Talk:Length contraction

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Length contraction article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 3 months

Physics: Relativity / History High‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the relativity task force.
	This article is supported by History Taskforce.

Visual effects/optical predictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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