Talk:World History Lecture Eleven

I noticed this spelling, Guomindang; can we make redirects like Kuomintang, or such, or how do you wish to handle things like this? Thanks. RobS 13:48, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Who's Andy Schlafly? How about some bibliographic info? Testing 15:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

He made the site...--Elamdri 15:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Stalin established a brutal totalitarian state, whereby he dictated all aspects of life and used violence to destroy any opponents. A secret police aided Stalin in his vicious execution of all opponents.

And none of this happened under kindly Uncle Lenin? Pachyderm 10:29, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Why does it not mention that Warren G. Harding was one of the most corrupt presidents ever? And that he is regularly ranked among the worst presidents by most historians?

Do you think Harding was almost as corrupt as recent Democratic Administrations???--Andy Schlafly 12:38, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

Almost as corrupt? try far more corrupt. He had multiple affairs before and during is time in office. he paid one of his mistresses $50,000 not to reveal the affair. his administration was a den of nepotism. he appointed personal friends to important positions such as head of the veterans bureau. His nepotistically appointed friend Charles Forbes, head of the veterans bureau, stole $200 million from the federal government, and his attorney general Daugherty was found to have profited from illegal shipments of alcohol. so yes, i'd say his corruption and that of his administration FAR exceeded that of any recent democratic administration!!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JBryant (talk)

Well????

Are you sure you aren't trying to describe some of the problems in the Clinton Administration???--Andy Schlafly 09:59, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

Are you sure you're not trying to dodge the question???????????????????????????

listen, I"m no fan of Clinton or the democrats. I think that all presidents, liberal AND conservative need to be held accountable for their actions. I think that it is revisionist to not include Harding's shortcomings. I know that if he had been liberal, you'd be all over his affairs and other such corruption. I'm just asking that you be fair and balanced in terms of talking about corruption. is that too much to ask? JBryant 11:13, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

No, you're wrong in suggesting that a quality world history course would waste time on gossip about Harding if he had been liberal. This is a quality history course. Read the National Enquirer if you have a need for gossip.--Andy Schlafly 11:50, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

Theory of Relativity

This section is full of strange mistakes. Are we permitted to edit the lectures here so that the students get accurate science instruction? For example, the Theory or Relativity does not care whether the speed of light changed over time. It probably has not changed, but the theory has no preference either way. Also, why does the author state that the Theory of Relativity has nothing to do with the atom bomb or any other technology? This statement lacks any point or precision. It' not true that the theory of relativity has nothing to do with technologies we use today. Also the Theory of Relativity does not reject "Newton's Theory." It merely modifies certain Newtonian kinematics, as for very high velocities. Also, the Theory of Relativity has nothing to do with moral relativism. Why does the author keep saying it does? It is a scientific theory, not a theory of morality. I am interested in assisting with this project if it is open for participation! ShmuelB 12:24, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

The truth is welcome. Falsehoods, even popular ones, are not. Your comments are historically or factually incorrect, unfortunately.--Andy Schlafly 13:17, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

Postulates of Special Relativity

I clarified one postulate, i.e., The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their relative speeds. That seems to be an improvement over the speed of light never changes...

This section - especially in its disparagement of Einstein's work - is something you don't find in any common textbook on the history of sciences. Therefore, I'd wish that A. Schlafly would include some sources to bolster his claims.

Unfortunately, such a (in my eyes, mainly unjustified) critique of the importance of the theories of relativity invokes memories of the German Physics.

Clement ♗ 09:30, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

It is inappropriate to compare scientific skepticism about materialist science to Naziism.

If you find me ten articles that accept the theory of relativity and use it to make historical claims, I can show you ten articles that accept that the speed of light is constant. Do you think that is some sort of coincidence?

I do not think it is a coincidence. BHarlan 16:03, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

I don't find any substance in either of the above comments. If you have a specific factual improvement to the article, then let's see it. Otherwise, let's move on.--Andy Schlafly 19:00, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

@Aschlafly: My specific factual improvement of the article is a change of your wording (the speed of light never changes) of one of Einstein's postulate of the theory of relativity. Here a some versions which I looked up over the last days:

• Wolfgang Pauli Theory of Relativity, 1958, p. 5: The velocity of light is independent of the motion of the light source

• Robert Resnick, David Halliday Fundamentals of Physics, 7th ed. 1996, p. 1254: The speed of light in vacuum has the same value in all inertial frames, regardless of the velocity of the observer or the velocity of the source emitting the light

and from a source you seem to trust:

• Merriam-Webster the speed of light in a vacuum is constant and independent of the source or observer

None of these - and many others - implies that the speed of light never changes. They stress the point that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source or the observer - and I think that's the rather baffling, exciting part for everyone who is confronted with this postulates for the first time.

None of those states that the speed of light never changes, but they emphasize the mind-baffling (at least for everyone who is confronted with this theory for the first time) fact that the velocity of light is independent of the motion of the light source.

The phrase the speed of light never changes is at least unfortunate as it implies that the speed of light has never changed since the begin of the universe. But the postulates doesn't require this, the same theory would hold with a speed of light of 300 km/h instead of 300,000 km/s...

@BHarlan: If you find me ten articles that accept the theory of relativity and use it to make historical claims, I can show you ten articles that accept that the speed of light is constant. I honestly don't know what you want say here...

That said, I hope you'll approve that I change the lecture to the version of Wolfgang Pauli.

Clement ♗ 14:07, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Pauli did not use it, in the quote you supply, to make historical claims. I maintain my promise of ten for ten, and I caution you against attacking the conservative worldview by prevaricating on what "historical" means. BHarlan 15:21, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

I stated above that I won't touch the historical aspects of the lecture, but only the scientific ones. So, I rectified or - if you prefer - improved a scientific statement. That has nothing to do with a certain Weltanschauung, that's just a question whether a formulation is used in physics or not.

I think that Aschlafly will accept a formulation which is similar to the one used at Conservapedia's article on the Theory of Relativity.

Clement ♗ 15:55, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

addendum It isn't my lecture. But it isn't an essay, neither, and the page is not protected. Due to the very nature of these lectures, any change should be done after consideration. The quotes above should show that I tried to be painstakingly diligent. That said, I will change the lecture again, and I like to ask you, BHarlan, for a source of the first version of the postulate - if you have the intention to undo my edit, that is... Clement ♗ 16:02, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I've to admit that I'm not glad with the current version (the speed of light can never be increased). It's not a general accepted version of the postulates, and differs greatly from the examples I gave above. I don't know why it seems to be necessary to find a new, somehow unique formulation of these century-old postulates. One doesn't take much liberty with the phrasing of Newton's axioms, and one shouldn't with Einstein's postulates, neither. But as you obviously want to show some creativity, I won't argue any longer. Clement ♗ 08:01, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Clement, where did your accusation that "you obviously want to show some creativity" come from??? It's bizarre.

I'm looking for the clearest explanation of the postulate. I don't think your version is any more historically accurate than mine, and yours is far more difficult for history students to understand. Good teaching is about .... clear teaching. It does not allow confusing students with contorted, confusing statements.--Andy Schlafly 08:56, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Sorry, that wasn't meant as an accusation, that's just an observation: instead of using a formulation of Einstein's postulates which is to be found only with small alterations in most textbook on physics - and even in the Merriam-Webster, you prefer your own wording. That's creative.

Pauli's version in not only more historically accurate, it is more scientifically accurate. Of course, the whole concept is baffling. So it may be a little bit more difficult to understand - but you have bright students! And it can be understood correctly.

BTW, you will find scant scientists or educators who judge Pauli's statements as contorted or confusing.

Clement ♗ 14:05, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

I wasn't offended by your "observation", but found it to be inexplicably bizarre. I articulated the postulate, then you replaced it with a far more complex and non-historical substitute, and then I simplified it into something clearer. Your response was a petulant accusation, without even addressing the substance my improvement. Are you saying the more concise, clearer formulation is wrong? I can't even tell what your view is.--Andy Schlafly 15:42, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Until now, the history of the formulations of the postulate in the lecture reads like:

1. the speed of light never changes (original by Aschlafly)
2. the speed is the same for all observers (no matter what their relative speeds) (Clement B.)
3. the speed of light never changes (reversion by BHarlan)
4. the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source (Pauli's version inserted by Clement B.)
5. the speed can never be increased (second version of Aschlafly)

Your formulations are shorter, but neither more concise or clearer. Furthermore, I don't know how you can label W. Pauli's version as non-historical?

In his article Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper - About the electrodynamics of moving bodies (Annalen der Physik, 1905, p 891), Einstein wrote

1. Die Gesetze, nach denen sich die Zustände der physikalischen Systeme ändern, sind unabhängig davon, auf welches von zwei relativ zueinander in gleichförmiger Translationsbewegung befindlichen Koordinatensystemen diese Zustandsänderungen bezogen werden.

2. Jeder Lichtstrahl bewegt sich im ,,ruhenden“ Koordinatensystem mit der bestimmten Geschwindigkeit V , unabhängig davon, ob dieser Lichtstrahl von einem ruhenden oder bewegten Körper emittiert ist.

This would be the historic origin of the postulates. A translation:

1. The laws which describe the change of the properties of physical systems are independent of a steady translation of the coordinates in which this changes are described

2. Any ray of light moves in «stationary» coordinates with a certain velocity V, regardless whether this ray was emitted from a stationary or moving body

So, from the very beginning you find the same idea which Pauli describes concisely and clearly : the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source

Clement ♗ 16:18, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

This is an interesting and informative discussion. But Einstein said that the speed of light always moved with a "certain velocity." That is very similar to my first formulation. Pauli, who had nothing to do with the development of relativity, is saying something different. Under Pauli's formulation, the speed of light may vary. Not so under Einstein's.--Andy Schlafly 17:53, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Einstein speaks of a certain velocity V - eine gewisse Geschwindigkeit V. This is his way to introduce an abbreviation (V) - you'll find similar formulations in the work of his contemporaries. In his whole essay he doesn't touch the question whether this certain velocity V has changed over time.

The main point - as it is stressed in so many textbooks - is that the speed of light is independent of the movement of the source. Think about it: It's really mind-boggling as it contradicts our intuition! I haven't met a pupil who wasn't intrigued by this, especially if you explained the Gedankenexperimente ...

To be petulant for another time: Frankly, I don't think that you can produce a better formulation than that of W. Pauli.

Clement ♗ 18:09, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Clement, you're not responding to my points, and you've resorted again to a petulant mode. Do yourself a favor: open your mind and think more for yourself, rather than simply repeating what someone else said. Suit yourself, but I'm moving on to others. Thanks and Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 18:23, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

ClementB, doesn't "a certain velocity V" imply that Einstein is saying that the speed does not change during the scope of the problem? For instance, if I say "If a certain man V is President for two full terms, V may not be elected to a third term" or "There is a certain function f such that if a car is traveling at a certain velocity V that is less than the escape velocity, then it will fall to Earth in less than time f(V)", then the variables are not changing over the scope of the problem, no? And since some problems take place over very long periods of time, the velocity is assumed not to change over that whole period, no? And doesn't that imply that the speed of light is constant, no matter how far your twin travels? BHarlan 18:26, 21 April 2009 (EDT)