User talk:D.H/Archive 1

Hilgenberg
Thanks for letting me know. Please go ahead. Great to see someone contributing to the topic. I read the article in german and the amusing auto-translation. I can't find my dictionary so I was not keen to put it out. I notice that google produces very different results with Ott or Otto, do you have a good citation for Ott? If it is spelt both ways commonly, I imagine a redirect is in order. Regards ☻ Fred|☝ discussion |✍ contributions  00:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ott Christoph Hilgenberg in twentieth-century geophysics - Giancarlo Scalera, Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica is your reference? 00:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not only this reference. Here are many papers of Hilgenberg too. The name ist always "Ott Christoph". Of course, in German the name Otto is more common than "Ott", but the references say "Ott"... --D.H 07:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A page of full of german citations is about as conclusive as one could hope for. I think a #REDIRECT pagename  is in order for 'Otto'. On that subject, what is going on with this? Nice work getting the article out, I think a bit more about his life and work would be good.  Thanks for the excellent resource links, nice to find some content on the web. We should be able to use some expand the topics on wikipedia with them. Regards, ☻ Fred|☝ discussion |✍  contributions  15:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I created a redirect from Christopher Otto Hilgenberg. I'm also working on the German article (Ott Christoph Hilgenberg) and I agree that both articles could be expanded. Will see...BTW: I translated the article on Cary into German: Samuel Warren Carey. Also an English translation of the article László Egyed would be good. --D.H 18:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine work with the article. If you credit the László Egyed article, I see no harm in a quick translation. Perhaps it is my turn, we should have split them up.
 * Can you see the Subduction sections merged together?
 * I am tending to prefer less headings and bullet points in articles, do you think it is ready for me to attempt this?
 * If so, do you think Scalera provides the most objective survey of the theory's/models' history?
 * regards, ☻ Fred|☝ discussion |✍ contributions  14:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) I'm working on the translation of the Egyed article. Also an aricle on Mantovani is in preparation.
 * 2) I have no problem with less headings and bullet points in the article. Please go on.
 * 3) And yes, I think Scalera is (at the time) the best information for such theories. Maybe more details about Carey's theory are necessary. See Carey's online book "Earth Universe Cosmos" (http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/launchpad/8098/2.htm).  --D.H 14:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Good work, don't forget the tags on the talk page. Please translate the book title also.
 * 2) I will - another day.
 * 3) It seems pretty sound for the starting points and timeline. Online book!   Thankyouthankyouthankyou. Regards, ☻ Fred|☝ discussion |✍  contributions  20:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue II - May 2007
The May 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 06:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ammended 14:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Mechanical explanations of gravitation
Nice one mate. If only all new pages were as good as this one. A really great idea for an article, I have to try and remember to watchlist it when I'm home and logged in. Fred 203.161.118.53 15:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've created the German article a few days ago an than translated it into English. Hope both articles are good enough. Dietmar. --D.H 19:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Abraham's Contribution to Mass Energy
Thank you for the nice discussion. It is good to have a German speaker working on this historical material, because I do not speak German and the literature is completely inaccessible. I was wondering if you are interested in history of quantum mechanics too. A lot of this literature is also inaccessible to me. Kind regards. Likebox 05:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately my historical knowledge on quantum physics is hardly sufficient to edit an article. Sorry, --D.H (talk) 07:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue III - September 2007
The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 01:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Le Sage at GAC
I was going to review Le Sage's theory of gravitation at GAC, but then I thought that perhaps you might want someone with a science background to do it. I can provide an educated, but lay perspective (Markus Poessel might be able to tell you how helpful I was or not on introduction to general relativity). Let me know if this is something you are interested in. I am interested in science and the history of science (I recently wrote the bulk of Joseph Priestley), but perhaps you would like a more knowledgeable reviewer? Awadewit | talk  19:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please continue with your review of the article. Thank you very much for your efforts. --D.H 09:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Kaufmann-Neumann Experiment
Hey! I am currently stalled on this article, due to a lack of secondary sources I am able to locate. I do not want to get into original research. If you, or anybody you know, has citations of such sources and can push this article forward, that would be great! Awolf002 (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Prose Timeline
Hi. A few things about history of special relativity:


 * 1)  Don't insult people in the edit summary, it makes you look like a jerk, and even if you apologize for it later, you can't revert the edit summary.
 * 2)  Please see WP:Proseline as you seem to be unaware that those sections of the article are not formatted properly for WP.  There should not be gigantic sections of bulleted text, especially when they are arranged in a "in 1905 this happened" followed by "from 1907-1908 this person did this" manner.  The text needs to be reworded into a fully prose set of paragraphs, or removed and replaced by a more concise timeline proper.
 * 3)  The article is in really bad shape, and in serious need of a rewrite.  I would do it myself, but I don't have the time or technical expertise to do so.  I came upon the article in the midst of a discussion and found it to be of little use.
 * 4)  The Criticism section is completely lacking in sources and is also very POV.  Unfortunately, this is compounded by the fact that the section (like much of the article) is written in a very unprofessional tone.  "Besides" being one of the most obvious offenders.

Please replace the rewrite, cleanup, and proseline tags or I will do so for you. --  Grant  .  Alpaugh  18:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So you're claiming ownership over the content of the article as a justification for not changing the style? The style of the article matters, admittedly not as much as the content, but it isn't something you can just ignore because you don't like it.  The criticism section doesn't need to be shortened, it just needs to be sourced and made to sound more professional.  The same for the proseline sections I'm talking about.  There is no reason to have the article look like that other than "I wrote it and that's the way it's going to stay."  Just because the article is about science doesn't mean we have to completely forgoe proper writing.  I would do the changes myself, but I have neither the time or the expertise to do so.  Since you and I obviously disagree, let's let the broader community decide about the tags, and whether they are "absurd."  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  09:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not quarreling with you. I just want to improve an article that needs to be improved.  As for your suggestion that I ask someone else to help improve the article, I just asked you to, and, failing that, I've placed the tags so that others might be able to help as well.  Please don't take it as a personal attack.  The content that you have added is great and well sourced, the style is just a bit off, perhaps due to the fact that you're not a native speaker, which is totally fine.  I in no way wanted to diminish or criticize your efforts, just improve them.  When I have more time I will attempt a more thorough reformatting of the article.  Have a good one.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  10:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They're different tags and apply to the whole article. The article is in need of a cleanup and large sections need to be rewritten.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  13:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are thousands of articles that have cleanup tags at the top of the article. This one is no different.  I fear that you are taking this personally because you have contributed so much to the article.  Please don't remove tags that are legitimate.  They call attention to the needs of the article as a whole and should remain at the top of the article.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  13:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that you are contesting the inclusion of cleanup tags shows that you are taking this personally because of the ammount of content you've provided to the article. I would advise you to take a look at WP:OWN and make sure you're not taking this too seriously.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  14:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue IV - May 2008
A new May 2008 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is hot off the virtual presses. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Another Licorne visitation
It seems that we'll have to live with this guy jumping in every few months and trying to push his POV. I see that you've taken good care of his content changes. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * continuing conversation on my talkpage.... --Alvestrand (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Dynamo theory
The page "Dynamo theory" called for edit, which was needed and I complied. I provided a precise and correct edit, providing a NPOV of the current state of the science. Vsmith removed my edit alleging "self-promotional". How can it be claimed self promotional to state factually with reference to publications in world-class scientific journals? DAEdgerled Ph.D. replaced the edits I had made and left the reason on the discussion page. Then you removed that replacement alleging "self-promotional. How can you clain that? Again the replacement is factual and neutral with reference to publications in world-class scientific journals, and none of the work is made by the poster. Science is about truth, not deception under any guise. Removing that information, in my view, seriously violates the concept of neutrallity. Is there any wording that you found less than neutral? I would like to find some satisfactory way to resolve this matter at this level so I would be interested in and appreciate your answers to the above questions.

Incidentally, re Hilgenberg below, it is my understanding that Otto changed his name to Ott around the time of WWII so that it would seem less German. There is one resource that should not be overlooked. Hilgenberg dedicated his famous 1933 book to his little daughter, Helge. I currently correspond with this delightful and knowledgable lady.Marvin Herndon (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Dynamo theory II
I disagree with your rationale for reverting the edits to “Dynamo theory” for the following reasons: Although I originally posted the edits, some other editor removed them, and they were reposted by someone else, who left a message on the discussion page. What you removed was that re-posting by someone else, not me. Irrespective, the posts should stand and there should be no question of notability. I am the originator of the fundamental concept of a nuclear georeactor as the energy source for the geomagnetic field, the theoretical basis of which is published in the following world-class, peer-reviewed scientific journals:Herndon, J. M. (1993) Feasibility of a nuclear fission reactor at the center of the Earth as the energy source for the geomagnetic field. J. Geomag. Geoelectr. 45, 423-437.Herndon, J. M. (1994) Planetary and protostellar nuclear fission: Implications for planetary change, stellar ignition and dark matter. Proc. R. Soc. Lond A455, 453-461.Herndon, J. M. (1996) Sub-structure of the inner core of the earth. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 93, 646-648.Hollenbach, D. F. and Herndon, J. M. (2001) Deep-earth reactor: nuclear fission, helium, and the geomagnetic field. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 11085-11090.Herndon, J. M. (2003) Nuclear georeactor origin of oceanic basalt 3He/4He, evidence, and implications. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 100, 3047-3050.Herndon, J. M. (2007) Nuclear georeactor generation of the earth's geomagnetic field. Curr. Sci. 93, 1485-1457.Herndon, J. M. (2007) Magnetic Field Generation in Planets and Satellites by Natural Nuclear Fission Reactors. Curr. Sci. in press. http://arXiv.org/abs/0707.4161

The georeactor concept has received to my knowledge never been refuted in the open scientific literature and, moreover, has been extensively vetted, for example, in the following articles: Rao, K. R. (2002) Nuclear reactor at the core of the Earth! - A solution to the riddles of relative abundances of helium isotopes and geomagnetic field variability. Curr. Sci. 82(2), 126-127. Seifritz, W. (2003) Some comments on Herndon's nuclear georeactor. Kerntechnik 68(4), 193-196.Domogatsky, G. V., Kopeikin, V. I., Mikaelyan, L. A., and Sinev, V. V. (2005) Neutrino geophysics at Baksan I: Possible detection of georeactor antineutrinos. Physics of Atomic Nuclei 68(1), 62-72. Moreover, the idea of a nuclear georeactor at the center of the Earth as an energy source for the geomagnetic field is now widely known throughout the world as a consequence of radio and television broadcasts and newspaper and magazine articles. Until about two years ago, I did what everybody else in the geophysics community had done since 1939; namely, assume that the Earth’s core has been engaged in convection for at least three and one-half billion years serving as the operant fluid for the dynamo action thought to be responsible for generating the geomagnetic field. And this is what the article “Dynamo theory” said before my edit. After all, for decades the fluid core was the only fluid thought to exist deep within the Earth. But, I recently realized, that was a mistaken assumption which is clearly understandable from the properties of matter. Long-term stable convection, as required for dynamo action in the fluid core, would require maintaining an adverse temperature gradient in the core. In other words, for billions of years the temperature at the base of the core would have to be higher than at the top of the core. For that to be would require efficient heat removal from the top of the core. But the core is surrounded by thousands of km of insulating silicate rock and the thermal properties involved all favor trapping heat in the core and equalizing any temperature gradient in the core, bringing to a halt any convection in the core; without convection there can be no dynamo action.

The nuclear georeactor is expected to have a fluid sub-shell surrounding the actinide sub-core obviating all of the inconsistencies based upon the thermal properties of matter involved. The fluid is heated at the base and at the top, surrounded by a heat sink which is itself surrounded by a heat sink, provides an efficient heat removal mechanism for maintaining an adverse temperature gradient. The georeactor has all this plus a plethora of charged particles and ionizing radiation for creation of a seed-field. The geoscience community has been mistaken about the operant fluid for dynamo action for more than six decades. I published the discovery of the mistake and the concept of georeactor operant fluid for dynamo action in 2007. Removal of my edits for the reasons you stated would be fundamentally wrong as it would now intentionally mislead the wiki-readership. Many millions of dollars have been spent, and many careers built, on making models of convection-based dynamo action in the Earth’s fluid core; models that are underpinned by false assumptions. You may be reasonably certain that those involved are going to be slow to admit the error. So, as a consequence of self-interest, discussion in the scientific literature may be years in the future. There is no point in continuing to mis-lead (this time intentionally) wiki-readership by removing my edits. There is one over-riding Wikipedia rule that applies here: “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it”. Please replace the edit that you removed.Marvin Herndon (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)



While I appreciate your effort to arrive at some compromise by adding material to the "Georeactor" article, the issues I have pointed out above for "Dynamo theory" still stand. I believe that it is fundamentally wrong, and unthruthful, and now, deliberately untruthful, to mislead the world community by discussing the generation of the geomagnetic field by dynamo action in the Earth's fluid core without discussion what is wrong with the concept of convection in that part of the Earth and without discussing the different concept I have published. It it also violates NPOV. While the concept of dynamo theory is quite complicated, the reasons against long-term stable convection in the Earth's core are not. Read the paper yourself. http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/aug102007/394.pdf If you think it is in any way incorrect, you should attempt to refute the paper in open scientific literature, ideally in the journal of publication. Otherwise, the work should be acknowledged. And my edits to this article should stand. Moreover, the edits I originally made improved the article substantially.Marvin Herndon (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to consider a subject being "widely discussed" in the scientific literature a necessary condition for inclusion in Wikipedia. Such a presumption assumes that the scientific community is objectiuve and truthful. Regrettably, that is not the case. Before World war II, there was little government funding for science. Afrer WWII, in the early 1950s, the U. S. Congress established the National Science Foundation (NSF) to support science. Almost immediately, invented and implemented the concept of anonymous peer review. That must have seemed like an administrative stroke of genius, as it was adopted almost universally by subsequent granting agencies and nearly all science publishers. No one, it seems, stopped to consider the lessons of history where secrecy has been used, whether in the Spanish inquisition or in totalitarian regimes. The result is always the same: Secrecy inevitably leads to massive corruption and casts fear in the community causing people not to want to be noticed. This same thing has happened in science, particularly in America. fifty years of secrecy has led to the formation of criminal cartels of scientists who get rid of their competitors through secret reviews. Individual scientists are hesitant to even mention new ideas that contradict the work of othere, for fear of losing financial support and being unable to get their papers published. It is a process thats essentially results in lying to the scientific community and cheating the taxpayers who support them. I have discussed and documented this in my book "Maverick's Earth and Universe". In such an environment, your desire for a subject to be "widely discussed" will simply not occur for work such as mine which challenges so-called consensus view; that is an unreasonable expectition within the secrecy-based post-WWII scientific community. What is more appropriate is to ask whether a concept has been refuted in the open scientific literature. In more than three decades, my work has not been refuted in the open scientific literature.Marvin Herndon (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Kaufmann Experiment
Thanks for the welcome. It took at bit longer to "be back," but I will be ramping up soon. I'll take a look at the articles you mentioned. Awolf002 (talk) 23:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Cohn translations
Thank you for your comments of 2 October (which I have just noticed, rather belatedly). I'm very interested to hear about the 1904 work -- but I am currently heavily commited to other projects, so it is questionable whether I would ever get round to doing the suggested translation. However I will bear the possibility in mind.

(One of my other projects involves economics, and that is a very hot topic at the moment!!!)

mfG       Tegiap (talk) 06:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Allo- Phil-o-Nieturn
Will you please correct where I'm wrong? Thanks. -Bordello (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Robert Kraichnan
Hi,

I wrote a crappy stub on "Robert Kraichnan" on Wikipedia, and a decent German article just got written. I translated what I could understand, but I don't speak German. I was wondering if you could help translate the rest--- it's not very long. The current English language article has the German I didn't understand embedded. I might have made mistakes too.

Thank you in advance for your consideration,

Wikipedia User:Likebox


 * Ok. --D.H (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I am now translating the technical parts--- I have less trouble with that.Likebox (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue V - January 2009
It's here at long last! The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is ready, with exciting news about Darwin Day 2009. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse --ragesoss (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Poincaré
I was a bit hasty in removing this section as I can see from reading one of the references in it but it is still rather confused. It also should not be the first section on the Einstein convention. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Classical explanation of Fizeau experiment
Why you don't write, that Michelson explained this experiment classically (already in 1986)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.135.250.84 (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I've already included a link to the 1886-article of MM - and I bet there are a lot of other "classical" explanations of that experiment, for example one was made by Larmor. But for the content of Wikipedia articles, we have to use reputable secondary sources - see No original research. And those sources (Whittaker, Born, Janssen) say, that it was Lorentz, who gave the most important explanation based on Maxwell's electromagnetic theory - and then came Laue's explanations. --D.H (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

wikisources
Hello thanks for the links to wikisources! Although I have little time, I'm certainly willing to help out with Wikisources translations - I am happy to see how much already has been translated. Harald88 (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Original German translation of Kirchhoff's 1857 paper
D.H, I have here a copy of an Englsih translation of Kirchhoff's 1857 paper 'On the Motion of Electricity in Conductors'.  Near the bottom of page 24 (first column) (page 6 of the pdf file) you will note the terminology 'velocity of light in empty space'. As this paper was written in an era when all major scientists believed in the aether, I'd like to know what the exact equivalent wording is in the original German translation. Do you by any chance have access to the German version? If so, I'd be grateful to hear your comments. This relates to the history section at the article 'speed of light'. David Tombe (talk) 09:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The translation is correct. See the German version online, on p. 539 you will find: "mit der Geschwindigkeit, die das Licht im leeren Raume hat". My translation: "with the velocity, that light has in empty space" or "velocity of light in empty space". --D.H (talk) 09:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

DH, Thanks for that information. Maybe Kirchhoff wasn't a supporter of the aether. I always did say that Kirchhoff was focused on inside the wire while Maxwell was focused on outside the wire.David Tombe (talk) 11:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

translations
Thank you!! I'll check the one of Langevin and make corrections if needed. Next I'll copy it to my own web page. :-))

Portal:Gravitation
Hello! Can you update this portal, it's not been modified since 8/2008. 222.252.105.50 (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I retracted my message on the BBC article
Had read it wrong. Guess I didn't erase my message before you responded to it. Ajoykt (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. --D.H (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Versehentlich das Archiv mitgelöscht
Wie ein Benutzer im Januar habe ich bei der Verschiebung von der englischen Seite faster-than-light neutrino anomaly nach "faster-than-light neutrino anomaly" das Archiv damit gelöscht. Beim letzten Mal konntest Du es wieder herstellen. Wie geht dies am einfachsten? --Bgm2011 (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Es wurde nicht gelöscht. Du musst nur: Talk:Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly/Archive index nach Talk:Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly (OPERA experiment)/Archive index und die darin befindlichen Archive ebenfalls entsprechend verschieben. --D.H (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hab's jetzt selbst verschoben. --D.H (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Danke!!! --Bgm2011 (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Edits crossing each other
Hi, we seem to be editing at the same time. I'll get off and let you finish your set of changes. By the way, I was thinking of working a little bit on your translation of Sagnac. I'd appreciate it if you would double-check my work. Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a few places where I would make the translation less literal by substituting modern terminology, and adding footnotes to explain an obscure point. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your great work! I expanded the sections on Lorentz and Einstein, and emphasized the (apparent) experimental contradiction between the Fizeau experiment and the famous Michelson-Morley experiment in terms of the different aether drag hypotheses at that time. PS: I welcome your efforts in improving the Sagnac translations. --D.H (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You do some really impressive work! I was just going through your list of contributions. I see that you're not afraid to completely rewrite an article if it's in a hopeless state. That's the sort of boldness that a lot of articles on Wikipedia need.


 * Anyhow, I've started on On the proof of the reality of the luminiferous aether by the experiment with a rotating interferometer, so far just the description of the interferometer. As you can see, I've deviated from a pure literal translation in a lot of places. If you think I've been too loose in my translation, go ahead and change it back. You're a person whose judgement I'd trust on these things. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Having a little difficulty.
 * The lamp filament is horizontal, and the slit F is horizontal. But the fringe system that he photographs is vertical. Shouldn't the filament and slit be vertical, if the fringes are to be sharp? What am I missing here?
 * The clockwise beam experiences four front-surface reflections off mirrors M. The counterclockwise beam experiences four front-surface reflections off mirrors M, and two rear-surface reflections off J. The central fringe that he photographs is clear on the negative. That means that the reflection coefficient off the air gap is complex with a phase shift of 90°. Are my assumptions correct here? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've gone over section 2, Mode of operation. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that I'm not an expert concerning those old, original Sagnac interferometers, therefore the translation was as literal as possible in order to avoid mistakes. However, so far I agree with your edits. --D.H (talk) 10:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Section 3 was terribly written! I found it hard to believe that the Wikisource transcription of his paper was accurate, so I looked up a scan of the original. I was almost certain that I was going to find some missing punctuation, maybe even a missing clause or two. Unfortunately, the transcription is accurate.
 * http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k31103/f1410.table
 * The long run-on sentences and Sagnac's inconsistent use of D, d, S, s, and even pp&prime;, had me worried whether I really understood him. I'm going to have re-visit this section. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I worked on The Demonstration of the Luminiferous Aether. This has given me insight into the other paper, and I'll be making some modifications to the translation of that paper given what I've learned in this one. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Michelson–Morley experiment
Hi, I've been really impressed with your latest edits. I had thought that I was reasonably well-informed about the history of this experiment, but found myself learning a lot from you! I believe the article is currently at least B-level, and it's getting close to where I think somebody should nominate it for GA status. I'm finding myself to be a big fan of yours! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I'm also impressed by your edits, which substantially improved the quality of the article. The articles on the most important experiments for the development of special relativity, Fizeau experiment and Michelson–Morley experiment, are now in a very good shape. --D.H (talk) 08:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I placed the Good Article Nomination. I imagine things will be a bit of a madhouse for a few days. :-) Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the reviewer hated the article. In terms of its science, you and I both know its quality, and it has good-to-excellent page ratings by multiple readers. Your prose, by the way, is better than that of a Good Article that I just finished copyediting because the principal editor wanted to try for a Featured Article nomination. See Folding@home and its talk page. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact, for which Wer900 is the principal editor. His writing needs a lot of improvement. :-) Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem - but if you have ideas for improving the prose of the Michelson-Morley article, you should change the text. --D.H (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

New biographical entry
Please check Charles-Eugène Guye. Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Le Sage Gravity article
Hello, An editor named Nigel Harris has begun editing the article on Le Sage gravity, inserting his belief that "Le Sage makes modern sense with light speed neutrinos changing flavour upon interaction with matter, becoming less interactive, at least temporarily." I contend that this is original research, and it is unsourced, so it does not belong in the article. I was wondering if you have an opinion?Flau98bert (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've commented on the talk page. Good that someone still looks at the article, because my interest in this topic is considerably diminished in the last months and years... --D.H (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Braincricket (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

source of data on Iijima mountain-valley experiment?
Hi -- I noticed that you put in some numerical data in Hafele–Keating experiment from the Iijima mountain-valley experiment. Very nice! I posted on the talk page inquiring about how you managed to obtain the data. The reference in the article seems to be to an internal report at the lab in Japan, which I'd assumed was unobtainable today. If you could post on the talk page about how you managed to dig this up, I'd really appreciate it. I like this experiment pedagogically, but have never been able to obtain the paper, and the graph that I've been using for teaching purposes actually doesn't seem consistent with the figures in the article, which I presume is because of issues such as the time the clock spent being driven up and down the mountain. Regards, Ben Crowell--75.83.64.6 (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. --D.H (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Paul Gerber
Do you know why Gerber dyed in 1909 (any decease)? Strange to say, but this year died Minkowsky and Ritz! I'll be pleased to know your thougth about that problem.46.211.183.229 (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know that. --D.H (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is evident that innocent spirits («невинные души») of Gerber, Minkowsky and Ritz, violently killed in 1909, require the eternal rest. So, now our duty is to do the necessary obligations which help these spirits to calmly rest in the Eternity. Therefore, I am very interested in the external conditions, which was happened with Gerber during 1909. Note that I am not German, or Prussian (partly), and I know the s.c. “Prussian order”. So I don’t believe that there is NO any information in the German archives.46.211.183.214 (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please discuss this elsewhere. (Probably at Talk:Paul Gerber). --D.H (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Question about the page on Lorentz Ether Theory
Dear D.H.,

I have a question about your comment on this page- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lorentz_ether_theory&curid=3629601&diff=482699630&oldid=482695382

You quoted a "1909 paper",

English: "According to Lorentz's theory, if a light beam propagates through space, it does so with a speed c in the resting frame K of the ether, independently of the state of motion of the emitting object. Let's call this the constancy of the speed of light principle." German: "Pflanzt sich nämlich ein Lichtstrahl im Vakuum fort, so geschieht dies nach der LORENTZschen Theorie in bezug auf ein im Äther ruhendes Koordinatensystem K stets mit der bestimmten Geschwindigkeit c, unabhängig vom Bewegungszustande des emittierenden Körpers. Wir wollen diesen Satz das Prinzip von der Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindigkeit nennen."

May I ask which 1909 paper you refer to? I was searching for this paper but was unable to find it.

Please pardon me if this is not the standard approach to ask questions on Wikipedia; this is the first time I have an inquiry regarding a Wikipedia page.

Nicwwk (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's that paper. For other issues, you should directly write on the talk page Talk:Lorentz ether theory. --D.H (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear D.H., noted with thanks! I was not sure whether to continue there, since the last post was rather long ago. Will do so in the future. Nicwwk (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi!
Hi! It's been a while since we worked together. I nominated an image for Featured Picture. I was wondering if you could visit Featured picture candidates/Algol AB movie and place a vote depending on what you think? Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

One-way speed of light
Thanks for correcting my silly caption error. I looks like it may have prompted you to add the GRB picture.

Have you any suggestions as to how to proceed with this article. It is hard to see what more content is required (maybe a 'History' section?) but I am sure that the layout could be improved. What do you think could be done to improve the article? Peer review? Martin Hogbin (talk)
 * I think a table of so called "one way experiments" would be fine. I'll make a suggestion on the talk page. --D.H (talk) 08:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Mass–energy equivalence - Nomenclature
Thank you for your editions with more facts. I'll write a comment on the talk page of the article. --C. Trifle (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"Fixing" links to redirects
Hi. I see that you are piping lots of links to avoid redirects. Don't do this. See WP:NOTBROKEN. Linking through redirects is not a problem that needs to be fixed, and in many cases it is better to link through a redirect than to use a pipe.--Srleffler (talk) 04:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks. --D.H (talk) 07:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Ott Christoph Hilgenberg for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ott Christoph Hilgenberg is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ott Christoph Hilgenberg until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jps (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

References on Bell's_spaceship_paradox
There are a ton of references in the "Discussions and publications" section. It would be nice to clear out some of the ones that don't provide as good an overview or depth, and if papers are generalizing it in an interesting way, maybe mention briefly what they offer (I see this has been done for some of them). Or is the intention to show that there has been discussed a lot over the years in literature? In that case maybe a list of papers in a section at the end is good, but only mention a select few great references in the article itself. I don't know, just some suggestions. I can try to help if you have a preference. DefnerBly (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I actually planned to describe the content of the papers in a table with several columns, but then postponed it to some unknown time (I personally prefer Styer (2007)). Anyway, I think it's better to discuss this on the article's talk page. --D.H (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Tachyonic antitelephone
At old Wikipedia view (not beta) was rendered "unknown operator" for "align operators" and "syntax error" without them, then I just adapt formula from German page. Thanks, anyway, nice work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuswiki (talk • contribs) 12:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That was a rendering problem caused by the new wikimedia software. If you see the problem anywhere else, you only have to save the page without editing, or use WP:Purge. --D.H (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Paul Gerber
Sehr geehrte Kollege! Zu erst: ich hoffe, daß meine scharfe Zunge nicht schon Ihnen Beleidegung gegeben hat! Ich erwarte, daß Ihre Sprachfähigkeit auf Englisch stärker als mein auf Deutsch sei. (Da versuchte ich, [Subjunctiv? // subjunctive Mode?] zu gebrauchen; hab ich es richtig gemacht?) Und unter alle Umstände müßen wir gewiss die Korregierenssachen für die Deutschlose Englischsprecher klar machen. (Wenn wir es (manchmal oder immer) besser finden, auf deutsch zu dizkutzieren, dann mache ich die Überesetzung von alles, daß ich verstanden habe!) Sollen wir unter diese Umstände und Verständniß fortfahren? --Jerzy•t 13:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

''Dear colleague, I assume your English is far stronger than my German. (And even if not, we probably will need to discuss some editing-relevant content that it'll be important for one of us to make accessible to our many monolingual colleagues here; i volunteer to carry that water, to the extent i've understood). Shall we proceed, in light of that situation and understanding? --Jerzy•t 13:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for editing Paul Gerber. Actually, I like it when people improve my unpolished ("holprig") English. --D.H (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Bell's spaceship paradox
Hello DVdm,

I do not understand anything. You replaced my text, which contained a relativistic solution to Bell's problem. Your text contains isolated facts not related to the problem of missiles having the same accelerations.

If you think that the English version of the page should look like this - your problems. I'm not going to prove anything to you. I'm not a nanny and I'm not going to spend my time on children's games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarryZakharov (talk • contribs) 11:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)