ... User talk:Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog

... which User:DVdm deleted anyway ... ErkDemon (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

... and unsourced assertions ... User talk:Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog

... which, where they showed any indication of being "controversial", were sourced to respectable peer-reviewed papers, mostly published in Am.J.Phys. , which is the journal of the American Association of Physics Teachers. The Gamow narrative is simply wrong. This was a controversy that was supposed to have been finally settled scientifically sixty years ago, but some people are still fighting for the right to present the bad science that was taught to them as kids as being the real deal. It's not. ErkDemon (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

... intended to cast doubt on (1) the reality of length contraction, (2) current interpretation of the phenomenon, and (3) the legitimacy of experimental verifications of length contraction. ... User talk:Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog

According to the main papers published on the subject of SR optics from Terrell and Penrose in 1959 onwards, the then-current "popular" interpretation of the phenomenon was, actually, mathematically wrong. The popular narrative did not agree with the theory's actual math. The Gamow mis-interpretation was supposed to have been dropped in 1959, but resurfaced in the Bronowski documentary, and was still being taught by some rogue professors at major universities as late as 1994.

This is a situation where the "popular" interpretation and the "scientific" interpretation diverged irrevocably sixty years ago.

Rather than accept the historical record, and allow it to be documented, encyclopaedically, User:DVdm simply deleted everything that didn't agree with what they were taught when they were younger.

Science sometimes makes mistakes ... but it tries to correct them. The people who try to defend science by pretending that no mistakes are or were ever made, and who try to delete all evidence of those known mistakes, are actually enemies of science. They corrupt critical information, and corrupt the process. ErkDemon (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest that someone take the valid portions of User:ErkDemon's contribution and add those portions to the article on Terrell rotation. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Except that Terrell rotation is only a small, specific part of the larger story. and some would argue that even Terrell's wording still wasn't quite right. Terrell rotation doesn't cover the Bronowski episode, or the Moreau reboot of the subject.

You know what? I was going to let this lie, but on consideration, I'm undoing the revert. If you want to tailor or trim the section, fine. But don't delete correct equations or referenced accepted peer-reviewed historical record, just because it disagrees with what you were taught as a kid. Don't censor history or destroy valid data just because you don't like what it says. ErkDemon (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Unless you want to get blocked for edit warring, you better discuss here and get consensus before you revert again. - DVdm (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Dear DVdm, I have no intention of getting into an edit war with you.

I have done one revert, on this article, you have done two. You justified your repeated deletion by writing "Undo almost entirely unsourced expansion" ... so ... was my increasing the number of sources in the section from four to twelve not enough? What If I gave you twenty ... would you then be happy? I can satisfy your objection by doing that if you want ... but the significance of each additional source saying the same thing will get rather repetitive. ErkDemon (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@ErkDemon: That is not how edit warring works. You added new content, almost entirely unsourced, and others agree here. Then I reverted for the reasons stated. Then you reverted my revert. That is how edit wars begin: instead of reverting again, you should have started a discussion - see WP:BRD. Removing unsourced content multiple types, as I did, is not edit warring, it is protecting the project. See WP:NOCONSENSUS: "When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." The version prior to your bold edit is the version without your addition, so it can and shoud be removed, pending possible consensus. - DVdm (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Resorting to insults about how reviewers of your work supposedly are not able to let go of what we "were taught as a kid" does not enhance your chances of getting your changes accepted. You have an attitude issue which permeates your proposed contribution to the article. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

... whereas you don't feel that DVdm is showing an aggressive and authoritarian attitude in saying: "Unless you want to get blocked ... you better ... " ?

Bear in mind that WP says that one should try to improve rather than delete. Salvage rather than burn. DVdm deleted an expansion that you yourself agree contained sourced material that may be appropriate for WP. So that was wrong. Time and effort permitting, the better thing for you to have done would have been for you to undo your friend's deletion action, and then trim off the parts that you considered inappropriate. It was helpful for you to suggest that some of the information could be reused ... but that's a reason for editing down, not full deletion. ErkDemon (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)