Talk:Spacetime/Archive 11

Railroading?
Is it generally acceptable to have hidden discussions about an article off of it's talk page? I'm concerned that this article is being railroaded by certain editors. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I am of course referring to discussion here. I would really prefer that discussion of any problems with this article take place on the talk page.  Crazy, right?  If there are existing concerns with the current article, especially ones that are known in advance to be contentious (some are mentioned on that page), it seems disingenuous to not discuss them, but attempt to sneak them in by a revert, or by lining up "friendly" editors for a false consensus.  Railroading. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * More railroading here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.217.164 (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * After an endless series of ‘my way or the highway’ comments from you or others who share your I.P. address, it is not unusual for people to discuss problem editors elsewhere throughout the wide project. We’re all human, seldom have solutions for every tough situation, and often seek the counsel of other editors on pages those users frequent.


 * I note your use of phrases like “railroading” and “fake consensus,” which are often a euphemisms for “I don’t like it”; it is the sort of thing one should avoid in discussions. I note too this comment from your I.P. address: “I feel it would be best if you stayed out of this discussion until my concerns have been addressed adequately.” That sort of behavior just doesn’t fly anywhere on this planet. Wikipedia is a collaborative writing environment requiring thoughtful interaction with others. Here is a list of Wikipedia’s policies and expected conduct.


 * In the end, the clear consensus here on this page and elsewhere was that the wholesale changes you made to this article were substandard compared to a previous version, which was the preferred starting point for evolving improvement. Greg L (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Moving text from Maxwell's equations
I'm moving this text from the article to the talk page, as it seems to be more related to Maxwell's equations than the article topic, spacetime. I'm leaving a paragraph that focuses on the relation between Maxwell's equations and spacetime, as that is on-topic. I'm not quite sure how to use the content that is being moved while staying on-topic. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The ancient idea of the cosmos gradually was described mathematically with differential equations, differential geometry, and abstract algebra. These mathematical articulations blossomed in the nineteenth century as electrical technology stimulated men like Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell to describe the reciprocal relations of electric and magnetic fields. Daniel Siegel phrased Maxwell's role in relativity as follows: "[...] the idea of the propagation of forces at the velocity of light through the electromagnetic field as described by Maxwell's equations—rather than instantaneously at a distance—formed the necessary basis for relativity theory."

Maxwell used vortex models in his papers on On Physical Lines of Force, but ultimately gave up on any substance but the electromagnetic field. Pierre Duhem wrote:

"[Maxwell] was not able to create the theory that he envisaged except by giving up the use of any model, and by extending by means of analogy the abstract system of electrodynamics to displacement currents."

In Siegel's estimation, "this very abstract view of the electromagnetic fields, involving no visualizable picture of what is going on out there in the field, is Maxwell's legacy."

BOLD revert of Spacetime for discussion
Under the provisions of BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I have performed a BOLD revert of Spacetime version of 00:38, 29 May 2017 to a version which is close to 22:30, 13 May 2017 version of 22:30, 13 May 2017 except for incorporating consensus changes agreed upon between myself and several other editors, along with a few corrections and enhancements.


 * I've reverted that change on a purely procedural basis, as it clearly was broken. You ended up with a second version of the article in the middle of the current version.  Feel free to try again with the edit you actually intended.   Murph 9000  (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Whoops! Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * This is ludicrous. This is just an attempt to avoid discussion of the problems I pointed out in my original edits, by proclaiming that my edits weren't bold, whereas the new ones are.  Somehow my edits don't warrant discussion, but the new edits do?  47.32.217.164 (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

My work prior to May 14
On 23 March 2017, I had read the following Talk Discussion: This article needs a complete redo where three editors agreed that "this is just about the worst article [that the editor had ever] seen". Seeing that, I began an effort to completely rewrite the article:
 * I envisioned an article that everybody from middle-school students to first/second-year physics students could read with profit.
 * An interested individual of almost any level of mathematical sophistication should be able to read straight through from easy to more advanced material until the reading gets too heavy going, at which point they should be able to stop and yet still feel satisfied that they have learned a lot.
 * To facilitate understanding, I intended as much as possible to substitute carefully prepared graphics for possibly scary mathematics.
 * At the time that I paused in my editing, the article had an almost completely non-mathematical Introduction, followed by an unfinished algebra-based section dealing with Flat Spacetime (Special Relativity). In the future, I hope to follow with a calculus-based section dealing with Curved Spacetime. I had created from scratch eighteen brand-new illustrations for the article, so that twenty of the twenty six illustrations were mine.
 * An additional editor who had an important role in this rewrite was User:Greg L, whose skill in writing clear and informative ledes exceeds mine.
 * According to the PageViews tool, this article is one of the most important relativity articles, viewed an average of 2300 times per day over the last 90 days. Furthermore, about 44% of the page views are from mobile devices. An important additional consideration, given the tight integration of text with figures, was to make sure that a mobile user could easily locate the figures. As much as possible, I kept figures close to accompanying text. Since several figures are used at multiple points in the text, I used Figure Numbers to ameliorate difficulties in locating referenced figures.
 * I had my contributions reviewed by professional physicists, who offered me useful advice and insight.


 * One of the editors who happened to agree with the redo sentiment was actually me. Just becaus I felt it needed revision doesn't mean I agree with your methods. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

While I was out
I was out of the country from May 14 to May 21. During my absence, the anonymous IP 47.32.217.164 decided that he wanted to completely rearrange the article. In addition to completely rearranging my work, he tore apart Greg L's carefully composed lede.


 * I've pointed out the reasons for my actions above. You continue to ignore and not discuss. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Bad faith
here is an interesting discussion.

YohanN7 has called the IP a crank


 * Bad faith on who's part? 47.32.217.164 (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

After I got back
Both Greg and I tried to work collaboratively with the IP, but the IP has been non-cooperative. When I tried to make a few minor changes, the IP immediately reverted them. When I tried to explain to him my vision for an article that progressed in difficulty from an almost completely non-mathematical introduction to an algebra-based presentation to a planned calculus-based presentation, the IP dismissed my vision as not being the only way to write an article.

I decided to take a breather and to see just what sort of vision that the IP had for this article. As I wrote to Greg, "I'm curious how Anon's vision for the article will shape up .... Anon needs a chance to prove that he is really interested in the quality of the article."


 * I've bent over backwards trying to find out what issues you have, but you have repeatedly failed to discuss, at least on this talk page. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

State of the article at the time of my revert
The IP had introduced too many poorly thought-out edits for me to document them all. I merely report here on a representative sampling.

Beginning paragraphs
My discussion here will be based on Spacetime version of 00:38, 29 May 2017.
 * The lede included unexplained jargon that could be discouraging to newbies, such as "interwoven kinematics", "vector space", and "metric".
 * The very first section on Early philosophy discussed ancient Inca concepts of pacha. Surprise!!!
 * The second section on Vector formalism was a stub section that throws out several vocabulary terms without explaining them.
 * The third section on Spacetime event was a brief stub that does not mesh well with any adjacent sections.
 * The fourth section on Reference frames and relative motion was a stub section that has little or no useful content.
 * The fifth section on Global and local structure was a stub.
 * The sixth section quoted a paragraph from my original introduction.
 * The seventh section was a stub section on Dimensions with little useful content.

In other words, the article started off with a totally incoherent set of non-informative, disconnected stub sections that threw out jargon terms and offered little or no useful information, except where it quoted from my original version of the article.


 * You are mostly here discussing problems with the original article, and not my edits. I agree that some of these are problems, but that should not be an excuse to revert my edits, which did not introduce many of the issues you seem to have a problem with.  Revert is not the constructive route, anyway.  How about further discussion about how to improve these issues, rather than just asserting that you disagree with the status quo? "Surprise, pacha" doesn't really explain your problem. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Disorganized figures and text
The IP completely removed figure numbers from the figures, while leaving them in the text. An important figure on the light cone in the Galilean frames section 3.3.1 is required by the Light cone section 5.2.2 a third of the article away.

Galilean transformations was not followed by Lorentz transformations, as might be expected, but instead was followed by Four dimensional description discussing eighteenth and nineteenth speculations by d'Alembert, Lagrange, Clifford and Edgar Allan Poe.


 * You already said you were going to renumber them, but you haven't followed through on that. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Scientific inaccuracies
In Maxwell's equations, the IP placed the statement "It is the intermingling of electric and magnetic manifestations, described by Maxwell's equations, that give spacetime its structure." Spacetime does not arise from Maxwell's equations.

In a 24 May 2017 edit, the IP placed a "dubious" tag on the statement, "But special relativity provides a new invariant, called the spacetime interval", demonstrating himself to be ignorant of basic facts.


 * So you are incapable of remedy of your quibbles with substantive edits or discussion of your own? I must be banned and the whole article reverted?  And name calling is a must. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions
Although the IP is possibly well-meaning, his edits have amounted to serious vandalism. There is no evidence that he/she has any bona fide understanding of the material in this article. His IP should be blocked. If it is possible to identify him, he should be banned.

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You can't have it both ways. It can't be good faith vandalism. Please cite evidence for your conclusions, so that others may judge. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

{Someone new to the discussion here} My 2¢. The I.P. editor was not in any fashion engaging in WP:vandalism. Anyone using that term should read up on what it means.

However, as I noted above, I.P.'s editing style wasn’t in the least bit in a collaborative manner. The I.P. was only paying lip service to “discussion” on this page… and even that amounted to after-the-fact declarations of what he or she did and was going to do; it was far from “developing the article through consensus,” which is central to making anything work on Wikipedia. As User:Graeme Bartlett said here on his talk page (perma-link), where we were discussing what to do about this article: WP:BRD applies to this situation. The IP has made a bold change that someone disagrees with. You can then revert, or partially revert. Then discussion can take place as to where to go next.


 * My edits are to improve what I see as the flaws in the article. Last I recall, BRD was Bold, Revert, Discuss.  From where I sit, I still see virtually no discussion of any of the changes I made.  I just see whining that it wasn't some undisclosed pre-existing consensus.  So it's pretty clear to me that there was no discussion or consensus.  The linked discussion did not take place on this page, so why should it carry any weight? Further, that very discussion convinces me that you already have a set agenda for this article. I feel it would be best if you stayed out of this discussion until my concerns have been addressed adequately. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 08:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the newly reverted version of the article is the best starting point. I am satisfied that Stigmatella aurantiaca knows his material, which is a good start to any article this technical. However, as often happens when a semi-expert wades into an article for too long, this article has grown too complex. About the only sections that are “accessible” to a general-interest readership (assuming they have some facility in relativity before coming here) are the lede, definitions, and history. Beyond that, the article rapidly gets too arcane, with far too much of a time commitment required to master the next level of escalation.


 * I disagree with the focus on accessibility first. It makes more sense to me to get a clear scope before worrying about details like that; that's premature optimization, especially seeing as how the topical coverage is still wide open.


 * I would agree that it is too complex, however. My previous version had tagged a number of sections for splitting which are unnecessary for this article; I feel those are good candidates for reducing complexity.  This article is way too focused on Special Relativity, as I have said previously. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 08:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * (A) If we do not focus on accessibility first, the article can spend years in an unreadable state. The original version of the article (4 Nov 2001) started off being too difficult for a general audience, and it spent years growing worse until it reached the level of chaos of the version that I started with (15 Mar 2017). Unfortunately, the version that I reverted ( 29 May 2017) is, as I pointed out earlier, chaotic in its coverage. How many years will readers need to endure an unreadable article before some dedicated editor decides to step in to straighten it out. (B) I do recognize that the focus in the current version is on flat spacetime, but understanding flat spacetime is a prerequisite to understanding curved spacetime as well as other, more complex spacetimes. We already have a very good, FA-level article on General relativity. My intent in this article had been to approach the topic in a more systematic fashion than the usual strategy employed in popular articles on GR, which is to say, (1) Start with the equivalence principle. (2) Leapfrog over a lot of complex mathematics. ("...and then a miracle occurs") (3) Show off Einstein's field equations. (C) My current version of the article provides 50,000 characters of Introduction before the difficulty level really starts escalating. The Introduction does require a certain degree of commitment, but a person who finishes it gets a sense that he/she has actually learned something. The next major section, Basic mathematics of spacetime, deals with topics that, quite frankly, I do not know how to explain adequately without algebra, which is why I segregated it into a completely new section. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

It would be helpful if the I.P. editor created an account so he or she can be better integrated into the community and the decision making that underlies changes; other editors can leave messages and a variety of other benefits that help in the collaborative writing environment that is Wikipedia.


 * Please stop calling me "the I.P. editor". That's both rude and inaccurate, as I am just one among many. I don't want an account, and I don't want to discuss it further.  You can leave messages just fine on my talk page, so I don't see how this benefits anybody, certainly not me. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 08:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Your IP address shifts around, and consequently your talk page dates back only a limited period. You stated that you were one of the IP editors who participated in Talk Discussion: This article needs a complete redo. Well, that means that you were 75.139.254.117. How am I supposed to know that 47.32.217.16 and 75.139.254.117 are the same person? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Something we can also do is create a sandbox page specifically for this article, where draft proposals of text can be massaged, collaborated upon, and discussed. I've done that sort of thing before, and suggest only that we not create an associated talk page for the sandbox; it is best to have discussion in only one place (here). Greg L (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Right now, that sounds like a distraction from the problems I've raised. Convince me that it will be used to address my concerns, and I may be interested. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 08:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * This version, as edited by 47.32.217.164 is not an improvement over this (reverted) version of the article. The original version was not without flaws, but these are not flaws that are fixed by starting the article by an early discussion about vector spaces, Lorentz transformations, and (presumably) general covariance.  In fact, it is unclear exactly what the new proposed revision tries to accomplish, because it does not actually accomplish anything: instead it has unfinished section templates as stubs.  In any case, I agree with the overall view that once the promised sections have actually been completed, they seem very likely to snow the typical reader with mathematical formalism.  Readers wanting a more mathematical treatment (of general relativity) can read the article introduction to the mathematics of general relativity rather than this article.  There seems to be no need to duplicate that content here.  Finally, I find the "Vector formalism" section to be alarmingly naive and poorly conceived.  So I support the revert to the old revision. If 47.32.217.164 wishes, he/she may write a sandbox version of the article, and present it for discussion when his/her vision of the article is completely realized, with the stub sections actually filled in with the relevant mathematical details.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with user Sławomir Biały and user Stigmatella aurantiaca. A clear consensus exists and that consensus is that the article as recently reverted by Stigmatella aurantiaca is the better platform to go forward. If any editor here is unclear as to what “consensus” means, please see wp:Consensus.


 * With declarations like this:

Convince me that it will be used to address my concerns, and I may be interested.


 * and…

I feel it would be best if you stayed out of this discussion until my concerns have been addressed adequately.


 * …the I.P. editor 47.32.217.164 / 75.139.254.117 comes across to me as combative, immune to peer pressure, and either exhibits a complete lack of understanding of how Wikipedia and its collaborative writing environment works, or I.P. chooses to disregard the rules of conduct.


 * Since I.P. editor chopped up my above post into a nearly unparseable mess by inserting multiple responses within my post, I will below repost again—between horizontal rules to make it abundantly clear where my post starts and stops—so my position is clear to the other editors here who are trying to participate.


 * In advance, I will thank I.P. editor 47.32.217.164 / 75.139.254.117 to not disturb others’ posts in such a manner; doing so like that is not only rude, but turns threads into unholy messes where it is essentially impossible to understand the chronological order of the posts. There are other techniques the I.P. editor may use to make his/her context clear as to what particular statement another editor made that is is being referred to. Greg L (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

{Someone new to the discussion here} My 2¢. The I.P. editor was not in any fashion engaging in WP:vandalism. Anyone using that term should read up on what it means. However, as I noted above, I.P.'s editing style wasn’t in the least bit in a collaborative manner. The I.P. was only paying lip service to “discussion” on this page… and even that amounted to after-the-fact declarations of what he or she did and was going to do; it was far from “developing the article through consensus,” which is central to making anything work on Wikipedia. As User:Graeme Bartlett said here on his talk page (perma-link), where we were discussing what to do about this article: WP:BRD applies to this situation. The IP has made a bold change that someone disagrees with. You can then revert, or partially revert. Then discussion can take place as to where to go next. I think the newly reverted version of the article is the best starting point. I am satisfied that Stigmatella aurantiaca knows his material, which is a good start to any article this technical. However, as often happens when a semi-expert wades into an article for too long, this article has grown too complex. About the only sections that are “accessible” to a general-interest readership (assuming they have some facility in relativity before coming here) are the lede, definitions, and history. Beyond that, the article rapidly gets too arcane, with far too much of a time commitment required to master the next level of escalation. It would be helpful if the I.P. editor created an account so he or she can be better integrated into the community and the decision making that underlies changes; other editors can leave messages and a variety of other benefits that help in the collaborative writing environment that is Wikipedia. Something we can also do is create a sandbox page specifically for this article, where draft proposals of text can be massaged, collaborated upon, and discussed. I've done that sort of thing before, and suggest only that we not create an associated talk page for the sandbox; it is best to have discussion in only one place (here). Greg L (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Granting some latitude to editors who do graphics heavy lifting
It’s worth noting that user:Stigmatella aurantiaca has produced a great number of the graphics on this article. There are more than 30 by my count. Of the first ten illustrations and animations I examined, eight had been produced by Stigmatella aurantiaca. Having personally produced animations and graphics for many articles on Wikipedia, I know first hand…


 * 1) How time consuming they are to make, and,
 * 2) How much they facilitate understanding of complex subject matter.

After all, a picture is worth a thousand words. In the case of illustrating an abstruse concept like spacetime, a graph is worth more than a thousand words.

For this reason, I intend to give Stigmatella aurantiaca ample discretion on this article for a while. He has done a huge amount of heavy lifting—greatly benefiting the project—and to invest so much time, the journey must be interesting and rewarding.

Having said that, I firmly believe this article requires that Stigmatella aurantiaca receive good-faith, constructive suggestions and feedback from the community as he labors on it. I make a living doing technical writing and always run drafts by others for feedback. In the case of this article, I also have the advantage of not understanding the subject matter beyond the lede and can therefore serve as the “fool” in “foolproof” in hopes of making the article as easy as practicable to understand.

There's a lot of work still to do; it won’t be truly ready for prime time for a while yet.

Greg L (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Need help evaluating a sandbox experiment
Despite my best efforts to write an accessible, mostly non-mathematical Introduction for this article, it still represents 50,000 characters of fairly dense reading. Off-the-record, I have gotten some pretty sharp remarks about this.

I want to make it easier for the typical user to wade through this introductory material.

I am trying an experiment in my (I removed the direct link to my Sandbox version of the Spacetime article since the experiment is now implemented in main article space) of adding summaries for each subsection of the Introduction section.

You will see internal links that look like this in the sandbox Introduction:


 * Definitions [edit]
 * Click for a brief section summary

I would much appreciate comments on whether the experiment is successful, how I could improve it, or alternative means of achieving my purpose.

Thanks, Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the Introduction section summaries-portion and the way you implement it is a wonderful improvement to the article.


 * The framework of what you've added is far more flexible than what you currently have (mere bullet points). For instance, the summaries could one day include just a one- or two-sentence, plain-prose super-summary inserted between each caption heading and its associated set of bullet points. Such super-summaries (a sentence or two) would be written at the “Ernie & Bert” level.


 * Said another way, the super-summaries would be the “elevator ride” description of what the concept is about. Suppose a CEO got on an elevator with you and said “I noticed you added a section regarding light cones. What are ‘light cones’?” With four floors remaining, you response starts with “Well, they’re just…”


 * With thoughtfully written one- or two-sentence super-summaries added to each heading, a reader in a hurry for quick learning could just peruse just through the entire Introduction section summaries.


 * Bring it in! What’s not to like?
 * Greg L (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

(*sound of crickets chirping*) It looks like it's just you and me to figure any of this out. I see you went ahead after a pregnant pause there. Good. Greg L (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggested changes to the lede
Hi, Purgy!

You've made some good suggestions in the past, but English does not appear to be your native language. So I've taken your suggested changes here where you and User:Greg L can work on them together. Hope you don't mind too much? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with your sentiment, Stigmatella aurantiaca, and your proposed solution. The concept of spacetime is double-tough to clearly communicate to the readership visiting a general-interest encyclopedia… even if English is one's native language. The current lede has been thoughtfully honed by multiple editors over a lengthy period of time until it is pithy, precise, and razor sharp. It is better to try out improvements here rather than edit/revert cycles in articlespace.Greg L (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I do agree with you that I have to pity that my mastery of the English language is not on par with native capabilities, and that there may have been "multiple editors over a lengthy period of time", but I strongly disagree that the status quo is "pithy, precise, and razor sharp". Please, may I invite to comment on my thoughts below? Purgy (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Interwoven continuum
is a near esoteric term. I tried to reuse 'interweaving', and to achieve a more direct (elegant?) expression, but certainly there is a better verb (?connect?). Shifting the imprecision from the noun to the verb is a smaller violation of veracity than the original attributed noun. Specifying the dimensionalities of the involved spaces is no big deal in this place and leads the reader gently to a 4-space, by being hinted to time being something 1-dimensional. Purgy (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Inseparable continuum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.217.164 (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Separable has a quite tricky meaning next to continuum, which is not really targeted in this context. The matter seems to be settled, anyhow. Purgy (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Independence
of space and time is at the core of Newton's (Galileo's, ...) physics, and therefore, I think, this word should occur when talking about pre-20th century's physics. I think it is important, especially for newbies in relativity, to start at the elementary measurements of "where" and "when". "Shapes, distances, and directions" are all derived notions, dependent on the "where". So addressing these elementary measurements, at least in parens, seems appropriate, whereas the "shape" of a space is to me something yet undefined. Purgy (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Light speed
I think it is worth mentioning that establishing a distinguished velocity, measured in space/time-units, delivers a connection of previously independent entities of space and time to the topic of this article: spacetime. Purgy (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The Spacetime interval
is the core of relativity. I tried to carve out this in more precise detail. I think talking here about "shape" of a space is without any foundation, and length contraction and time dilation are not the reason for this invariant, but rather their consequence. In fact, the postulated invariance of the spacetime interval (to make physics meaningful in all frames of reference) gives rise to the Lorentz transformation. Purgy (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a symptom of the article's rampant over-focus on relativistic spacetime. please, sign your comments as end marker
 * I assumed this being intended to deal with this. Purgy (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Observer and frame of reference
are two notions for the same thing, and I am convinced that the (quite ubiquitous) phrase of "observers in different frames of reference" should be avoided. (I see no chance to eliminate one of the two from the lingo. Beware also the "observables" in QM, ...) The observers are more personalizing, and frames of reference, especially when graduated with the "scientific" term "inertial", add some formal weight. OTOH, observers induce sometimes the mistaking of "observing" from the origin vs. "taking coordinates" in this frame. Purgy (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Shape (=curvature?), manifolds, and general relativity
are, imho, notions that fit very good together. I think that talking of the shape of a (pseudo-) euclidian space, calling it a manifold (which it is) is sort of an overkill. I tried to sort this out in a most gentle way, in the same vain as I edited some remarks on tensors earlier, and also mentioned therefore the Minkowski space being flat, and the flawed idea of luminiferous ether. (See also the remark of YohanN7 below) Purgy (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The article needs to build up from a foundation on vector spaces, not manifolds. That is the fundamental nature of spacetime.
 * I transcluded the lede section of Spacetime algebra into the Spacetime section. That should partially rectify the lack of mention of vector spaces. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 06:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Vector spaces, applicable to curved manifolds, are not that near to linear algebra, afaik, one needs the concept of smoothness to establish tangent spaces (differential geometry?). This may be related to the affine spaces resulting from flat geometries. Purgy (talk) 08:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, good point. Another transclusion to the math section seems in order. Perhaps from Riemannian geometry?
 * Citation needed. While it's clear useful things can be done with smoothness, the necessity of it is not at all apparent.  A historical basis in those assumptions should not be taken to be a dictate of necessity.

Lede under construction
Nobody is using this draft area, so I just blanked to save real estate. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments

 * (Mathematical) Gallilean spacetime is just as much a manifold as spacetime of special or general relativity. (See the last paragraph in Minkowski space.) YohanN7 (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * At the same time it is misleading to refer to Minkowski space as a manifold. It is in fact an affine space, which is a much more rigid structure than a manifold.  The lead could point out that the space-time of general relativity is a manifold, without risk of misleading the reader.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Revised draft. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes. You are right about that. By the way, the Minkowski space article deemphasizes the affine space nature, and treats it as a vector space with arbitrary origin (because the literature, from Minkowski and onwards usually does). YohanN7 (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not so concerned about the distinction between an affine and vector space for this particular purpose.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Remember that you wrote the lede when all that I had finished of the new material was the Introduction section. So, besides the problematical matters of wording that were confusing to a non-native speaker of English, Purgy has made some good points on the content of the lede. His suggestions do have to be ranked and organized properly, as well as being translated from his native language, but his concerns should not be dismissed. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * As I explained once to Yohan, I last took courses in this subject about 47 or so years ago, so I naturally have forgotten most of what I once learned. I was never exposed to the coordinate-free approach, etc. So any time you and Yohan correct me on a technical matter, I am grateful.
 * Greg is a technical writer. His profession is that of translating technical jargon into words understandable by a general public. I found out long ago that he is just better than me at writing easily read and understood words. So he is responsible for about 90% of the lede in its current form.
 * Between us, we should be able to put together a new and improved lede.
 * Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I have only ten minutes at the moment to touch on this since I must juggle real-world demands with Wikipedia.

I’m seeing that since English is a second language for Purgy Purgatorio, and because he is interested and highly engaged in this subject matter, any passages he finds unclear requires scrutiny to get to the root of why he was dissatisfied and sought improvement.

Take the example of the very first paragraph: Whereas I found Purgy’s proposed solution to be unnecessarily verbose, his above proposal made it clear there was a shortcoming in the prior version of the text. I had unwisely assumed that the visiting readership would know that “space” is 3-D and “time” is a single added dimension (3+1=4). Indeed, any article must be written with a certain readership in mind (their educational level and familiarity with essential basics). But for a first sentence, the specificity of ‘how many dimensions’ helps. So I added that. Thanks.

I also expanded that first paragraph with the essential point of what one does with spacetime (how it is useful). Please make sure I’ve correctly captured and summarized the essential part—the important lion’s share—of that concept (perma-link).

I’ve gone far over my allotted ten minutes. I’ll be back this evening (U.S. Pacific time). Greg L (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The power of Minkowski diagrams (which should not be confused with spacetime itself) is that they greatly facilitate visualization of spacetime scenarios. I pushed your remarks to the end of the lede and reworded. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * For computations, i.e. actually getting numbers, you generally have to go back to using algebra: Lorentz transformations and the like. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks for the correction. We don’t want to mention “calculations.” Still, since the subject matter is “Spacetime,” and since “Minkowski space” is a notable follow-on aspect of that, do you approve of my variation on your correction? I've generalized what you wrote (streamlining the verbiage while at it) and brought it to the first paragraph in order to help give readers a very important “Ah haa!” early on. Does it work for you? Greg L (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll defer to what Purgy, Johan, or Sławomir have to say about this point. Comments, anybody? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I streamlined that sentence even more. The phrase geometric representations became diagrams with a link. Would it be correct to expand that sentence to as follows:


 * Various diagrams of spacetime are useful in visualizing and understanding how special relativity influences what different observers perceive insofar as when and where events occur.


 * Is that perfectly correct and understandable? Greg L (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Over-focus on relativistic spacetime

 * The jump to relativistic physics by the second paragraph is poorly advised, and glosses over all of Newtonian physics. Another symptom of the overdone focus on relativity.  It is also not true that everyone assumed spacetime was separate space and time, as the historical sections should demonstrate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.217.164 (talk) 03:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * First paragraph is also especially misleading, as it implies that spacetime can only be 4-dimensional, and implies that time dimensions are self-explanatory, which they are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.217.164 (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact is that the great majority of people accessing this article would expect to see an article related to relativity.
 * The primary focus of this article should be to meet the expectations of the typical user.
 * You do make a valid point, however, that spacetime can refer to other dimensional variants. For example, I'm personally very interested in Steve Carlip's explorations in lower dimensional (2+1) gravitation.
 * To address some of your concerns, I've transcluded some fascinating material from Anthropic_principle so as to make this article less (3+1)-centric.
 * There may be other interesting material on Wikipedia that may be worth transcluding. Don't hesitate to suggest material for transclusion if you know of any. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with what Stigmatella aurantiaca said. And I’ll expand upon how to handle alternative theories and beliefs regarding how many dimensions space and time have. The Hindus believe that the Universe is nothing but the dream of a god who, after 100 Brahma (864 billion years), awakens and the Universe is destroyed, only to be reborn when the god again slumbers. Our article, Age of the universe, does not mention this, nor does it need to. To avoid running afoul with WP:WEIGHT, we limit ourselves to the physical principles underlying this art as they are accepted by the vast majority of reliable scientific sources. Greg L (talk) 05:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where you are coming from with respect to theories of the universe. That has nothing to do with my concerns.  You are giving undue weight to a straw man.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.217.164 (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The points raised above are easily solvable by other means than the ones provided. While most physicists may be thinking of relativistic spacetime, that in no way invalidates the general notion, nor does it prevent an article from being written about relativistic spacetime.  It doesn't even prevent mentioning of relativistic spacetime within a more general article, as the two are obviously related.  Your argument about focusing on the typical reader is self-defeating, as the typical reader won't know about the difference between general spacetimes and relativistic spacetime.  On the one hand, you are claiming most people will expect relativistic spacetime, when this is clearly the physicist crowd, but on the other hand, you are claiming that the article should be what the typical user expects.  Further what evidence do you have as to what the typical reader will expect?  I certainly don't agree with your judgments.


 * What would be an appropriate title for a new article that would cover alternative, non-relativity-related spacetimes? You are obviously passionate about this point, and a new article would be the place to develop your vision as you see fit. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

We shouldn't forget the reason for this section
How well have we addressed Purgy's concerns so far?
 * Interwoven continuum - eliminated this esoteric term
 * Independence - not yet addressed
 * Light speed - probably addressed OK?
 * The Spacetime interval - probably addressed OK?
 * Observer and frame of reference - addressed OK?
 * Shape (=curvature?), manifolds, and general relativity - addressed OK?
 * Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * As regards “interwoven continuum”, that phrase goes back to at least November 2014 and has withstood the test of time under threat of a thousand drive-by shootings. I didn’t invent the term but see its value. It wasn’t too long ago that this article launched straight into overly ‘sciency’ lingo like By combining space and time into a single manifold… without any explanatory text to ease the reader into advanced math-speak. For a first paragraph, I think the verbiage “interwoven continuum” is usefully descriptive.


 * As for the rest of the list, that all sounds like it needs some heavy lifting that goes far beyond my pay grade. I think I know of a volunteer… Greg L (talk) 06:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Considering the mean lifetime of urban legends (geocentric universe?), withstanding the test of time, I don't bet a dime on "interwoven continuum". My effort was -as described- to shift the vagueness from entities to actions. Imho, it is easier to look up "continuum", "time", and "3d-space" and vaguely "interweave" these notions in one's understanding, than to find concrete information on "interwoven continuum". Certainly, I share the opinion that "interweaving into a manifold" is too much to digest. Nevertheless, I throw in my just 2 cents, and if someone makes a dollar from it, I open a bottle of champagne and see if I find another coin, and I move on, if the cents, thrown in a drive-by, are generally considered washers. Purgy (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, this is interesting having you here, Purgy. I revised the sentence you found awkward. With English being your second language, you seem to be tripping up on words that don't have dead-on primary definitions for the way they are being used. You wrote Imho, it is easier to look up "continuum", "time", and "3d-space" and vaguely "interweave" these notions in one's understanding, than to find concrete information on "interwoven continuum". Very interesting; it’s an exceedingly structured and methodical approach to parsing each word of English to divine meaning. So I looked up the definition of “interwoven”; it has two meanings:


 * • weave or become woven together.
 * "the rugs are made by tightly interweaving the strands"
 * • blend closely.
 * "Wordsworth's political ideas are often interwoven with his philosophical and religious beliefs"


 * “Interwoven” was being used per the second meaning (“blended closely”). Moreover, “interwoven” seemed nicely descriptive—almost poetically so—since it conjured (was evocative) of a fabric of spacetime, which is visually depicted in the illustration immediately to to the right. We certainly can’t be turning this article into a simple-English version, but since this is the first sentence of the lede, I tried my hand at even tighter prose, as follows: …that fuses three-dimensional space and the one dimension of time into a single 4‑dimensional continuum. “Interwoven” was quite a useful word, but by changing “combines” to “fuses,” there is no strong need reinforce the concept using the word “interwoven.” I hope you like that better. Greg L (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * As thanked, I do like your rephrasing, and thanks for it again. Please, be assured, that I could live with "interwoven continuum" almost as well, and that always, even in my use of "interweave" as verb, I referred to the meaning of "blend closely". However, I am afraid that I still cannot get across my aversion to (attributed) nouns, which lack a rigorous definition, like "interwoven continuum" ("Poetically" as well as "esoteric" bear the same meaning of "fundamental lack of precision" to me). I prefer, really radically, to be vague (for introductory or didactic purposes) within connecting these well defined nouns (you used "to fuse"), than being vague with respect to the nouns themselves (i.e I use "to interweave continua" instead of "interwoven continuum"). Maybe my strong technical associations with "continuum" (aleph squared?) renders my position inconceivable to you. Thanks for the cooperation. Purgy (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Here's a passage from elsewhere that (I thjnk) I stole from Sard's SR book. Observer and frame of reference: It is tacitly always assumed that each inertial frame has a dedicated Lorentz observer, I. e. someone who has, in principle, a complete record (i. e. coordinates!) of every event as observed in that frame.
 * This "defines" Lorentz observer. YohanN7 (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Am I wrong in taking this for a Lorentz observer being synonymous to coordinates as regards events? Purgy (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (EC) Not sure I understand what you mean, but $event = point in spacetime$ or $event = a particular thing happening, like electron a emits photon b at a point in spacetime$. In either case, the record is the coordinate $(ct, x, y, z)$ of the event and, if something particular happened, a separate record of what happened (electron $a$ emits photon $b$). The Lorentz observer has access to all records. YohanN7 (talk) 08:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I see, I did not consider the assignment of meanings to events. To me, when talking of "spacetime", it is just the stage, not the drama. Thanks. Purgy (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Yohan. For some reason, I wasn't getting Purgy's point, even though I emphasized it in the Introduction.Frowny.svg Basically, a Lorentz observer would be the observer of Figure 1-1 and as described on pages 17 through 21 of Taylor and Wheeler. I'll see how to work it in. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The relevant passage is the second-to-last paragraph on p.19. Observer = "The man who goes around picking up punched cards." YohanN7 (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * After a number of false starts, I found that it took altogether too many words to explain the special meaning of "observer" or "Lorentz observer" in the lede. So I decided to omit using the word altogether from the lede, instead leaving the explanation to the Introduction. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wholesome technical-writing goodness. The last paragraph of the lede was getting rather ponderous. It’s rather decent now. Greg L (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have a synonym for "measurement" that is not five syllables ("quantification")? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I think "quantification" has a dangerous nearness to quantum theory. Perhaps talking about the "values" of measurement helps. Purgy (talk) 09:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Numeric/numerical values as alternative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.217.164 (talk) 10:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I ran across this article in Phys. Rev. D. I thought it a paradigm of how to sound very smart-smart but be wholly unsuitable for a scientific article in an encyclopedia directed to a general interest readership. This is something that, unfortunately, often occurs on the project.

We argue that the Lorentzian path integral is a better starting point for quantum cosmology than its Euclidean counterpart. In particular, we revisit the minisuperspace calculation of the Feynman path integral for quantum gravity with a positive cosmological constant. Instead of rotating to Euclidean time, we deform the contour of integration over metrics into the complex plane, exploiting Picard-Lefschetz theory to transform the path integral from a conditionally convergent integral into an absolutely convergent one. We show that this procedure unambiguously determines which semiclassical saddle point solutions are relevant to the quantum mechanical amplitude. Imposing “no-boundary” initial conditions, i.e., restricting attention to regular, complex metrics with no initial boundary, we find that the dominant saddle contributes a semiclassical exponential factor which is precisely the inverse of the famous Hartle-Hawking result.

Wow. It looks like one of those gibberish generators. Is that techno-babble real??

What the above supposedly says is this:

As an alternative to theories that the Big Bang began at infinite density—and physics and math utterly break down at infinity—we posit that the universe arose from nothing via quantum tunneling and subsequently grew into the universe we see today. While the density of the universe and the curvature of spacetime would have been large, it would have been decidedly finite. Furthermore, its geometry would have been smooth.

Yeah. Much better. Greg L (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not sufficiently an expert in cosmology to judge on the possible values of the article behind this abstract, but it does not look gibberish to me. Sorry, but I'd rather say that the "translation" is useless to judge, if it were worth to retrieve the (fictional) article, and that it does not convey any meaningful content on research level, even when the buzz density is drastically reduced. Not all information is accessible on all levels of previous knowledge. Purgy (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that your concern, "I think that talking of the shape of a (pseudo-) euclidian space, calling it a manifold (which it is) is sort of an overkill", is the same point that Sławomir made when he wrote, "At the same time it is misleading to refer to Minkowski space as a manifold." So that concern has probably been addressed, I think. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to put a ✅ template besides the bullet points that are sufficiently addressed, replacing the question marks? In other words, ✅. Thanks, Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * While I feel the honor in being asked for a ✅, I cannot take this responsibility. I leave all decisions on incorporating any of my ideas in an idiomatic way within the article to the community. Thanks for showing so much confidence. Purgy (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, I feel honor in being able to step back from my initial "heavy lifting" and letting others with more skill in wordsmithing and/or topic knowledge than myself take over. I feel that my role henceforward will mainly be managerial (although I do have some ideas for additional sections ). Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Historic spacetime
Spacetime is a portal to mathematical physics. A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism (1873) advanced a theory of fields that depend on x,y,z,t, so spacetime calculations began with electromagnetic measurement. Describing transformations requires linear algebra, a subject that has developed alongside relativity. The fact that light speed is finite crushed the naïve vector theory of velocity. Much of spacetime theory involves the shift to rapidity instead of velocity. Relativity of simultaneity is formalized by hyperbolic orthogonality to the worldline of a given rapidity. These ideas can be approached by the unit hyperbola, and pictured with split-complex numbers. The mathematical physics of spacetime cosmology used biquaternion arithmetic, as detailed by Ludwik Silberstein in 1914, but was also explained by Arthur Conway, and much earlier by Alexander Macfarlane. The revamping of this article has removed many useful historic links, and does damage by replacing spacetime diagram with diagram. Some observers notice the degradation. — Rgdboer (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * As a matter of fact, there is some interesting material to be found when one goes back through the archives of this article. For instance, Privileged character of 3+1 spacetime. I am well aware of what has been lost, and have been planning to revive some of the "Best of the Past" in the later sections. The early sections, however, must present the material that is most useful to the majority of users of this article. Fulfilling their needs has been my primary concern. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for a response. Spacetime is a modern concept that has simple essentials, such as the unit "meter second". The Lorentz transformations leave this measure invariant. The interval is a signed area in these units. I agree that the Encyclopedia must serve its readers. Perpetuation of obfuscation is not desirable, but justified by sources say. One of the best references for elementary considerations was written by Wilson & Lewis (1912) and published in the Proceeding of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 48: (see affine geometry). Wilson & Lewis not only used the synthetic geometry method, but also noted squeeze mapping applied by Lorentz. Simple ideas will serve the likely reader of this article. — Rgdboer (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that the essentials are that unified throughout the pertinent community, like "meter second". Recently, I encountered increasingly the c=1 units. There is not even agreement on (1,3) or (3,1), and I know of biquaternions and split complexes only from their pure math side. BTW, there is a near good article on representation of the Lorentz group. I think that there is no single view on theories of relativity, that allows to call other views an obfuscation. All this could fill a large section on respective history, possibly worth a stand alone article. One man's simplicity is another woman's detour. Purgy (talk) 08:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There is total agreement about metric signature (1,3) or (3,1). It simply doesn't matter. It is like clothing. It should suit the occasion. Sometimes the (1,3) convention is the more convenient one, at other times the (3,1) is. No need to bring this up here (except that it doesn't matter which one is used). YohanN7 (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In no way I wanted to express that the selection of one of equivalent realisations in favour of others would matter, but I did want to object to the opinion that every (correct) point of view regarding spacetime is uniquely determined and agreed upon as the only one to pursue. I think, similarly holds for e.g. involving certain units and even associated "dimensions". Mentioning the signature in this article at all appears questionable to me. Purgy (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * But, of course, (1,3) is the one true metric signature (with apologies to Stephen Weinberg). But, in all seriousness, these two signatures give rise to nonisomorphic Clifford algebras.  However, I think the relevance of such considerations is peripheral to the discussion of this article.  I am opposed to inclusion of discussion of spacetime algebra here, however much an ad hoc historical argument can be made, since it is fringe.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Will remove. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I note that Clifford algebra and Geometric algebra have largely the same list of authors as Spacetime algebra. Does your negative assessment apply to these two articles as well? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The non-isomorphic Clifford algebras have no implications in physics. (And you can be sure that this has been investigated.) Believing one or the other is "correct" is pure crack-pottery. YohanN7 (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The groups $SO(3, 1)$ and $SO(1, 3)$ are isomorphic. Both (or either if you prefer) are implied by special relativity. Further claims must be backed up with physics superceding SR. Unheard of so far. YohanN7 (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, were these directed at me? I was joking when I said that (1,3) is the "one true signature", but it is my own preference.  In any case, I think any actual distinction between the two rather arbitrary signatures are so rarefied to be inconsequential to this article.  But I also think it is wrong to declare absolutely that there is no difference between the two signatures.  One obviously needs to use a different set of gamma matrices, for example.  I'm guessing this is important in odd dimensional space-time, because the analog of "$$\gamma_5^2$$" then depends on the choice of signature.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (EC)I should have known. I feel silly. But the need for internal consistency of a calculation (either or of the signatures, not a mix) should be obvious. YohanN7 (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is way beyond me but perhaps there is a chance it hints to some small physical effect, you might haven't seen yet. Purgy (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Input from I.P. 123.14.253
Hello everyone. While undoubtedly User:Stigmatella aurantiaca must be commended (so too should User:YohanN7) on their efforts to improve this page, I find it is much more disorganised and hard to follow compared to versions prior. Nonetheless I have one specific issue, since it is my transformation you are seeking to explain (yes, mine. it should be clear as to who the author [me] is)
 * It is clearly stated in General covariance that the no prior geometry requirement took nearly a half-century to determine. That is, Albert's (yes, I can call him that. I'm sure my "fans" [weirdos] have seen my high school yearbook quote) theory of relativity does not incorporate a rigorous a priori geometry
 * Since General relativity has a direct dependence on the Lorentz transformation, I do not find it realistic or acceptable that Lorentz' name keeps bieng mentioned.
 * I have spoken to User:Rgdboer about this on previous occasions, as at the time I berated him (my fault, he meant well) for something pertaining to it (I am sure he can recall the instance better than I).

I have nothing against Lorentz, but I do think that certain people whose work is in this area are so priced-in (if you will) regarding the intracacies of this transformation, that they are seeking to make it something more than it is.
 * The Lorentz it is not suitable, nor rigorous, enough to describe my transformation which has been demonstrated (and likely re-implemented by skeptics in the field who questioned my contribution years ago) in-vivo.

I don't get why you guys are so hung up on that transformation anyways. It is wrong; I mean, it was probably useful at the time, but it was never going to be sufficient, nor rich enough (in a Set theoretic context) to describe reality since much of the mathematics were solidifed by David Hilbert and company in the next ten years.

All I want to say is: chill. I respect your guys' hustle and everything, but continuing about the path that involves reviving or attempting to shoehorn Lorentz' work into Roweis and I's contribution is just not cool.
 * Dr Roweis is dead, as I'm sure you all know. I would hope you guys give him the respect he deserves, which I feel (in light of my "discovery" and its dependence on Dr Roweis' [cavalier] work) would be shown by usage of the term "transformation" as opposed to Lorentz transformation.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.14.253.156 (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * There's no reason to be coy about who you (I.P. 123.14.253) are. I note this comment of yours: Nonetheless I have one specific issue, since it is my transformation you are seeking to explain (yes, mine. it should be clear as to who the author [me] is). If (big if) you are a notable expert, please say so and identify yourself. Whereas a theorist or physicist who has been published in peer-reviewed journals would likely view contributing to Wikipedia articlespace, (where some 9th grader can delete all your work) as being an endeavor that is brain damaged beyond all comprehension, your comments here on this talk page would be very interesting to the writers laboring mightily on this article and would no-doubt carry great weight.


 * As for Dr. Roweis, I’m not sure why this has come up. I don’t see “Roweis” anywhere in articlespace (including the citations) or here on this page. If this were a biography on a living person or even a plain ol’ biography, Dr. Roweis would get all the respect he deserves. As for any ideas or theories of his, they are fair game; the best response to a bad theory is a better one. And as mere Wikipedians, it is not our business to pontificate, editorialize, or decide how meritorious (or not) his theories are; we follow what the reliable sources say. Full stop.


 * As for your observation (I find it is much more disorganised and hard to follow compared to versions prior), yeah, it is becoming increasingly apparent that those who have been doing the heavy lifting would be well advised to fly up to the 5000-foot level and take a gander and the landscape. Your input in this regard would be exceedingly valuable… if you’re willing. Greg L (talk) 04:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * As I've stated before, the article is overly focused on relativistic spacetime, and not spacetime in general. Splitting the content about relativistic spacetime into a separate article would help immensely.  I reworked the article into a format that allowed for that, but I was shouted down.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.217.164 (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I repeat: What would be an appropriate title for a new article that would cover alternative, non-relativity-related spacetimes? You are obviously passionate about this point, and a new article would be the place to develop your vision as you see fit. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I repeat as well: this article's title is "spacetime", and it makes sense to me that that should be the focus. Relativistic spacetime seems like an obvious place for discussion of relativistic spacetime. Please stop harassing me about a point that I have clearly already made.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.217.164 (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have started Non-relativistic spacetime for you, and added a bit of initial content. When you have developed the article enough, I will add "See also" references to the article. As you can see, there is an enormous amount of work that you have ahead of you to fill out the stub. Maybe one of the participants on this talk page can help you out. It's a fascinating subject. Cheers! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * More railroading, huh? Your way or the highway?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.217.164 (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Non-relativistic spacetime is your article. As you can see from the stub content that I have added, it is huge field of study. It is up to you to flesh it out. I am not kidding when I state that I will provide references to your article when it has reached a sufficient level of development. Just don't disrupt Spacetime again, which despite my "heavy lifting" in the early stages, is really turning into a group effort by a team whose vision differs from yours. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask for an article, or your help. I think you will find that others don't like having words put in their mouth, either.  But, by all means, shout me down again. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

So it appears that I.P. 47.32.217.164 and I.P. 123.14.253 are on in the same. Yes? If so, that explains a lot and is bullshit, because I.P. coyly holds himself out as an “expert” who has a tangential theory (Non-relativistic spacetime) he wants to shoehorn into this article.

Here are the facts as I see them:
 * 1) I.P. has made it clear is not willing or is not capable of participating in a proper collaborative way. All discussion is a ‘my way or the highway’ message from him.
 * 2) I.P. alludes to being an expert in the field.
 * 3) Point No. 2 above doesn’t mattter; Wikipedia has been down that road before and has a crystal clear policy of following reliable sources, where peer-reviewed papers count and self-published theories are effectively relegated to the round file. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.
 * 4) There is no consensus to add crank theories about non-relativistic spacetime in this article.
 * 5) If I.P. wants to advertise his self-published theory, he can expand our Non-relativistic spacetime. I advise him to cite reliable sources while at it. If there are none, that article will most certainly be deprecated one day from the project.
 * 6) There is no more enthusiasm for mollycoddling with I.P.'s intransigence and disruptive behavior.

Greg L (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Wow, so now you're going to shout two of us down just so you can avoid working with people that might question the status quo? I certainly didn't ask for a crank article on non-relativistic spacetime to be created.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.217.164 (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 * Quoting you: I certainly didn't ask for a crank article on non-relativistic spacetime to be created. Indeed, you just want to publish your original research here. Your motives are clear, you obviously are incapable of changing your spots, and you are purely disruptive to the project.


 * DETAILS
 * Quoting you: I certainly didn't ask for a crank article on non-relativistic spacetime to be created. Indeed. You just want to hold yourself up as an expert in an alternative self-published crank theory (or as you wrote, you’re one of those “people that might question the status quo”). Rather than publish your original research in the Non-relativistic spacetime article that Stigmatella aurantiaca created for you (apparently in the vain hope you'd trumpet your self-published original research there), you obviously can read the handwriting on that wall and want to memorialize your original research in an article that is high profile and has permanence.


 * However, this article (hopefully all articles) is built only upon widely accepted, peer-reviewed scientific papers founded upon the work of greats like Lorenz and Einstein and those who follow in their footsteps.


 * And what do we get out of you? Utter nonsense like I do not find it realistic or acceptable that Lorentz' name keeps bieng mentioned. And this doozy: Nonetheless I have one specific issue, since it is my transformation you are seeking to explain (yes, mine. it should be clear as to who the author [me] is). Lorentz is widely accepted in the field as an expert. You are not.


 * I note in particular this freudian, where you paint an evocative scene where you and Einstein once shared wine and some violin music together in his study as you two debated God's will vs. quantum mechanics: That is, Albert's (yes, I can call him that. I'm sure my "fans" [weirdos] have seen my high school yearbook quote) theory of relativity does not incorporate a rigorous a priori geometry.


 * You are purely disruptive to this project. We’ve all wasted our time trying to be politically correct and accommodating to an adult bent on fringe-theory self-promotion, and when you don’t get your way, you suddenly pretend to be a confused 9th-grader wondering why everyone else is so mean to the newcomer who is trying only to be oh-so helpful.


 * Now, you said on your I.P. talk page you retired. No one here is expected to persistently behave in an insane manner, where we keep doing the same thing over and over (asking you to not be disruptive) and expect a different outcome each time we ask. What you are all about is now abundantly clear and that is fundamentally at odds with Wikipedia’s principles. You best make good on your retirement pledge and move on. Greg L (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * After a few weeks of retirement, I guess I had hoped the bullying would have stopped. I was wrong. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Since you deleted my comment, I will repeat that I'm not the person you have labeled a "crank". I didn't request an article for non-relativistic spacetime, and I think that adding that article was disruptive in itself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.217.164 (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No, I would not have permitted original research. It's a real topic about which a lot can be written. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * But nobody asked for it. I asked for more balance in this article, and for the overemphasis on relativity to be moved to relativistic spacetime.  It is disruptive to put words in my mouth.
 * That's not going to happen. Your vision of a "balanced" article was uniformly rejected by what are now the major contributors to this article. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. I understand the issue now. I agree with everything Stigmatella aurantiaca wrote (That's not going to happen. Your vision of a "balanced" article was uniformly rejected by what are now the major contributors to this article.) The consensus is clear and the I.P. editor is overruled. Period. Ample digital space is provided below for whining but that won’t change the outcome of the consensus and will likely only provoke an invitation to the I.P. editor to expedite is re-retirement plans. Greg L (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Please boil this all down to its essential elements so I can understand what’s really going on here and so we can arrive at a crystal clear consensus on all germane issues.
 * Is one issue over how the I.P. is trying to expand this article, which is already arguably too big and complex, with concepts of spacetime comprising spatial dimensions other than three, as well as time comprising dimensions greater than one?
 * Do you have a good idea as to the identity of the I.P. editor?
 * If the answer to #2, above, is ‘yes’, who is the I.P. editor and has he or she published work in peer-reviewed journals that the RSs consider to be notable?
 * Is there some other underlying issue that is causing issues with the I.P. editor to flair up I am not aware of?
 * BTW, everyone. Let's not add posts within others’ posts. It's confusing. Greg L (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Dust-up
The IP user in Fort Worth, Texas has proven that this article is a battlefront of information warfare. This article is viewed about 2400 times a day, has over 700 watchers, of whom more than 100 are reviewing recent changes. Major revisions of high profile article like this can expect pushback. As mentioned above, affine geometry pertains here as one of our presumptions is that parallelism is a useful concept in decoding the universe. (The Fort Worth person likes general covariance where even affine structure is foreign.) We scientists do well to note that Spacetime has not been a particularly useful concept, as relativistic electromagnetism has not supplanted other approaches to electromagnetism. However, the effort has stimulated the development of differential geometry so some progress has been made. Most importantly, Spacetime has provided university physics departments with a course to teach since Ludwik Silberstein provided a textbook in 1914. But ignorance flourishes, and most instructors and WP editors on this article haven’t the foggiest. If a prospective editor doesn’t understand hyperbolic angle, then he or she is not ready for rapidity, and should not contribute to this article. — Rgdboer (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I can’t even tell what the flamewar is about. It appears to be an effort by the Fort Worth I.P. to add non-relativistic spacetime stuff to this article. I don’t really care what the I.P. editor “knows”; I for one, don’t know squat about spacetime, other than what you guys put here, and then I try to reword it in the lede so it's accessible to mortals with five minutes to invest.


 * Do you favor adding non-relativistic spacetime stuff to this article? We need a clear consensus on at least that much.


 * Insofar as whether the Fort Worth I.P. understands this or that, that doesn’t matter; like everyone else here, the I.P. can cite notable, well-cited, peer-reviewed, papers. And by “notable,” I mean ones that RS's have mentioned or have been cited many times by other papers. Greg L (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This article is hugely biased towards special relativity, and is a mess that completely goes against the MOS. Every time I bring these points up, I'm shouted down. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Quoting you: Every time I bring these points up, I'm shouted down. That's the definition of “consensus,” which governs everything on this project. You may not like it, but you best learn to accept it. Greg L (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. This is an all-volunteer effort and I have wasted far more time than I should have dealing with your complaining about how you don't like the consensus view, or deny there is a consensus. Anymore disruption out of you will not be well tolerated. Greg L (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So on a page with "hundreds" of watchers, a consensus is 2 people? You and Stigmatella?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.217.164 (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I’ll play your game and go with those numbers for a second. Do you have two or three others solidly affirming your views to establish a consensus otherwise? Greg L (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Has there actually been a discussion? Or is it just a race?  Quoting you, in this very discussion. We need a clear consensus on at least that much..  Apparently you've already abandoned that thought in your haste to shout me down. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * More than enough discussion has occurred here because of you. You are overruled. The consensus is clear. I didn’t volunteer to deal with editors who refuse to abide by the rules of Wikipedia. I urge you to not edit against consensus or you're I.P. address will likely be blocked. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, so now it's emperor Greg who decides? Not consensus?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.217.164 (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Definitely consensus. Besides the five contributors (myself, Greg, Purdy, Yohan, Sławomir) on this page, I can easily bring on at least two other Wikipedia editors whom I am friends with, have worked with, and who monitor the Spacetime page (I see their edits), and two outside professional physicists whom I have relied upon to check my work, and who would be willing to disclose their true names so that you can check up on their credentials. One of these outside reviewers is a Norwegian physicist, the other is associated with Fermilab. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Can they speak for themselves, because all I see is you and Greg, which sounds like the same consensus of 2 among hundreds I indicated above? Appeal to authority: classical logical fallacy. How is an appeal to authority supposed to convince me that the article is balanced?  Or are you just doubling down on the shout down approach? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.217.164 (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * To the I.P. editor. You have already demonstrated the following:


 * A) That your style of collaborative writing is pure ‘My way or the highway’ with comments like this doozy from your you fingers: “I feel it would be best if you stayed out of this discussion until my concerns have been addressed adequately.” Also,
 * B) The consensus was your wholesale changes to this article were substandard. I found your work here to be abysmal, but that's just my opinion. And,
 * C) I see no one else here who is agreeing with your suggestion that this article veer away from the foundation principles of the greats like Einstein and Lorentz and all those that follow in their footsteps to delve into the fringe theory you seem to like; the article needs that sort of additional complexity like a hole in its head.
 * D) The fact that you believe you are on the same plane as Einstein (∆ edit here), with your own competing theories (That is, Albert's (yes, I can call him that. I'm sure my "fans" [weirdos] have seen my high school yearbook quote) theory of relativity does not incorporate a rigorous a priori geometry), carries no weight on Wikipedia. Why? Because we look towards Reliable Sources to guide us insofar as what is notable and how much weight—if any—to place on competing, fringe theory. We don’t look towards editors who come here saying they are experts on the subject matter and should get their way because he was once on a first-name basis with ol’ Albert.


 * Your harping on this matter (expand it out of Einstein’s relativistic-based foundation) is beyond tedious and is now bordering on the disruptive. You appear to be the only individual on this page advocating for this wholesale change in the scope of the subject matter. Doing the Wikipedia equivalent of running through a city chamber of commerce meeting with your hair on fire and shouting every day obviously isn’t persuasive yet you keep at it, which I find curious—you seem to relish in making waves for the sake of making waves.


 * Now, the last time no one here agreed with your reasoning, you went to Noticeboard/Incidents where you donned the persona of a 9th-grader innocently wondering why everyone else was preventing you from even contributing because you, gosh, only wanted to be oh-so helpful. This sort of disruptive behavior (‘I want MY way and ol’ Albert isn’t the only one who is smart‘) is not new to Wikipedia.


 * If you feel a consensus does not exist, you may start an RFC here if you like. Greg L (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You are mixing apples and oranges again. I am not the same person as the 123 IP.  You are also railroading again, by insisting on your way or the highway again (RFC rather than discussion).  You really are creative in finding distractions from discussion, I'll give you that.


 * I also note that one of the people mentioned as agreeing with your "consensus" of 2 out of hundreds has in fact chosen to leave, rather than support your shouting me down. He chose his own words.  Like I said, people don't like having words put in their mouth. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, desist with your worn refrain of being “shouted down”. No one is shouting; it’s just that I can’t see anyone here who’s buying what you’re selling. Now…


 * An RFC is a form of discussion; that’s why it’s called a “Request for Comment”. It is a process for requesting outside input on a well-focused issue so that circuitous ‘I don’t like it’ can be put to bed. Here’s the link: WP:RFC. If you don’t want to conduct an RFC because you enjoy flogging a dead horse so much, either Stigmatella or I might do one shortly ourselves here. Greg L (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Alternative truths by Purgy
For the time being I stop trying to contribute to this article. Even when being sure that I wont be missed, I do want to give some of my prevalent reasons as personally perceived.
 * An IP (47...) shamelessly and continuously posts within other posts, not even caring about delimiting his pronouncements, and not showing any signs to accomodate to the least rigeur. His targets on mentioning "non-relativistic spacetimes" are left absolutely in the vague, because he feels himself shouted down, after not stating his intentions (trolling?).
 * An editor (Greg L), well established within this article, but probably not deeply knowledgeable on the topic, continuously devaluates contributions not along his selection of words and content, by simply claiming a proof by time and the content being already "pithy, precise, and razor sharp" (biting "newbies").
 * The same editor deleting non-offensive IP-comments from the talk(!)-page (hopefully just by error), associating different IPs (denouncement of sock puppetry?), and constantly prepared to shoo away others, even by a dedicated section on the talk page (granting latitude).
 * Rgdboer believes in "rapidity" and other auxilliary constructions or mathematical variants in looking at spacetime being the salvation. Any shift to a more generalized view is rebutted.
 * An other IP (123...) is convinced (on what grounds?) that having defined some transformation (which one?) in some 4-space (which one?), and especially, by being him and on colloquial grounds with Albert, would suffice to topple Lorentz' importance.

This got too much for me to carry on. All the best to you all and especially to the article. Purgy (talk) 07:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Reply to Purgy by Stig

 * Sorry to see you go. *I* certainly will miss you! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Reply to Purgy by Greg

 * While trying to transplant repeated posts made in the middle of others’ posts, I deleted one (or some). It was entirely unintentional. I apologize for the error. Greg L (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Reply to Purgy by IP (47...)

 * Sorry to see you go. Yes, my comments have been vague.  There are a couple reasons for that.  The first being that I'm not an expert.  I don't feel that disqualifies me from being heard and taken seriously, however; I've had plenty of productive experiences when not being bullied.  As you point out, I can't seem to get any thoughts out without them being demonized.
 * I don't think I've spoken about non-relativistic spacetimes per se. You may have me confused with the 123 editor, as others have done.  I am more concerned about the lack of focus on the article's topic, spacetime in general.  Instead the focus is on relativistic spacetime, and the article comes off as a biased textbook, two things that are anathema to the project's goals.  Should you care to hear them, I'd be more than happy to discuss my concerns with you.  I've done work on the article hoping to correct this, but it was thrown away, and my concerns along with it.  There was never any real discussion, despite the refrain of "follow the rules" comments that are used to shout me down.  I believe it's clear that the "rules" and "consensus" are being employed as a weapon to avoid discussion and for harassment.
 * Lastly, I will say that I'm thoroughly disappointed with what has become of this article. In the name of making the article "simpler", the article has in fact become more mired in incomprehensible disconnected statements, now completely inaccessible to a newbie.  It is so incomprehensible that it includes links everywhere which don't even serve the intended function of simplifying, and is in complete opposition to the ideas of the MOS.  It's funny how the very people that could help with making the article more accessible are the ones that are being shouted down.

Reply to IP (47...) by Stig

 * Here is an experiment:
 * Read the summary ^Definitions section
 * Read the level three Definitions subsection
 * Re-read the summary ^Definitions section
 * Does having a Summary for each major subsection level help in understanding what the subsection is supposed to be about? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Reply to Stig by IP (47...)

 * I don't understand how your system is supposed to work at all. It's not intuitive to me.  I'm not interested in learning a special method for the sake of one article.  My recommendation would be to ask for help from the contributors to the MOS for options on what approaches can be used to solve the problem you are trying to address.  I don't even understand what problem that is. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The problem is that this is a large article divided into subsections that are themselves rather large. Adding summaries to each major subsection helps the reader focus on the subsection's major points. A person can read through all of the Summaries and get the gist of all the content that I've contributed. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Reply to IP (47...) by Stig

 * Unfortunately, your version of the spacetime article (00:38, 29 May 2017) makes absolutely no sense to anybody except yourself. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * There you go with more words in my mouth. I thought we were discussing how to improve the article, and I offered what I thought was a reasonable suggestion.  You respond with a personal attack.  Not only are you trying to tell me what I meant by my own edits, but you are trying to claim to understand how everyone else perceives the issue, without having consulted them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.217.164 (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * He's not putting words in your mouth. I clearly understood the point of his post to be that your contributions don’t make sense to anyone.


 * It doesn’t matter much if you feel that what Stigmatella wrote is bad ‘cess and that you are terribly fond of your verbiage if no one else here feels that way. You just don’t seem to be getting the concept here; consensus rules. You deny there is a consensus. Well, fine; what’s good for the goose is good for the gander because there sure as heck isn’t a consensus to let you do what you did earlier to this article and replace Stigmatella’s well-focused text with your unfocused ramblings. Do you see anyone else buying what you’re selling? I don’t.


 * Maybe a way you can contribute would be to make a sandbox and go write something that others support. If there's a consensus to add it (or swap it) to the article, we’ll do so.


 * It would also help if you started signing your posts, registered, stopped adding unsigned comments right in the middle of others’ posts (making more work for me and others as we try to move posts around into a coherent, decipherable order), stopped tenaciously flogging a dead horse in hopes of wearing down other editors or drive them away from the project (that's disruptive), and finally started performing some of the little courtesies expected of contributors, like working collaboratively with others instead of telling people to stay out of discussions until you first get your way. Greg L (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Another personal attack. Not going to bother to respond. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 11:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I was attacking your contributions, not you personally. There is a difference.
 * What is your response to Slawomir's comments? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see the need for attacking at all, whether it's my edits or me personally. I take them both to be harassment.  I do feel there are still a number of issues with the article, as I've pointed out a number of times.  Want me to make a list?  I'm not interested in a sandbox.  I don't typically write extensive text.  That's neither my interest, nor typical for non-experts. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)



Having a sandbox would be the easiest way to keep your thoughts and proposals organized. To do so, you would need to create a login. There are various other benefits to having a login. For example, on various projects, you need a login before you have voting rights. For instance, I've participated in the nomination, editing, and bringing to featured picture status figures such as this wonderful set of images by Dr. Fabien Baron of the University of Michigan. (I was responsible for adding the phase legends at the lower left.) Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Question: Why are my edits harassment, while your disruptive edits are not? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I've already addressed the sandbox and account questions. I'm not going to continue discussing them here.  It's possible I'd discuss further on my talk page, if that interests you.  Your question is a loaded question, which I'm going to decline to answer.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.217.164 (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * As I've stated before, that is not your talk page, but a talk page associated with the IP address to which you temporarily have possession. Your history goes back only a limited time. Prior to your current IP, you were 75.139.254.117 (talk). Under that IP, you also display a rather contentious editing history going no further back than 21 September 2016. Yet you have stated that you have been on Wikipedia for years. What I can see does not add up to an appealing picture of collaborative editing in the best tradition of Wikipedia. Who were you before 75.139.254.117 (talk)? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, you've declined my invitation for discussion. Fine.  Then personal attacks.  In the meantime, the article hasn't gotten any better.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.217.164 (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, desist with your wikilawyering about “personal attacks” and “harassment.” Your behavior here on Wikipedia is utterly abysmal and is fair game because you are being disruptive. Now…


 * You’ve repeatedly argued that this article is too relativity- and Loretz-centered and want to make it more generic to encompass spatial dimensions other than three, and temporal dimensions other than one. I find that suggestion to be garbage and no one else around here thinks it’s a good idea. Your opinions are yours only; nothing else.


 * Your behavior, which includes telling others to stay out of discussions until your concerns have been first addressed to your satisfaction, betrays a galactic misunderstanding of how things work around here. You obviously believe that you are permitted to keep harping on this until you get your way, and that Wikipedia's rules require others, who are volunteers, to indefinitely indulge your desire to mix it up (in the name of “discussion”) until either the heat death of the universe, or until everyone here fatigues and stops pushing back at your lousy idea, as if the latter somehow means “acquiescence” to you.


 * Things just don’t work that way on Wikipedia. By being as tenacious as a herpes infection, you obviously think you can hold everyone hostage here to your agenda; you are wrong. Moreover, your persistence—if you don’t come to your senses and behave in accordance to the rules of conduct in a collaborative writing environment—seems to have gone well over the line of violating WP:LISTEN. Continuing to persist in this manner may result in your I.P. blocked. Greg L (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * More personal attacks and threats. Bullying. Do I think it's reasonable to ask for bullies to go away so that constructive concerns are heard? Yeah, I do.
 * Now you’re just trying to be annoying on purpose. Please go away. You're concerns have been raised fifty times now. No one agrees with you. Greg L (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My concerns have been raised, but not addressed. Unless you're volunteering to address them, I'll think I'll stick around a while longer.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.217.164 (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean, you didn’t get your way so you’ll continue to harangue us here? Greg L (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * WordsInMouth=WordsInMouth+1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.217.164 (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It is clear, I.P. 47.32.217.164, that your only purpose on this talk page is to ignore rules of conduct and badger others unless you get your way. Your behavior here is nothing but disruptive. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about your tendentious behavior. Greg L (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Update: The above-mentioned ANI is now resolved. For the record, here is a perma-link to the ANI regarding I.P. 47.32.217.164. Greg L (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)