Talk:Herbert E. Ives

Opposition to Einstein's philosophy, not to SRT

According to the text Ives was "opposed the Einstein's theory of relativity". That is somewhat misleading, as I will try to make clear with the following situation sketch.

Ives actually (as pointed out) set out to demonstrate the correctness of Special relativity, although he uinterpreted it according to the school of Lorentz. Many physicists did not (and some still do not) distinguish between philosphy and experimental physics, while probably most modern readers will understand "Einstein's theory of relativity" to point to his physics and not to his philosophy. However, as also mentioned in the introduction to the cited book, Ives fully agreed with SRT's predictions. On top of that, I remember (but I must also source it) that Ives explained in one paper (probably a later one) that he agreed with the laws of SRT but that he interpreted SRT differently from Einstein.

-> Thus for starters, a more precise citation of the above claim is needed (which paper of Ives, of which year). Harald88 22:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC

Here's a primer that sketches very well his real stand: In "Derivation of the Lorentz transformations" (Phil. Mag. 7, vol.39, 1945 p.392) he writes:

The indeterminancies and impotences by which the "Restricted Theory of Relativity" has been widely publicized [...] all follow as consequences of our resolution of the apparent conflict between the laws of the conservation of energy and momentum on the one hand and the laws of light propagation on the other, our resultion being in favour of the conservation laws. [...] The fact that the Lorentz transformations with all their consequences are deducible from these classes the "Special Principle of Relativity" as a superfluous hypothesis.

"Indeterminancy and impotence of publicizing" and "Superfluous" do not match the above claim of "opposed to".

Thus if the claim is not corroberated I'll replace it with a claim that matches his above clarifications. Harald88 22:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do fix it. I had added the original statement without researching the background sufficiently. Dicklyon 22:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The current article, and the above comments, don't reflect Ives's repeated claims to have disproven various aspects of Einstein's special relativity. For example, in his 1949 paper "Lorentz Type Transformations..." Ives argued that Einstein's definition of simultaneity was both "not legitimate" and "not true", and he claimed to have proven this experimentally in his 1948 paper "The Measurement of the Velocity of Light...". He also developed what he regarded as the correct alternatives to the Lorentz transformations, which were highly complex expressions based on a new-Lorentzian approach. Now, it is true that, when properly interpreted, his equations are equivalent to the usual (much simpler) ones, but two important points need to be made about this: (1) Ives himself denied the equivalence, and insisted that the usual equations were "wrong", and (2) Ives's equations involve the actual speeds relative to the ether, which by Ives's own account are unknowable, so the equations are strictly worthless, unless we make explicit use of the assumption that they give the same answers regardless of what frame of reference we choose. In other words, his equations are useless unless one assumes special relativity AND one accepts that Ives's equations are empirically equivalent to those of special relativity. Ives explicitly denied both of those premises.

So, I think it's fair to say that the current article is smushing over the real story. Also, the article could use a lot more biographical info. I have found a whole biography of him that contains good information for this article, including a appraisal of his views on relativity by H. D. Robertson. If no one objects, I'll try to fit some of this into the article. It would also be good to show how Ives's work on television fit into the overall development of what became the practical television systems of today. Lumpy27 02:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please go ahead and add such information, with proper accredition. In paticular his pioneering work on TV should be elaborated on. Harald88 10:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ives did not oppose Einstein's theory of relativity, so change the wording in the article. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

From what I know, everyone is right. So, this indeed needs to be changed.Biophys (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed.Biophys (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed once again [1] per talk. My very best wishes (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Ives' Attempts to Refute Special Relativity

A set of edits on 25 Sep 2013 systematically removed all the material describing Ives' opposition to special relativity, and his attempts to disprove it. Those edits are not good, because this is all well-sourced and notable. Also, the edits claimed that Ives' followed Lorentz, but that is not true, because Lorentz understood the empirical equivalence of his theory and special relativity, whereas Ives claimed to have experimentally refuted special relativity. Also, Lorentz never claimed that Einstein's reasoning for mass-energy equivalence was fallacious, whereas Ives did. (This too, along with the reference, was edited out on 25 Sep.) This article isn't the place for non-mainstream anti-Einstein advocates to present their views.Urgent01 (talk) 07:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

First of all, what "anti-Einstein advocates" do you mean? Ives? Current version does reflect his views on special relativity. My very best wishes (talk) 01:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Several recent edits have systematically removed well-sourced material describing one of the most notable aspects of the subject, Ives' anti-relativity efforts. For example, the quote from Ives' friend Robertson has been truncated to remove the statement that Ives' refused to believe that his alternative "theory" was in fact equivalent to special relativity. Why should this part of the quote be removed? Likewise the recent edits have attempted to expunge all references to Ives' anti-relativity stance. We can supply plenty of direct quotes from Ives, in his later writings, saying that the principles of special relativity are contrary to the experimental facts and also logically self-contradictory. The reputable literature is replete with sources on this. See for example, the recent review article "Herbert Ives, Anti-Relativity in Action", published in Feb 2013. So, I think to conform with Wikipedia policy we need the article to reflect these verifiable facts, regardless of our own personal beliefs.Urgent01 (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I added a part of quotation you are talking about. He is not primarily known as someone who tried to disprove special relativity, but as someone who provided experimental support for the theory. Please note that my edits reflect previous consensus on this talk page (see "Opposition to Einstein's philosophy, not to SRT" above). If you think something was missing, please add this to current version (rather than revert a lot of work), and see if your additions are acceptable.My very best wishes (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Every reputable source I've ever seen that discusses Herbert Ives talks about his anti-relativity stance. In fact, even in generic physics text books, such as the venerable Halliday & Resnick, after presenting the results of the Ives and Stillwell experiment, it notes that "Ives and Stillwell did not present their experimental results as evidence for the support of special relativity but rather gave them an alternative theoretical explanation..." Please see the recent scholarly review of Ives' scientific career, by Roberto Lalli of MIT entitled "Anti-Relativity in Action: The Scientific Activity of Hervert E Ives". Also, see the papers of Ives themselves, which include statements such as the claim that the principles of special relativity are contradicted by the experimental facts, and that special relativity is logically inconsistent. Ives was also notable for challenging the attribution of special relativity to Einstein (much like Whittaker). In view of all this, it is surely appropriate to note in the lead of the article this aspect of Ives' biography. I'll make the edits to restore the balanced NPOV content.Urgent01 (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem. So, Halliday & Resnick tell us the following: "Ives and Stillwell did not present their experimental results as evidence for the support of special relativity but rather gave them an alternative theoretical explanation..." (repeat your quote). That's fine. My very best wishes (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I am glad we agreed about views by Ives. However, your next edit is something I disagree with. You removed a secondary RS, which is needed to support the statement (we can not rely only on citations of articles by Ives, since those are primary sources). On which grounds do you consider this book problematic? I would not comment about English translation and edition, however Russian edition (here) was printed by major Soviet and Russian publishing house "Prosveshenie" ru:Просвещение (издательство) after review by physicists from Lebedev Physical Institute. If you want to bring more reliable sources about work by Ives, please do. Thank you, My very best wishes (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Confusion between Herbert Ives and Lev G. Lomize

Some recent edits have attempted to insert a reference to a misguided and not reputable source, namely, to a silly writing of someone named Lev Lomize, who was obviously laboring under many of the same misconceptions as Herbert Ives regarding the theory of relativity. This can be seen in the almost identical wording that is on the referened web site of Lev G. Lomize and the wording that was added to this article. I think if someone wants to promote the beliefs of Lev G. Lomize, they should propose a separate article about him. I personally would not support such an article, for lack of notability, but in any case a web site by Lev G. Lomize is certainly not a reputabale reference for this article on Herbert Ives. I would also like to remind people that Wikipedia editors are strongly discouraged from inserting references to their own writings, or even to writings of personal friends and associates. We should focus on references from reputable sources, i.e., academic publishers with good reputations. The writings of Lev G. Lomiz are obviously of the crackpot variety, and not suitable as a reference for Wikipedia articles.Urgent01 (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Said who? I am sorry, but what you are telling here is simply your opinion. If you can find any published RS that specifically challenged this particular source, that would be something reasonable. Please do. However, if there are no such sources, we should simply follow our WP:RS policy. This is not website we are talking about, but a book published by a major and reputable publishing house, specifically for scientific and educational literature, in 70,000 copies. My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Your edits are inappropriate for several reasons. Your basic POV is that Ives showed how special relativity follows from classical physics, which is a very old and very thoroughly debunked idea. This is your pet idea as described in the Lev G Lomize book, so you are trying to promote this idea, and indirectly to promote Lev G Lomize. But there are several problems with this. First, I assume good faith, so I assume you are not Lev G Lomize, because if you were, it would not be appropriate for you to be trying to insert a reference to your own book into this article. Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. Second, special relativity actually is a perfectly classical theory - no one disputes this. (Quantum mechanics is the first non-classical theory.) It does, however, differ from pre-relativistic physics in one crucial respect (which Lev G Lomize doesn't understand.) Third, the Lev G Lomize book makes the same mistake as Ives, namely, it fails to understand that relativistic physics consists of more than electromagnetism, and therefore cannot be inferred from the laws of electromagnetism. The inertia of all forms of energy, including kinetic energy of matter, must also be required. (Note that mechanical mass is not electromagnetic in origin.) Fourth, in an article about Herbert Ives's mistaken conceptions it does not make sense to claim that Ives was correct by citing a crackpot book based on the same misconceptions. There actually are reputable references (in modern English language sources) describing the neo-Lorentzian view of special relativity, so if we need such a reference we can easily add one, but citing the Soviet era Russian language fringe pseudo-science book of Lev G Lomize is not appropriate. The problem is that any explanation of Neo-Lorentian relativity in a reputable source will not make the mistake that Ives (and Lomize) make of thinking that our ability to describe events in terms of a particular system of coordinates necessarily implies some distinguished physical significance for those coordinates. This is all well known, but this article isn't the right place to discuss it. I suggest you try to create an article about Lev G Lomize and we can discuss his errors there. This article should focus on Ives.Urgent01 (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Speaking more informally, I am using this book for a very simple reason. Its chapter 2.3. (in English translation) actually explains, and in a very simple way, what happens with clocks on a moving platform (namely, why they will inevitably slow down for physical dynamics reasons) - that is what Ives talked about. This book by LL does not support Ives (it tells he was wrong about contradiction to SR theory), however it provides a perfect physical explanation of his views (e.g. in chapter 2.3. which is not currently cited). No, the book by Halliday and Resnick does not explain this. Should views by Ives be explained in more detail? If so, one can do it. So, if you find any other secondary sources (other than articles by Ives), which explain what happens with clocks on a moving platform, that would be fine. I know there is also a book by Janossy published in 1971, but I did not read it. My very best wishes (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S. BTW, you used wording "pseudoscience" above. Do you imply that Ives was a "pseudoscientist" or that his vews belong to "pseudoscience"? My very best wishes (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The subject of kinematical versus dynamical interpretations of special relativity has a HUGE literature, dating back to 1905 with the differing interpretations of Lorentz and Einstein, and there are many excellent references (in English) that one can cite. Just to give two examples, in the pro-Lorentz camp we have Harvey Brown

- "Physical Relativity: Space-time Structure from a Dynamical Perspective", Harvey R. Brown, Oxford University Press, USA, February 2, 2006.

and in the pro-Einstein camp we have Michael Janssen

- "Drawing the Line between Kinematics and Dynamics in Special Relativity", Michel Janssen, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 40 (2009) 26–52.

But this is a subtle and delicate subject, and depends on the precise definitions of the words "kinematic" and "dynamic". I assure you there is nothing in the writings of Lev G Lomize that even comes close to these scholarly investigations. And of course even the ardantly pro-Lorentzian Harvey Brown does not make the mistake of thinking that Ives proved the existence of an ether, nor of thinking that relativity can be inferred from Maxwell's equations. So, if we were going to write an article on the subject of interpretations of special relativity we would have plenty of high quality sources, not Lev G Lomize,... but this article is really just about Herbert Ives, so I don't think it's appropriate to put a lot of discussion of these interpretational issues. We should just summarize the mainstream view of Herbert Ives, as presently very thoroughly in the recent paper of Roberto Lalli of MIT. That's why I cited that in my latest edit of the article. I think that is by far the most current, relevant, and reputable source for the scientific ideas of Herbert Ives.Urgent01 (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You did not answer my question about "pseudoscience". Sure thing, you can use all the sources you are talking about. However, it does not mean you can unilaterally exclude any sources that qualify as secondary WP:RS per wikipedia criteria. This is not going to work. Note that book does not tell that Ives "proved the existence of an ether", and it was not claimed anywhere in this article. My very best wishes (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The sentence that worried me was "Ives interpreted his experimental results as evidence of stationary ether, which, as he incorrectly believed, would disprove special relativity." The phrase "incorrectly believed" was applied only to the disproof of special relativity, not to the ether clause, so the reader might have inferred that indeed the results were evidence of ether. So I think the current wording, based directly on a reputable source, is preferable. Also it is less redundant to the later discussion of Ives' alleged "disproof".

Overall, I think your edits are all aimed at promoting the POV given in the Russian book by Lev G Lomize, on his pet idea of "Non-Postulated Relativity". In fact, many of the sentences in the present article are copied verbatim from the web site English copy of that book, and you are repeatedly trying to insert a reference to that book into the article. Unfortunately, that is not a mainstream reference. I don't know of any other reputable reference that talks about "Non-Postulated Relativity". It is a neologism for the "constructive" "dynamical" "Lorentzian" interpretation (or presentation) of special relativity. Therefore, I think it is not a suitable reference, because Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect the mainstream view, and I've given references to highly reputable reviews of the subject. But this article is not really about interpretations of special relativity, it is about Herbert Ives. The mainstream view of Ives is summarized nicely by Robertson. If you want to propose a new Wikipedia article on Lev G Lomize and/or his concept of "Non-Postulated Relativity", you are free to do so, but I don't think you should try to smuggle Lomize into Wikipedia via this article on Herbert Ives. By the way, I would not support an article on either Lev G Lomize or on "Non-Postulated Relativity", because they are not notable, and also because it makes the same mistake the Ives made, thinking that special relativity can be derived from pre-relativistic physics, which is false. (The Lomize book's discussion of relativistic mass is in error - not all mass is electromagnetic in origin. But this isn't the place to discuss the errors in that non-mainstream book.)Urgent01 (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you so far provided only one new alternative source that tells something about Ives (others do not tell much about him). Your rejection of this Russian book is entirely based on your own incorrect interpretations and assumptions, however debating your views on this talk page would indeed be inappropriate. I am not sure why you think I should create an article about this scientist (this was never my intention; I have no obligation to create any articles). I will fix this per WP:NPOV, which assume using all reliable mainstream sources on the subject (Ives in this example). My very best wishes (talk) 08:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I do not think you should create an article about Lev G Lomize or "Non-Postulated Relativity", I merely pointed out that if you are determined to insert those non-mainstream subjects into Wikipedia, you should propose articles on those subjects, or perhaps add them to existing articles on interpretations (or pedagogy) of relativity, rather than trying to smuggle them into a biography of Herbert Ives. The one specific Russian book that you seem determined to insert into this article is not (as I explained above) a mainstream source. I fully accept your word that you have no personal connection with that book, so I am not suggesting that you have a biased POV regarding that book. I am simply saying that a Russian book, as presented on an English translation web site, describing Lev G Lomize's "Non-Postulated Relativity" is not really a good verifiable mainstream source for assessments of the scientific work of Herbert Ives. The references I've provided to current scholarly works (in English) from highly reputable academic publishers are (in my opinion) preferable. Also, please be assured that I have no personal connection with any of the references I've provided, so I think I can assess them objectively.Urgent01 (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I never said that I "do not have any personal connection". What I said was this, which is something very different.My very best wishes (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources

• OK, I checked this reference (by Roberto Lalli, currently included in this article). Not only this is highly biased (science becomes a matter of politics: "Anti-Relativity in Action..."), but this is simply not a scientific paper in Physics: it only includes a couple of figures and illustration about Ives–Stilwell experiment, at the level below of the corresponding wikipedia article). This is all Philosophy, not Physics. However, the book "Non-postulated relativity" (which is currently excluded) does includes Figures with equations and detailed explanations (of time dilation as understood by Ives and some other people) in chapter 2.3, and I therefore suggest to use it. Any other sources? My very best wishes (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Now, I looked at your source "Anti-Relativity in Action...", and what it actually tells about views by Ives? (a) He believed that ether exists (but that does not change anything in equations), and (b) "His entire work on relativity was, indeed, based on the need for a physical explanation of a physical experiment, ... but SRT offers no explanation of what lies behind the particular choice of operations." Yes, exactly. This is mostly an opposition to the early Einstein's philosophy (Einstein later changed his position, as explained in the same book, "Nonpostulated relativity"). This should be described.My very best wishes (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

This is not an article on special relativity, it is an article on Herbert Ives. The paper by Lalli, a recognized historian of science, is a good scholarly source on Ives' activities involving relativity. The Russian book "NonPostulated Relativity" by Lev G Lomize was not written by a recognized historian of science, it is a presentation of one individual's non-mainstream view of special relativity. If you insist on trying to promote Lev G Lomize's ideas about relativity contained in the book "Nonpostulated Relativity", I suggest you propose edits to the main article on Special Relativity. I doubt that such a proposal would find acceptance, but at least it would be on topic. The Lomize book is not a suitable reference for biographical information about Herbert Ives, which is the subject of this article. Wikipedia is not the right place for you to promote your own personal view of special relativity.Urgent01 (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

1. This book ("Nonpostulated relativity") is an important source because none of other sources currently used in this article explains (with figures and equations) the scientific discourse/Physics behind the views by Ives and some other notable scientists, including Einstein himself in the last years of his life. Namely, they do not explain how and why clocks on a moving platform would inevitably slow down as a results of certain physical reasons (in the framework of classical electrodynamics), rather than as a result of Einstein's postulates (chapter 2.3 in the book). This book does - in connection with Ives and his views (last, historical chapter). Moreover, it places his views in the historical context, which is similar to that described in article by Lali (see quotes above). However, it does explain Physics, unlike the article by Lali. My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

2. If you want to challenge the book (I mean its Russian edition, which was supported by physicists from Lebedev Physical Institute and personally by Nobelist Vitaly Ginzburg), please post it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to achieve WP:Consensus. I would not do it myself because I know that the source is definitely RS, and therefore posting it by me would be pointy and disruptive. But as long as it qualifies as an RS, it can and must be used per WP:NPOV, which is a non-negotiable policy.My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

3. You continue making personal accusations that I am trying to promote the book. Please stop. Yes, I read this book (along with other literature) and found it extremely insightful. Yes, I maybe a fan of this book. However, I did not make a slightest attempt to promote this book or ideas described in the book during all my years in the project. One can tell it because: (a) I included references to the book in only one article, although it covers a wide range of subjects related to special relativity, (b) I included this reference long time ago [2] to reflect consensus at this article talk page (see discussion started by Harald88 on the top)], and (c) this is indeed a valid secondary RS, precisely on the subject, a book published by a major and reputable publishing house in Russia, specifically for scientific and educational literature, in 70,000 copies.

4. At the same time, I can agree with you on one point: you suggested to use this book in other articles. That's fine, and let me tell this for the record: that was your suggestion. Indeed, the quality of a source can be checked by using it in multiple WP articles. So, I may do just that, as time allows. However, this will be now to respond to your suggestion, and not to promote the book.My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

"Nonpostulated relativity" is not found in Google Scholar, nor in Google Books, so it would be a primary source for the content to be added, whereas we need wp:secondary sources here. Only in a article about that book could it be used as a wp:primary source. If indeed no other source explains that particular scientific discourse behind Ives' view, then it would be wp:undue to mention it here. - DVdm (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it is found by Google books [3]. But, yes, I can agree that English edition, which is merely a translation of Russian edition with redrawn Figures and other minor changes, might be challenged. However, its Russian edition was printed by major Soviet and Russian publishing house "Prosveshenie" ("Enligntment")ru:Просвещение (издательство), in 70,000 copies, after review by physicists from Lebedev Physical Institute and others, and certainly should qualify as a secondary RS. Moreover, this is simply a book about one of possible approaches to teaching and presenting/explaining SRT, based on various published sources, rather than an original scientific research. P.S. Saying that, I am not going to use this book in article special relativity as suggested by Urgent01. A few other pages, yes, maybe, after discussion - if others agree. My very best wishes (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

"The ether" is all over the place in that book. No wonder it is not used or cited. Have a look a wp:FRINGE. Having read what is written about Ives on pages 253 and 254 (i.m.o. a very naive reasoning and conclusion of the author), I don't think this book should be used as a reliable source for anything. As far as I can see, definitely not a RS—on the contrary. - DVdm (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, this book discusses "ether" a lot - as an important historical concept, and it finally tells that ether "fades away" (i.e. simply unnecessary). This English edition was not widely cited, because it was printed in a relatively small number of copies and not promoted by the author who passed away (and honestly, I think the quality of English translation could be better; I prefer Russian version). However, all my arguments about Russian edition remain valid. But yes, I respectfully count your opinion per WP:Consensus. That's fine. People happen to disagree a lot around here.My very best wishes (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed they do. Cheers and best wishes for 2014 :-) - DVdm (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

To address the numbered comment 1 above, I suggest revising the current sentence that begins "Following the philosophy of Hendrik Lorentz..." with the words

Ives was a proponent of Hendrik Lorentz's interpretation of relativistic phenomena (reference Lorentz's 1909 book 'The Theory of Electrons and its Application to the Phenomena of light and radiant heat'), and performed experiments to demonstrate those phenomena, notably time dilation. However, unlike Lorentz, who repeatedly stated that his interpretation was perfectly compatible with Einstein's special relativity (reference any number of Lorentz quotes), Ives contended that Lorentz's interpretation was actually incompatible with special relativity.

I think this is really all that needs to be said. Ives did not do any notable and original theoretical work, he simply reiterated the "constructive" reasoning of Lorentz, Larmour, et al. Many previous and subsequent writers have done the same thing (such as J.S. Bell in his famous article "How to Teach Special Relativity", in which he argues for the value of the "Lorentzian pedagogy", just as in the Lomize book.) Ives departed from mainstream thinking only in his claim that the Lorentzian interpretation proves the existence of the ether and disproves special relativity. There is an abundance of good references on the Lorentzian approach to special relativity (e.g., the writings of Harvey Brown, S. Prokhovak, etc.), but I don't think this biography of Ives should be burdened with a bunch of discussion of alternative interpretations of special relativity, since Ives did not invent anything new in this area.Urgent01 (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the numbered comment 4 above, I would note that attempts have been made in the past (at least as early as 2006) to insert references to "Non-Postulated Relativity" into the article on special relativity. At that time the efforts were unsuccessful, basically because the consensus of editors at that time was the same as mine today, i.e., that the book is fringe and not notable.

There have also been efforts in the past to create articles about Lev G Lomize in Wikipedia. For example, in 2006 a user names Biophys (later renamed something else, and then retired and restored several times) wrote

Dear SCZenz,

Thank you very much for explanation! As I said, this is not an entirely new approach in physics. This work does not disprove anything in SR. The original book (in Russian) has been extensively peer reviewed by highly qualified physicists in Moscow. Moreover, 60,000 copies were sold.

I understand your point: you do not want any articles in Wikipedia that would be considered by many people in the field as "controversial" or wrong. You think that Wikipedia is not the place to promote new ideas or interpretations. Could you recommend me any other place that would be more appropriate for this purpose?

Next question. Let's assume that someone (probably not me) will create a Wikipedia article with a biography of Lev Lomize, where his contributions, ideas and views in physics will be described. Would that be O'K? Or even such article will be deleted if someone does not like it?

Thanks again.

Sincerely,

Biophys

My point is that this is not the first time someone has made an intense effort to insert material about Lev G Lomize or his book "Non-Postulated Relativity" into Wikipedia articles. But it has always been met with the same response. Trying to insert it inconspicuously into an article on Herbert Ives may not be very productive.Urgent01 (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to mention that the reference under discussion, by Lev G Lomize, called "Non-Postullated Relativity", is actually different than the book that was published in Russia. Here is a quote from the previous discussion of this reference (from user Biophys in 2006):

A different version of this book has been already published in the Soviet Union in 1991 (“From high school physics to Relativity”, Prosveshenie, Moscow, 70,000 copies). The publication was supported by theoreticians from the Lebedev Institute of Physics in Moscow. The book was partially rewritten, translated to English, and made available by the author as a PDF file, because Lev Lomize believed that information must be freely available to everyone.

So, when someone claims that "Non-Postulated Relativity" was published in Russian and sold 70000 (or 60000?) copies, and the publication was "supported by" the Lebedev Institute, that is not actually true, even according to BioPhys' own testimony, because the actual book printed in Russia was "From High School Physics to Relativity". We do not know how much (beyond the title) was "re-written", so the "Non-Postulated Relativity" writing surely has no verifiable link to the book published in Russia, which itself is not even verifiable. Overall I think it's clear that "Non-Postulated Relativity" does not meet Wikipedia standard for a reliable source.Urgent01 (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• The existence of published English translation does not invalidate Russian source. Quite the opposite. See WP:RS. If there are any particular concerns, I can use Russian version and check translation. You tell below about J.S.Bell's 1976 paper, which tells exactly the same, if I understand correctly. That's fine. This only shows there is nothing so special about the book. This is simply something I read and have handy, and there is also an available online PDF copy. My very best wishes (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You missed the point. The "Russian source" was a book entitled "From High School Physics to Relativity". That is not the same as "Non-Postulated Relativity". And neither one qualifies as a verifiable reputable source. By the way, your latest harassing message on my User talk page says that this discussion of your reference is inappropriate for the article talk page. That is simply not true. The article Talk page is intended to discuss whether or not proposed references for the article meet the Wikipedia standard for reliable sources. My comments here have explained why the proposed reference does not meet those standards. (The section of this Talk page that does not belong here is the next section you started, in which you try to engage other editors in a discussion of your ideas about physics, which is not appropriate.)Urgent01 (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No, this is basically the same book. Yes, all Figures were redrawn and modified. Yes, there are some omissions and additions, and a different title. But this is all. My very best wishes (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

New subsection?

Given the discussion above, perhaps it would make a lot sense to create an additional subsection to explain scientific views by Ives, possibly with Figures. As about the sources, I do not really care. These can be any RS you might be able to bring. OK? My very best wishes (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This was already answered in response to your numbered item 1 in the previous section. Again, Ives explicitly stated that his results were in support of the theory of Lorentz and Larmour. Ives did not add anything to that theory. The relevant references are to the works of Lorentz, and to the extensive secondary literature describing the Lorentzian approach to relativity. For example, J.S.Bell's 1976 paper on "How to Teach Relativity", in which he clearly explains how relativistic phenomena (including length contraction and time dilation) can be described as a consequence of the (Lorentz invariant) laws of physics expressed in terms of a single reference frame, ala Lorentz. This is not new. Unfortunately it is re-discovered every year by newbies, who rush into print, thinking they have made some great discovery that they need to share with the world. But the world is already well aware of it. It is very disappointing for each new "discoverer" to learn that he really didn't discover anything new. There is a vast literature on the Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity, going back more than a century.Urgent01 (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course, the "Lorentzian approach" to length contraction and time dilation is relatively well known (I do not see this adequately described on our pages Length contraction and time dilation), however the book "Non-postulated relativity" tells also about "Lorentzian interpretation" of relativity of simultaneity (!) and some other relativistic effects. If you know any good secondary sources about "Lorentzian interpretation" of relativity of simultaneity, tell them here with pages, please. My very best wishes (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Current version claims about a serious controversy between views by Ives and SR, however, it does not explain what this controversy was really about. This should be explained. However, this is difficult to discuss without making actual edits in the article. Perhaps I will make them later, as time allows. My very best wishes (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Your questions have already been answered multiple times. Again, the relevant reference for the Lorentzian derivation of the relativity of simultaneity is Hendrik Lorentz. Lorentz's local time included the relativity of simultaneity. If you want to learn about the various interpretations of the relativity of simultaneity, as discussed in the literature, you should read the works of Reichenbach, Robb, Winnie, Grunbaum, Bridgeman, Eddington, Salmon, Arzelies, Van Fraassen, Janis, Ellis, Bowman, Ohanian, Giannoni, Mehlberg, Torretti, Ohrstrom, Prokhovnik, etc. ALL these authors (and many more) discuss the physical significance of simultaneity, in relation to things like slow clock transport, causality, and other simple physical criteria, leading to the standard relativistic simultaneity relations. There is absolutely nothing in Lomize's "From High School Physics to Relativity" that is not already thoroughly discussed in countless more reputable and verifiable references. I know this is disappointing for you to hear, but it is the truth. Read and learn.Urgent01 (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you probably did not understand my question. I am not asking about this subject in general. What I mean are materials presented in chapter 2.4. of "Non-postulated relativity". Where else relativity of simultaneity was explained in this way - any source with pages? And no, there is nothing disappointing. I like your claim that There is absolutely nothing in Lomize's "From High School Physics to Relativity" that is not already thoroughly discussed in countless more reputable and verifiable references. Assuming you are right, it means this is just another secondary source/book on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion in chapter 2.4 of the non-mainstream book you are striving to promote is just a banal description of synchronization by means of slow clock transport. The author is excited to discover that the equations of special relativity are algebraically self-consistent! You see, this is precisely the mistake that countless high school students make every year... They take the time dilation formula, and consider the effect of moving clocks at low speeds relative to each other, and they are amazed to discover that the clock readings at separate locations automatically exhibit the standard simultaneity of special relativity. They think they have made a tremendous discovery! Where is my Nobel prize?! But of course it is no discovery at all. It is self-evident. The actual mainstream scholars who have written about slow clock transport, as well as other even more fundamental kinds of synchronization, provide far more insightful and meaningful explanations and discussions, and don't make the naïve mistake of thinking this is the only possible kind of synchronization. This leads to the debate about the conventionality of simultaneity, etc. There are profound issues related to this subject that are covered in many reputable sources (see the authors I listed for you, that you ignored), but the juvenile algebra presented in the book you are trying to promote is not up to that level. It is not a verifiable publication from a reputable publisher, and does not qualify as a good source for Wikipedia.Urgent01 (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I had a good look at the book, and i.m.o. it is just appalling. To be avoided. - DVdm (talk) 07:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Now I can see what you think. However, this should be discussed in article relativity of simultaneity, and in connection with any specific changes to be made out there. As about "the Lorentzian approach" Urgent01 was talking above with the reference to paper by Bell, it should be described (with Figures!) here and/or possibly in time dilation. My very best wishes (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that this should be discussed elsewhere. I fully agree with Urgent's phrase "juvenile algebra presented in the book" and with the last sentence in their comment, i.e. with the phrase "It is not a verifiable publication from a reputable publisher, and does not qualify as a good source for Wikipedia." In that respect there is not much to be discussed here—let alone elsewhere. - DVdm (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, but in my last comment (and in the first, opening paragraph of this thread) I did not tell anything about "Non-postulated relativity". I was talking about sources in general, such as paper by Bell mentioned by Urgent01. It was Urgent01 who brought discussion of the book here. Obviously, we must use multiple sources per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Note - User My very best wishes is banned from everything related to the writer and scientist Lev Lomize, per WP:TBAN. - DVdm (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Note - Ban was lifted. See [4]. - DVdm (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Children of Herbert Ives

The existing article says Ives had three children, including Herbert Ives Jr, but I can find no source supporting the latter assertion. In fact, this web page

http://www.nndb.com/people/456/000169946/

says his three children were

Daughter: Barbara Ives Beyer (history teacher) Son: Kenneth Ives (accountant) Son: Ronald Ives (aeronautical engineer)

I don't know if this is a reliable source, but in the absence of a source for the claim about "Herbert Ives Jr", I think we should delete that from the article. After all, there is no need to name just one of Ives' children. We should either name all of them (suitably sourced), or none of them. I vote for none of them, since the names of his children are not notable.IVLeeg (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Another source for Ives' children is the Biography of Ives hosted on the National Academy of Science website:

http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/ives-herbert.pdf

It lists the same names as noted above, and confirms that there was no Herbert Ives Jr.IVLeeg (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Herbert E. Ives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090120044158/http://osa.org/aboutosa/leadership/pastpresidents/default.aspx to http://www.osa.org/aboutosa/leadership/pastpresidents/default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Herbert E. Ives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060212170014/http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/recording/television1.html to http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/recording/television1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)