text:
Dow Medical College

Dow Medical College is a public medical school located in the city of Karachi, Sindh, Pakistan. It was founded in 1945 and named after British civil servant Sir Hugh Dow, Governor of Sindh.

In 2003, it became a constituent college of the newly formed Dow University of Health Sciences.

History
The Dow Medical College was established in Hyderabad in the 1945. It was relocated to Karachi by Sir Hugh Dow, governor of Sindh. Until 1947, it was an affiliate of University of Bombay. After the independence of India, it was under the University of Sindh. After the University of Karachi was founded, it became its affiliate. It was in 2003 when the Dow University of Health Sciences was established as an independent institution, with Dow Medical College and two other colleges being put under its umbrella.

E-CME Program
Dow University of Health Sciences launched its web-based Continuing Medical Education Program named the "e-CME Program for the Family Physicians".

Notable alumni
Dow Medical college is a large provider of physicians to Pakistan and also to the United States. It is the Pakistan medical school with the greatest amount of licensed physicians in the United States per the 2108 FSMB Survey with 3,232 licensed physicians. Its notable graduates include:
 * Basheer Ahmed - physician and American medical academic
 * Abdul Bari Khan - Cardiologist, philanthropist and CEO of Indus Hospital and Health Network
 * Adeebul Hasan Rizvi – Transplant Urologist, philanthropist and head of Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation.
 * Sanjay Gangwani - Pakistani Politician
 * Musarrat Hussain, director of Jinnah Post Graduate Medical Centre and president of the Pakistan Psychiatrists Society.
 * Rafat Hussain – Deputy Head of the School of Rural Medicine at the University of New England, Australia
 * Ishrat-ul-Ibad Khan – Governor of Sindh, Pakistan.
 * Shabuddin H. Rahimtoola, MBBS, FRCP [Edin], MACP, MACC, D.Sc. (Hon) - Author, Cardiologist at Mayo Clinic best known for his work in valvular heart disease, coronary artery disease, results of cardiac surgery, and arrhythmias along with cardio-myopathy and congenital heart disease.
 * Fahad Mirza - Actor and Model
 * Azra Raza - Author, Director of Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS) Center at Columbia University
 * Javed Iqbal Kazi, Dean of medicine- University of Karachi, Sindh Institute of Urology & Transplantation
 * Nausheen Hamid - Pakistani politician and social activist, member of the National Assembly of Pakistan
 * Tahir Shamsi - Pakistani hematologist and bone marrow pioneer

title: Dow Medical College


text:
Pelican Bay

Pelican Bay is the name of several places in the United States:
 * Pelican Bay, Florida
 * Pelican Bay, Texas
 * Pelican Bay, a bay in Anguilla
 * Pelican Bay, a bay in North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
 * Pelican Bay State Prison, a supermax prison in California

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Pelican Bay


text:
User:JDoolin

Jonathan Doolin
 * Animated Lorentz Transformation.gif
 * [[Image:Animated_Lorentz_Transformation.gif]]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Animated_Lorentz_Transformation.gif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Inflation_in_Milne_Model.gif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Inflation_In_Milne_Model_2.gif

Milne’s Model of the Universe

A comparison between the cosmology described by Edward Arthur Milne in "Relativity, Gravitation and World Structure" (RGWS) and the Standard Cosmological Model (SCM), each being possible descriptions of the universe, the former using Lorentz transformations (LT) and the latter using the Friedmann, Lemaitre, Robertson, Walker Metric (FLRW Metric).

(see Edward Arthur Milne)

The Three Cosmological Models
Overall, there are three distinct classifications for cosmological models which have been seriously considered. These are the steady-state model, the standard cosmological model, and the Milne model.

Briefly the three models can be described as follows:

The Milne Model: an infinite explosion that took place at a point in space at an instant in time, expanding into pre-existing space.

The Standard Cosmological Model (SCM): a static universe, where space is constantly expanding in a manner consistent with Einstein’s Field Equations.

The Steady-State Universe: (Hoyle?)  A universe of infinite age and size where matter may be disappearing and reappearing over time.

This article focuses on the first two, though the third certainly deserves consideration as well.

Philosophical Differences
The differences between Milne’s concept of space-time and Einstein’s concept of space-time appear to run much deeper than is commonly appreciated. For instance the Standard Cosmological Model maintains the big bang was not actually an explosion, but simply the expansion of space. This is completely at odds with the cosmology of Milne which is represented exactly by an explosion of matter into space.

The Scale Factor
The central question of the Standard Cosmological Model is to determine the scale factor of the universe, whether it be constant or varying, and thus determine the “shape” of space.

In contrast, Milne denies that space has a shape or a scale factor which can be measured or observed. In this respect, Milne and Einstein had an immense philosophical gulf between them.

Because of this difference, Milne's Model cannot be described in the context of the Friedmann (FLRW) metric which is an equation describing the scale of space.

Philosophical Conundrum, Is Space Possible Without Matter?
Einstein said that space without matter was impossible, while Milne’s model takes as a premise the existence of a Euclidian coordinate system pre-existing the Big Bang. This may be the root conflict between the two models.

A diagram of the Milne Model universe clearly shows white-space beyond the edge of a sphere, representing space *outside* the universe. This marks Milne’s model as being clearly distinct from any popular cosmology today.

An oft-made assumption is that space cannot exist without matter, and with this reasoning, the possibility of Milne’s model is eliminated, leaving the standard cosmological model as the next most likely possibility.

However, Milne argued, contrary to Einstein, that space, or at least a coordinate system, could exist before all matter, and beyond all matter. Milne claimed no difficulty in describing such a space, or conceptualizing such a space, and goes into some detail to describe it in RGWS.

The SCM holds as self-evident that space only exists between all things. By having a diagram of a model of the universe which explicitly represents the space beyond all matter of the universe (which he maintained was an infinite amount), he may have convinced other scientists of his time that he was crackers.

However, despite this difficulty of a well defined coordinate system beyond the infinite amount of matter in the universe, Milne remained convinced of the validity of his model.

This model is different from the Standard Model, and therefore analyzing the problems of current cosmology such as the Cosmic Background Radiation, Inflation, and Galactic Superstructure should yield some insight.

Edward Arthur Milne predicted the Cosmic Background Radiation through the use of this model, as can be seen clearly in the last sentence of the plate. "The particles near the boundary tend towards invisibility as seen by the central observer, and fade into a continuous background of finite intensity."

A Note on the Two Scale Factors (General vs. Special Relativity)
The concept of a scale factor based on the position of the observer is not the same as the concept of a scale based on the observer’s velocity.

Milne did not admit the existence of a scale factor based on the position of the observer, but he did accept the validity of the Lorentz Transformation equations which scale the distance between two events according to the observer's velocity.

A Note on Homogeneity
Sections 60-64 of Relativity, Gravitation and World Structure present a critique of the Standard Cosmological Model. Milne points out that in a “system homogeneous according to” … “the methods of current relativistic cosmology” … “observers O and O’ will not recognize, or analyze, the system open to their observations as homogeneous.”

Milne was not critical of the use of the definition of homogeneity used by cosmologists but cautioned strongly against its use as a cosmological principle. “This conventional homogeneity is only definite when the motion of the particles is first prescribed.” His alarmed but polite arguments continue throughout section 62, and in section 63, he states explicitly, that homogeneity has been shown to break down, then goes on to prove this in section 64.

However, his proof in section 64 uses relatively moving observers. By assuming the expansion of space instead of relative motion of nebulae, the standard cosmological model proves immune to this particular argument.

However, in section 60, he had already pointed out that a static universe is necessarily part of a favored reference frame, and fails to satisfy another equally valid cosmological principle.

There are at least two things that can save the Standard Cosmological Model from Milne's arguments. One is to assume a static universe, and thus a preferred reference frame, and describe "homogeneity" as the new Cosmological Principle.

The other is to maintain "No Preferred Reference Frame" as the Cosmological Principle, and use the stretching of space to describe a Standard Cosmological Model which is not static yet has no particles in relative motion. This is the aim of the FLRW metric.

Self-Consistent Assumptions of the Standard Cosmological Model
Here is a list of some of the properties associated with the Standard Cosmological Model.

1.	The universe has roughly the same density throughout (if you make your scale coarse enough, say kilograms/cubic mega-parsec), though this density decreases over time due to the expansion of space, it is constant at any given time throughout all space.

2.	The red-shift of distant galaxies is due to the expansion of space instead of the recession velocity of the galaxies. Of course there is Peculiar velocity which allows for small aberrations from this rule, which is necessary in order for galaxies to collide, or motion to appear at all. But the redshift which corresponds to Hubble flow is assumed to be due entirely to the expansion of space.

3.	Because distant galaxies actually have no relative velocity, they are in the same reference frame, and thus no Lorentz Transformation is required to convert between the coordinates of the observers in these galaxies. Because no Lorentz Transformation is required (except possibly for Peculiar velocity), time can be considered to be a universal, or absolute, quantity.

4.	Because no Lorentz Transformation is required, Special Relativity can be considered valid, though it's application becomes ambiguous in cosmology. Thus, Special Relativity is dismissed as being valid locally, but not globally.

5.     The SCM assumes Einstein field equations; differential equations with boundary conditions. These equations and their solutions have been described in terms of differential equations of tensors (See Ricci tensor, Weyl tensor and Christoffel symbols).

 * Roger Penrose (The Emperor's New Mind) has distinguished between the two types of tensors of General Relativity; one being primarily due to the universal curvature of space consistent with the Friedmann Metric, and the other being the effect caused by gravity, more consistent with the Schwartzchild metric.

6.     The first solution to the Einstein Field Equations was published in a paper by Friedmann. ("Über die Möglichkeit einer Welt mit konstanter negativer Krümmung des Raumes" (On the possibility of a world with constant negative curvature of space). In his solution, undetermined constants included the curvature of the scale of space which may be -1, +1, or 0, and another constant, called the cosmological constant, and the universe's density, which (Milne points out) is assumed a priori to be a constant over space, but nonconstant over time, which is reasonable, since this was how the question was posed by Einstein.

7. The specific boundary conditions necessary to determine the constants of the Friedmann solution should be observable in the map of the Cosmic microwave background radiation. Just as any single-valued function of one variable can be represented by a specific infinite series of sine waves called a Fourier series, or by an infinite series of polynomials called a Taylor Series, a single-valued function of two angle variables which represent the inner surface of a sphere can be represented by an infinite series of Spherical Bessel Functions. Determining the coefficients of an infinite series of terms of an orthonormal basis defined from the Einstein Field Equations is part of what astronomers are doing to establish the Boundary conditions of the Einstein Field Equations in order to find the undetermined constants.

To reiterate, the Standard Cosmological Model has successfully described a plausible possibility for a universe which does not makes the use of Special Relativity and the Lorentz Transformations ambiguous on the cosmological scale. So it accepts the legitimacy of Special Relativity, but only in applications at a local level. One benefit of all this is that absolute time becomes a possibility.

Much of the mathematics of General Relativity seeks to eliminate the ambiguity of applications of Special Relativity within the model, as Peculiar velocity of galaxies and nebulae require some consideration of the laws of relative motion.

The Standard Cosmological Model is self-consistent and might eventually be proven to be reality. If dark matter, dark energy, or any of the other conjectured necessary ingredients of the SCM are discovered, this would be strong evidence in favor of one version or another of the Standard Cosmological Model. These would be discoveries of profound importance—our ability to harness such resources might give us infinite mobility to explore our universe.

Milne Model
Milne developed another self-consistent model which should also be considered. It should be considered, at least as a matter of scientific history, if for no other reason than to consider its implications and identify its flaws if there are any.

This model does not predict dark matter or dark energy, and because of its compatibility with Special Relativity, it strictly disallows instantaneous travel between distant points without temporal difficulties. As such, this model, unfortunately, does not hold the same hope for future technologies as the Standard Cosmological Model.

Milne’s model describes

1.	A literal explosion of matter from a point into pre-existing space. In any reference frame, space exists outside the finite region of the universe, and space pre-existed the big bang.

2.	Space is considered to have no properties, so this model has no use for the concept of a scale factor, and thus the Friedmann metric does not apply. There is no positive, negative, or even zero curvature of space, and certainly no cosmological constant in Milne's model. Milne's Cosmology is not "Flat" in reference to the Friedmann Metric because it does not use the Friedmann Metric.

3.     The mass of the universe is infinite. This assumption comes from consideration of the alternative of a finite universe. In the course of argument, Milne eliminates (to his satisfaction) all other possibilities as being either absurd, or not being compatible with the Principle of Relativity. Moreover, he finds the unique mathematical density function compatible (RGWS Chapter 5, Equation 9) with his assumptions of relative motion and no-preferred-reference-frame, and this density function is an explicit mathematical representation of an infinite amount of mass.

4.     The universe began at a single instant of time and space. This is required to have no favored reference frame, and to have no materials popping into existence out at the edge of the universe. Milne devotes five pages to this argument in Chapter VII of RGWS, entitled "Creation" followed by a three page aside on the topic of "Creation and Deity." His arguments have been dismissed by other cosmologists as being primarily faith-based in nature. Source: "Cosmology and Controversy." Regardless of his verbal arguments, the density function which he describes (RGWS Chapter 5, Equation 9) is a unique solution, and it describes the matter in the form of a singularity at time t=0.

5.	The red-shift of galaxies is caused almost entirely by recession velocity. (The slowing of time near gravitational sources also causes a redshift of light from massive objects, but this is a change in the speed of time--not the scale of space. i.e. the Ricci Tensor, not the Weyl Tensor)

6.	Simultaneity, as perceived by relatively moving observers, is completely determined by using the Lorentz Transformation to convert between Euclidian coordinate systems of the different observers. Simultaneity in the view of a single observer O is determined by a region of constant t.

Milne also provides details (Relativity Gravitation and World Structure RGWS) on how to develop a "mixed" coordinate system where an event is associated with each observer and these events can be mapped into an infinite and homogeneous distribution. Milne takes pains to point out the flaws of doing this, but ironically, his construction was adopted by Robertson or Walker and has become the centerpiece of the Standard Cosmological Model.

7.	As mentioned earlier, The density of the universe which corresponds to the cosmological principle of “no preferred reference frame” is a fully determined function. Equation (6) In Chapter 5, Section 89 of RGWS gives the VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION

f(u,v,w) du dv dw = (B du dv dw)/ (c^3 (1- (u^2 +v^2 +w^2)/c^2)^2

where u, v, and w are initial velocities. This can be described as the initial condition of the Milne Model, where all of the particles are located at point (0,0,0) at time 0. This is a fluid dynamics representation.

In the experience of an observer, the system assumes the SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION given in equation (9) of the same chapter.

8.	The universe is an expanding sphere with infinite density on the outer surface, in the reference frame of any observer within it. The inner edge of this sphere is visible as the Surface of last scattering, or Cosmic background radiation, caused by a thick dense layer of of hydrogen atoms moving away from us at nearly the speed of light in their era of Recombination. He described this himself as "The total population of points is infinite. The particles near the boundary tend towards invisibility, as seen by the central observer, and fade into a continuous background of finite intensity."

To reiterate, Milne's model denies that space is scalable, maintains that General Relativity affects things locally (Ricci Tensor, and Schwartszchild Metric), and not globally (Weyl Tensor, and FLRW Metric), while Special Relativity affects the observers perception of the entire universe, not just a local region. This is opposite to the Standard Cosmological Model, except that the SCM only makes application of the LT's ambiguous, whereas Milne rejects the FLRW metric entirely.

Milne's Model gives a very specific unique solution compatible with Hubble's Law and the Principle of Relativity. It was rejected on account of the singularity, infinite mass, space beyond all matter, time before matter, lack of absolute time, and above all, Milne's three page aside about "Creation and deity."

Milne specifically addresses all of these topics, whereas most books on General Relativity simply dismiss them as being inconceivable. In the seven decades since RGWS, Milne's model has had few supporters, so significant experimental support for his model may have been overlooked.

The Problems of Modern Cosmology
John Baez has provided an extensive list of shortcomings of standard cosmology. http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_problems.html

These include the flatness problem, the horizon problem, the density fluctuation problem, the dark matter problem, the exotic relics problem, the thermal state problem, the cosmological constant problem, the singularity problem, and the timescale problem.

A Note on the Steady State Model
The thermal state problem and horizon problem can be considered to be distinct from the singularity problem in that they require different assumptions. The first two assume an initial nonzero size of the universe, whereas the singularity problem assumes an initial zero size.

It should be noted that a Lorentz Transformation of two non-touching simultaneous events can separate them to arbitrarily large distances in time and space. Thus if the Lorentz Transformation is admitted as valid on a cosmological scale, then assuming an initial finite size becomes identical to assuming a steady-state, with particles popping into existence at different times for different observers.

However, in general, the SCM does not admit the validity of applying LT's on a cosmological scale.

A Suggested Approach to Each Problem Using Milne's Model
Some of the shortcomings of SCM simply disappear with Milne’s model. Some require a little more explanation, and some of them switch from being questions of cosmology and become questions entirely about the very nature of matter itself.

The Flatness Problem
Assuming the SCM, observations of the universe indicate that the speed of the stretching of space is slowing asymptotically toward zero.

In Milne’s model, there is no stretching of space, so the question must be asked in a different way.

The relation between the distance of a nebula and its velocity in Milne’s model is simply

Distance = Velocity * Time.

The distance equals rate times time equation is familiar to algebra and physics students at all levels.

However, Milne did not preclude the possibility of acceleration after the beginning of time, so, in such cases where some acceleration occurred after the Big Bang.

Distance = Velocity * Time + Initial Distance,

Naturally, since it has been a very long time since the last such acceleration, the local objects are moving very slowly, and the objects which are moving quickly are so far away that we barely notice them. The universe, in Milne’s model shows no signs of slowing down whatsoever, and never would have been expected to. Nearby objects, of course, in a universe over 13.7 billion years old, had an initial velocity of d/13.7 billion so they are moving extremely slowly, and have mostly fallen into the earth, the sun, and the planets.

One other note, substituting the following into the Friedmann solution:

density of the universe = zero, and the cosmological constant = zero, curvature of the universe = -1,

after a little algebra, Friedmann's Solution becomes exactly Hubble's Law,

Velocity = H_0 * Distance

Which seems at first to be equivalent to Distance = Rate * Time, where Hubble's Constant is 1/Time. This seems to suggest that Milne's Cosmology is a model with zero density, zero cosmological constant, and a negative curvature. This is an incorrect assessment. Milne's model rejects the concept of a scale factor, and thus the Friedmann solution from the outset.

The Horizon Problem
The Horizon Problem is a question of why the cosmic background is so smooth. Implicit in the Horizon problem is the assumption that the initial size of the universe is nonzero. This would allow the possibility of objects which were noncausally connected. It would also allow the possibility that distant stars and galaxies would simply wink into existence as the light from them first reached us from the distance. This may be a common concept of the cause of the cosmic background.

Milne’s model assumes that the universe’s initial size was exactly zero, and therefore there are no objects in the universe that are not causally connected in some way. They were all touching at the moment of the big bang.

The Dark Matter Problem
Mundane Dark Matter vs. Mysterious Dark Matter

The Dark Matter Problem has been presented in two main ways. One is to question why the outer arms of spiral galaxies have the same velocity as the inner arms. It has been determined that 90% of the matter in these arms cannot be seen, and is thus “dark matter.” This is easily explained by mundane dark matter:  meteors, planets, dust, and gas which does not glow and thus cannot be seen from here.

The other manner in which the Dark Matter Problem has been presented is as the question of what matter is present to warp the space in a manner consistent with the assumptions of the standard cosmological model and the observations of reality. A much larger amount of matter is necessary for this. One description of this matter is huge clouds of neutrinos, or some other neutral nonbaryonic particles. This nonbaryonic matter has been observed, but not in sufficient quantities. It is quite possible that we could miss large amounts of such matter even as it slips right through us.

The standard cosmological model requires large amounts of mundane dark matter and enormous amounts of mysterious dark matter in order to make the model consistent with observations.

The Milne model, on the other hand, requires large amounts of mundane dark matter (to explain the spiral arm motion), but does not require enormous amounts of mysterious dark matter. Stars and galaxies represent blemishes and concentrations among an otherwise smooth fluid of mundane dark matter.

The Density Fluctuation Problem
Why are there blemishes and concentrations of matter in the universe? “The perturbations which gravitationally collapsed to form galaxies must have been primordial in origin; from whence did they arise?”

Astronomers have noticed that the visible matter of the universe has organized itself into perturbations known as stars, galaxies, clusters, and super clusters. In fact, these super clusters seem to appear in great long swaths across the cosmos such as the Shapley Concentration, (AKA the Finger of God).

Many opinions are out there as to the nature of the cause of these perturbations. Some have suggested that they appear due to superstrings; monofilament remnant leftovers of the big bang, with the gravitational strength of black holes or neutron stars. Others have suggested that the phenomena are due to some kind of crystal defect in the homogeneity of the universe.

Another option is that a large mass passed through the region while it was still dense. Just as a fast moving boat creates whirlpools on the surface of a smooth pond, so did this large mass leave spiral galaxies forming in its wake. This idea is not consistent with an absolute time scale, or homogeneity, as it requires a body to come from a dense region into a less dense region, and remain in its primordial form as it travels through millions or billions of light years of space. This is consistent with Milne’s model, with it's hot outer, infinitely dense edge, from whence Brownian Motion could cause a primordial particle to accelerate inward into a region of lesser density.

The Inflation Problem
The challenge for proponents of the SCM is to explain inflation in a manner which does not invoke the Lorentz Transformations.

Milne’s model, on the other hand, does invoke the Lorentz Transformations, and thus provides a mechanism for inflation with no difficulty. The model inflates with respect to any observer who undergoes acceleration, in the manner described by putting an luminally expanding sphere through a Lorentz Transformation about an event which is not at the origin.

The first of these two images shows a two dimensional cross-section of the space of a large mass in its own reference frame. The second of the two animations shows the Minkowski Space-time diagram showing the path of this object, as well as its line of simultaneity at each moment, and the red dot which represents the stationary center of the universe from its perspective.

If a body were to be accelerated by Brownian Motion in the thermodynamics of the hot big bang, it would be moved to a new reference frame, where instead of seeing itself at the center (and least dense section) of very small universe, it would see itself at the very dense edge of a vast universe. The objects coming from the center of that universe would be approaching it at an alarming rate. If the mass of this body were large enough (which is highly likely if it came from the first fraction of a second... see The Singularity Problem, below), it would leave condensed matter and spiral galaxies in its wake.

The Exotic Relics Problem
“Phase transitions in the early universe inevitably give rise to topological defects, such as monopoles, and exotic particles. Why don't we see them today?”

Most of these phenomena would be blocked from view by the layer of newly formed Hydrogen atoms at the visible inner surface of the sphere of Milne’s Model. This is fairly well explained by the concept of “the surface of last scattering” although using the Milne model would give an even greater understanding of why this surface was so incredibly effective at blocking everything except for those photons unable to knock an electron out of the 1S orbital of a hydrogen atom.

The Thermal State Problem
Again, the question of why the universe began in a state of thermal equilibrium implicitly assumes the initial size of the universe was nonzero. This seems to be more of an argument against the Steady State model than the Standard Cosmological Model. And regardless, it doesn't apply to Milne's Model, because everything was in thermal contact at the first instant.

The Cosmological Constant Problem
Milne’s model does not admit the validity of Einstein’s Field Equations, the scale factor, or the Friedmann solutions. The cosmological constant problem in Milne's model is that anyone with a solid grasp of Milne's model well in mind will be unable to find any conceptual use for the Friedmann Solution, and no matter how strong his interest in the subject, he will be dismissed by some cosmologists as unteachable.

The Singularity Problem
This is an important problem but it is not compatible with the Thermal State Problem or the Horizon Problem, since both of them implicitly assume an initial nonzero size of the universe. Supporters of the Steady-State model do not need to worry about the singularity problem, but it is probably the most important problem of the Milne Model.

The Milne model requires the entire system to occupy a single point at first instant, as is defined by the Lorentz Invariant density equation of Milne's Model, and is this singularity is described in detail in his chapter about Creation. It remains a problem in his model, or at least a rich source of questions.

Specific Questions on the Singularity Problem
The Singularity Problem in Milne's Model might be essentially the same as the Singularity Problem of the Cosmological Model in regards to Quantum Mechanics: Since the distance between any two particles is zero at the instant of creation, this requires, by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, (HUP) that either that Planck's Constant was zero during that event, or that the relative momentum between any two particles in the system be infinite (their relative velocity is the speed of light, or their mass is infinite), or Planck's constant is reduced to zero.

On the other hand, the explicit definition of initial conditions of Milne's Model provides a problem setup for statistical thermodynamics analysis of the system: Statistical thermodynamics and solid-state mechanics usually consider systems with an equipartition of momentum. A careful analysis will show that the Lorentz invariant distribution described by Milne is an equipartition of rapidity, which is a fundamentally different quantity than mass-independent momentum. (Though they are the same at low velocities). The laws of motion absent all forces would have predict an equipartition of momentum. This difference could lead to further insight.

The Timescale Problem
In the Standard Model, the Friedmann Metric affects both time and space in a global manner; regions of simultaneity are determined by 3-surfaces in spacetime. These surfaces are not flat; a favored surface shape is hyperboloid; hyperboloid surfaces of simultaneity allow an absolute universal time consistent with Hubble's Law.

In Milne's Model, Spacetime is Euclidian, and surfaces of simultaneity are flat. Gravity can affect time on a local level, and LT's rotate the flat surface of simultaneity.

Either way there is a timescale problem. Milne's timescale problem is that it's hard to understand Special Relativity. SCM's timescale problem is that no one knows what the shape of the 3-surfaces are, and it is hard to understand how gravity could affect things on a global level.

Gravitation, Relativity and World Structure
Only Chapter's 1-7 and 16-Appendix are specifically referenced here. The content between chapters 8 and 15 are beyond the scope of this presentation.

The "Inflation-in-Milne-Model" animation presented is a non-calculus-based approach to the idea of motion in the Milne Model. In these chapters, Milne refers to particles traveling faster than the speed of light, which is ostensibly what the animation shows during periods of the instantaneous representation of the acceleration of the observer.

Milne takes a calculus based approach which treats uniform accelerations due to gravitational attraction instead of the instantaneous acceleration due to thermal collision. His approach is similar to that of Mike Fontenot (see CADO, below). Milne treats the change in the observed location of the particle with respect to the observer as an actual velocity, and so frequently describes "Faster than Light" motion of particles in chapters 8-15. This can be taken as the mechanism for cosmological inflation as presented by Milne, though this should be verified by better educated mathematicians and physicists.

This image shows an observer under non-instantaneous acceleration. It shows only events rather than the worldlines of objects, but it's not hard to imagine the animation with lines drawn between some of the events to represent worldlines of non-accelerating particles.

If they were, the intersection where these lines crossed the horizontal t=0 axis would move back and forth at rates higher than the speed of light. Distance between worldlines along a constant t is the definition of distance as used in Lorentz Transformation.) This might be called Faster Than Light Motion in some interpretation, though of course it is only faster than light in reference to the accelerating observer.

That is, there is no reference frame where any object is traveling faster than the speed of light, but the observer is not remaining in any single reference frame, so he can observe an object's position changing faster than the speed of light.

Relativity Visualized
A much acclaimed title among laypersons, and much maligned among cosmology experts, Lewis Carroll Epstein’s 1976 work, Relativity Visualized, presents many of the same concepts presented by Milne. Having not sat through numerous arguments with Eddington, Russell, Einstein, etc, Epstein's work is much less argumentative.

Epstein's main goal was to explain the Theory of Relativity in a manner that was self-consistent and that *anyone* could understand. Even so, because of the difficulty of the two different coordinate systems presented, the Appendix should be skimmed before delving into the meat of the book. Epstein's use of a space-propertime diagram, distinct from a space-coordinate-time diagram is compatible with Milne's description of a mixed coordinate system.

The description and Illustration of the General Theory in Epstein's book is truly unique, and if the mathematics of the Schwarzschild Metric could be somehow illustrated by the nonmathematical models of Epstein, a great leap forward could be made in pedagogy.

Epstein views his own model as simply a self-consistent possibility, distinct from the concept of "expanding space," but has not made a careful critical analysis and comparison.

Website: Relativistic Flight through Stonehenge
The Relativistic Flight through Stonehenge describes what to expect visually from objects moving toward us near the speed of light.

The diagrams indicate that when the observer accelerates toward a stationary object, it appears further away. Extrapolation of this idea leads to the realization that this change in perceived distance is limited only by the acceleration of the observer.

This simultates how an object could be viewed to be moving "faster than the speed of light" and is consistent with Inflation of the Milne Model Universe.

CADO: Current Age of Distant Objects
Mike Fontenot had a research paper published on the topic of the Current Age of Distant Objects, which is consistent with the Milne Model, (and in particular the explanation for Inflation.) He determined that by accelerating toward a distant receding object, you increase its coordinate distance until you've matched pace with it, and cause its current coordinate age to change rapidly by accelerating toward or away from it.

RelLab
RelLab is a software simulation program for Macintosh designed to simulate the Special Theory of Relativity. This program is capable of accurate applications of the Special Theory of Relativity at any scale, without use or mention of Friedmann’s scale factor, which makes it compatible for doing rudimentary simulations of Milne’s model.

JDoolin 20:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

title: User:JDoolin


text:
Arnolfini Portrait

The Arnolfini Portrait (or The Arnolfini Wedding, The Arnolfini Marriage, the Portrait of Giovanni Arnolfini and his Wife, or other titles) is a 1434 oil painting on oak panel by the Early Netherlandish painter Jan van Eyck. It forms a full-length double portrait, believed to depict the Italian merchant Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini and his wife, presumably in their residence at the Flemish city of Bruges.

It is considered one of the most original and complex paintings in Western art, because of its beauty, complex iconography, geometric orthogonal perspective, and expansion of the picture space with the use of a mirror. According to Ernst Gombrich "in its own way it was as new and revolutionary as Donatello's or Masaccio's work in Italy. A simple corner of the real world had suddenly been fixed on to a panel as if by magic... For the first time in history the artist became the perfect eye-witness in the truest sense of the term". The portrait has been considered by Erwin Panofsky and some other art historians as a unique form of marriage contract, recorded as a painting. Signed and dated by van Eyck in 1434, it is, with the Ghent Altarpiece by the same artist and his brother Hubert, the oldest very famous panel painting to have been executed in oils rather than in tempera. The painting was bought by the National Gallery in London in 1842.

Van Eyck used the technique of applying several layers of thin translucent glazes to create a painting with an intensity of both tone and colour. The glowing colours also help to highlight the realism, and to show the material wealth and opulence of Arnolfini's world. Van Eyck took advantage of the longer drying time of oil paint, compared to tempera, to blend colours by painting wet-in-wet to achieve subtle variations in light and shade to heighten the illusion of three-dimensional forms. The wet-in-wet (wet-on-wet), technique, also known as alla prima, was highly utilized by Renaissance painters including Jan van Eyck. The medium of oil paint also permitted van Eyck to capture surface appearance and distinguish textures precisely. He also rendered the effects of both direct and diffuse light by showing the light from the window on the left reflected by various surfaces. It has been suggested that he used a magnifying glass in order to paint the minute details such as the individual highlights on each of the amber beads hanging beside the mirror.

The illusionism of the painting was remarkable for its time, in part for the rendering of detail, but particularly for the use of light to evoke space in an interior, for "its utterly convincing depiction of a room, as well of the people who inhabit it". Whatever meaning is given to the scene and its details, and there has been much debate on this, according to Craig Harbison the painting "is the only fifteenth-century Northern panel to survive in which the artist's contemporaries are shown engaged in some sort of action in a contemporary interior. It is indeed tempting to call this the first genre painting – a painting of everyday life – of modern times".

Description

Jan van Eyck's characteristic Early Netherlandish style depicts the scene with a stunning amount of detail. The painting is generally in very good condition, though with small losses of original paint and damage, which have mostly been retouched. Infrared reflectograms of the painting show many small alterations, or pentimenti, in the underdrawing: to both faces, to the mirror, and to other elements. The couple is shown in an upstairs room with a chest and a bed in it during early summer as indicated by the fruits on the cherry tree outside the window. The room probably functioned as a reception room, as it was the fashion in France and Burgundy where beds in reception rooms were used for seating, except, for example, when a mother with a new baby received visitors. The window has six interior wooden shutters, but only the top opening has glass, with clear bulls-eye pieces set in blue, red and green stained glass.

The two figures are very richly dressed; despite the season both their outer garments, his tabard and her dress, are trimmed and fully lined with fur. The furs may be the especially expensive sable for him and ermine or miniver for her. He wears a hat of plaited straw dyed black, as often worn in the summer at the time. His tabard was more purple than it appears now (as the pigments have faded over time) and may be intended to be silk velvet (another very expensive item). Underneath he wears a doublet of patterned material, probably silk damask. Her dress has elaborate dagging (cloth folded and sewn together, then cut and frayed decoratively) on the sleeves, and a long train. Her blue underdress is also trimmed with white fur.

Although the woman's plain gold necklace and the rings that both wear are the only jewellery visible, both outfits would have been enormously expensive, and appreciated as such by a contemporary viewer. There may be an element of restraint in their clothes (especially the man) befitting their merchant status – portraits of aristocrats tend to show gold chains and more decorated cloth, although "the restrained colours of the man's clothing correspond to those favoured by Duke Philip of Burgundy".

The interior of the room has other signs of wealth; the brass chandelier is large and elaborate by contemporary standards, and would have been very expensive. It would probably have had a mechanism with pulley and chains above, to lower it for managing the candles (possibly omitted from the painting for lack of room). The convex mirror at the back, in a wooden frame with scenes of The Passion painted behind glass, is shown larger than such mirrors could actually be made at this date – another discreet departure from realism by van Eyck. There is also no sign of a fireplace (including in the mirror), nor anywhere obvious to put one. Even the oranges casually placed to the left are a sign of wealth; they were very expensive in Burgundy and may have been one of the items dealt in by Arnolfini. Further signs of luxury are the elaborate bed-hangings and the carvings on the chair and bench against the back wall (to the right, partly hidden by the bed), also the small Oriental carpet on the floor by the bed; many owners of such expensive objects placed them on tables, as they still do in the Netherlands. There existed a friendship between Giovanni Arnolfini and Philip the Good who sent his court painter Jan van Eyck to portray Arnolfini Double. The relation possibly began with a tapestry order including the images of Notre Dame Cathedral in return of a good payment.

The view in the mirror shows two figures just inside the door that the couple are facing. The second figure, wearing red, is presumably the artist although, unlike Velázquez in Las Meninas, he does not seem to be painting. Scholars have made this assumption based on the appearance of figures wearing red head-dresses in some other van Eyck works (e.g., the Portrait of a Man (Self Portrait?) and the figure in the background of the Madonna with Chancellor Rolin). A dog is an early form of the breed now known as the Affenpinscher.

The painting is signed, inscribed and dated on the wall above the mirror: "Johannes de eyck fuit hic 1434" ("Jan van Eyck was here 1434"). The inscription looks as if it were painted in large letters on the wall, as was done with proverbs and other phrases at this period. Other surviving van Eyck signatures are painted in trompe-l'œil on the wooden frame of his paintings, so that they appear to have been carved in the wood.

Identity of subjects
In their book published in 1857, Crowe and Cavalcaselle were the first to link the double portrait with the early 16th century inventories of Margaret of Austria. They suggested that the painting showed portraits of Giovanni [di Arrigo] Arnolfini and his wife. Four years later James Weale published a book in which he agreed with this analysis and identified Giovanni's wife as Jeanne (or Giovanna) Cenami. For the next century most art historians accepted that the painting was a double portrait of Giovanni di Arrigo Arnolfini and his wife Jeanne Cenami, but a chance discovery published in 1997 established that they were married in 1447, thirteen years after the date on the painting and six years after van Eyck's death.

It is now believed that the subject is either Giovanni di Arrigo or his cousin, Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini, and a wife of either one of them. This is either an undocumented first wife of Giovanni di Arrigo or a second wife of Giovanni di Nicolao, or, according to a recent proposal, Giovanni di Nicolao's first wife Costanza Trenta, who had died perhaps in childbirth by February 1433. In the latter case, this would make the painting partly an unusual memorial portrait, showing one living and one dead person. Details such as the snuffed candle above the woman, the scenes after Christ's death on her side of the background roundel, and the black garb of the man, support this view. Both Giovanni di Arrigo and Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini were Italian merchants, originally from Lucca, but resident in Bruges since at least 1419. The man in this painting is the subject of a further portrait by van Eyck in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin, leading to speculation he was a friend of the artist.

Scholarly debate

In 1934 Erwin Panofsky published an article entitled Jan van Eyck's 'Arnolfini' Portrait in the Burlington Magazine, arguing that the elaborate signature on the back wall, and other factors, showed that it was painted as a legal record of the occasion of the marriage of the couple, complete with witnesses and a witness signature. Panofsky also argues that the many details of domestic items in the painting each have a disguised symbolism attached to their appearance. While Panofsky's claim that the painting formed a kind of certificate of marriage is not accepted by all art historians, his analysis of the symbolic function of the details is broadly agreed, and has been applied to many other Early Netherlandish paintings, especially a number of depictions of the Annunciation set in richly detailed interiors, a tradition for which the Arnolfini Portrait and the Mérode Altarpiece by Robert Campin represent the start (in terms of surviving works at least).

Since then, there has been considerable scholarly argument among art historians on the occasion represented. Edwin Hall considers that the painting depicts a betrothal, not a marriage. Margaret D. Carroll argues that the painting is a portrait of a married couple that alludes also to the husband's grant of legal authority to his wife. Carroll also proposes that the portrait was meant to affirm Giovanni Arnolfini's good character as a merchant and aspiring member of the Burgundian court. She argues that the painting depicts a couple, already married, now formalizing a subsequent legal arrangement, a mandate, by which the husband "hands over" to his wife the legal authority to conduct business on her own or his behalf (similar to a power of attorney). The claim is not that the painting had any legal force, but that van Eyck played upon the imagery of legal contract as a pictorial conceit. While the two figures in the mirror could be thought of as witnesses to the oath-taking, the artist himself provides (witty) authentication with his notarial signature on the wall.

Jan Baptist Bedaux agrees somewhat with Panofsky that this is a marriage contract portrait in his 1986 article "The reality of symbols: the question of disguised symbolism in Jan van Eyck's Arnolfini Portrait." However, he disagrees with Panofsky's idea of items in the portrait having hidden meanings. Bedaux argues, "if the symbols are disguised to such an extent that they do not clash with reality as conceived at the time ... there will be no means of proving that the painter actually intended such symbolism." He also conjectures that if these disguised symbols were normal parts of the marriage ritual, then one could not say for sure whether the items were part of a "disguised symbolism" or just social reality.

Craig Harbison takes the middle ground between Panofsky and Bedaux in their debate about "disguised symbolism" and realism. Harbison argues that "Jan van Eyck is there as storyteller ... [who] must have been able to understand that, within the context of people's lives, objects could have multiple associations", and that there are many possible purposes for the portrait and ways it can be interpreted. He maintains that this portrait cannot be fully interpreted until scholars accept the notion that objects can have multiple associations. Harbison urges the notion that one needs to conduct a multivalent reading of the painting that includes references to the secular and sexual context of the Burgundian court, as well as religious and sacramental references to marriage.

Lorne Campbell in the National Gallery Catalogue sees no need to find a special meaning in the painting: "... there seems little reason to believe that the portrait has any significant narrative content. Only the unnecessary lighted candle and the strange signature provoke speculation." He suggests that the double portrait was very possibly made to commemorate a marriage, but not a legal record and cites examples of miniatures from manuscripts showing similarly elaborate inscriptions on walls as a normal form of decoration at the time. Another portrait in the National Gallery by van Eyck, Portrait of a Man (Leal Souvenir), has a legalistic form of signature.

Margaret Koster's new suggestion, discussed above and below, that the portrait is a memorial one, of a wife already dead for a year or so, would displace these theories. Art historian Maximiliaan Martens has suggested that the painting was meant as a gift for the Arnolfini family in Italy. It had the purpose of showing the prosperity and wealth of the couple depicted. He feels this might explain oddities in the painting, for example why the couple are standing in typical winter clothing while a cherry tree is in fruit outside, and why the phrase "Johannes de eyck fuit hic 1434" is featured so large in the centre of the painting. Herman Colenbrander has proposed that the painting may depict an old German custom of a husband promising a gift to his bride on the morning after their wedding night. He has also suggested that the painting may have been a present from the artist to his friend.

In 2016, French physician Jean-Philippe Postel, in his book L'Affaire Arnolfini, agreed with Koster that the woman is dead, but he suggested that she is appearing to the man as a spectre, asking him to pray for her soul.

Figures and marriage
It is thought that the couple are already married because of the woman's headdress. A non-married woman would have her hair down, according to Margaret Carroll. The placement of the two figures suggests conventional 15th century views of marriage and gender roles – the woman stands near the bed and well into the room, symbolic of her role as the caretaker of the house and solidifying her in a domestic role, whereas Giovanni stands near the open window, symbolic of his role in the outside world. Arnolfini looks directly out at the viewer; his wife gazes obediently at her husband. His hand is vertically raised, representing his commanding position of authority, whilst she has her hand in a lower, horizontal, more submissive pose. However, her gaze at her husband can also show her equality to him because she is not looking down at the floor as lower-class women would. They are part of the Burgundian court life and in that system she is his equal, not his lowly subordinate.

The symbolism behind the action of the couple's joined hands has also been debated among scholars. Many point to this gesture as proof of the painting's purpose. Is it a marriage contract or something else? Panofsky interprets the gesture as an act of fides, Latin for "marital oath". He calls the representation of the couple "qui desponsari videbantur per fidem" which means, "who were contracting their marriage by marital oath". The man is grasping the woman's right hand with his left, which is the basis for the controversy. Some scholars like Jan Baptist Bedaux and Peter Schabacker argue that if this painting does show a marriage ceremony, then the use of the left hand points to the marriage being morganatic and not clandestine. A marriage is said to be morganatic if a man marries a woman of unequal rank. However, the subjects originally thought by most scholars to be represented in this painting, Giovanni Arnolfini and Giovanna Cenami, were of equal status and rank in the courtly system, so the theory would not hold true. On the opposite side of the debate are scholars like Margaret Carroll. She suggests that the painting deploys the imagery of a contract between an already married couple giving the wife the authority to act on her husband's behalf in business dealings. Carroll identifies Arnolfini's raised right hand as a gesture of oath-taking known as "fidem levare", and his joining hands with his wife as a gesture of consent known as "fides manualis".

Although many viewers assume the wife to be pregnant, this is not believed to be so. Art historians point to numerous paintings of female virgin saints similarly dressed, and believe that this look was fashionable for women's dresses at the time. Fashion would have been important to Arnolfini, especially since he was a cloth merchant. The more cloth a person wore, the more wealthy he or she was assumed to be. Another indication that the woman is not pregnant is that Giovanna Cenami (the identification of the woman according to most earlier scholars) died childless, as did Costanza Trenta (a possible identification according to recent archival evidence); whether a hypothetical unsuccessful pregnancy would have been left recorded in a portrait is questionable, although if it is indeed Costanza Trenta, as Koster proposed, and she died in childbirth, then the oblique reference to pregnancy gains strength. Moreover, the beauty ideal embodied in contemporary female portraits and clothing rest in the first place on the high valuation on the ability of women to bear children. Harbison maintains her gesture is merely an indication of the extreme desire of the couple shown for fertility and progeny.

There is a carved figure as a finial on the bedpost, probably of Saint Margaret, patron saint of pregnancy and childbirth, who was invoked to assist women in labor and to cure infertility, or possibly representing Saint Martha, the patroness of housewives. From the bedpost hangs a brush, symbolic of domestic duties. Furthermore, the brush and the rock crystal prayer-beads (a popular engagement present from the future bridegroom) appearing together on either side of the mirror may also allude to the dual Christian injunctions ora et labora (pray and work). According to Jan Baptist Bedaux, the broom could also symbolize proverbial chastity; it "sweeps out impurities".

Mirror
The small medallions set into the frame of the convex mirror at the back of the room show tiny scenes from the Passion of Christ and may represent God's promise of salvation for the figures reflected on the mirror's convex surface. Furthering the Memorial theory, all the scenes on the wife's side are of Christ's death and resurrection. Those on the husband's side concern Christ's life. The mirror itself may represent the eye of God observing the vows of the wedding. A spotless mirror was also an established symbol of Mary, referring to the Holy Virgin's immaculate conception and purity. The mirror reflects two figures in the doorway, one of whom may be the painter himself. In Panofsky's controversial view, the figures are shown to prove that the two witnesses required to make a wedding legal were present, and Van Eyck's signature on the wall acts as some form of actual documentation of an event at which he was himself present.

According to one author "The painting is often referenced for its immaculate depiction of non-Euclidean geometry", referring to the image on the convex mirror. Assuming a spherical mirror, the distortion has been correctly portrayed, except for the leftmost part of the window frame, the near edge of the table and the hem of the dress.

Other objects
The little dog may symbolize fidelity (fido), loyalty, or alternatively lust, signifying the couple's desire to have a child. Unlike the couple, he looks out to meet the gaze of the viewer. The dog could be simply a lap dog, a gift from husband to wife. Many wealthy women in the court had lap dogs as companions, reflecting the wealth of the couple and their position in courtly life. The dog appears to be a Griffon terrier, or perhaps an Affenpinscher.

The green of the woman's dress symbolizes hope, possibly the hope of becoming a mother. Its intense brightness also indicates wealth, since dyeing fabric such a shade was difficult and expensive. Her white cap could signify purity or her status as married. Behind the pair, the curtains of the marriage bed have been opened; the red curtains might allude to the physical act of love.

The single candle in the left-front holder of the ornate six-branched chandelier is possibly the candle used in traditional Flemish marriage customs. Lit in full daylight, like the sanctuary lamp in a church, the candle may allude to the presence of the Holy Ghost or the ever-present eye of God. Alternatively, Margaret Koster posits that the painting is a memorial portrait, as the single lit candle on Giovanni's side contrasts with the burnt-out candle whose wax stub can just be seen on his wife's side, in a visual play on a common metaphor: he lives on, she is dead.

The cherries present on the tree outside the window may symbolize love. The oranges which lie on the window sill and chest may symbolize the purity and innocence that reigned in the Garden of Eden before the Fall of Man. They were uncommon and a sign of wealth in the Netherlands, but in Italy were a symbol of fecundity in marriage. More simply, the fruit could be a sign of the couple's wealth, since oranges were very expensive imports.

The male subject's over-shoes, called pattens, were a covering for indoor footwear that were made as protection from the outdoor elements. The idea that he has taken his off may imply that he would no longer stray, hinting at his fidelity towards his wife, potentially signifying that, for religious reasons, he would not remarry after her death. This is further used as proof that the female subject was painted posthumously.

In January 2018 the woman's dress was the subject of the BBC Four programme A Stitch in Time with fashion historian Amber Butchart.

Provenance
The provenance of the painting begins in 1435 when it was dated by van Eyck and presumably owned by the sitter(s). At some point before 1516 it came into the possession of Don Diego de Guevara (d. Brussels 1520), a Spanish career courtier of the Habsburgs (himself the subject of a fine portrait by Michael Sittow in the National Gallery of Art). He lived most of his life in the Netherlands, and may have known the Arnolfinis in their later years.

By 1516 he had given the portrait to Margaret of Austria, Habsburg Regent of the Netherlands, when it shows up as the first item in an inventory of her paintings, made in her presence at Mechelen. The item says (in French): "a large picture which is called Hernoul le Fin with his wife in a chamber, which was given to Madame by Don Diego, whose arms are on the cover of the said picture; done by the painter Johannes." A note in the margin says "It is necessary to put on a lock to close it: which Madame has ordered to be done." In a 1523–4 Mechelen inventory, a similar description is given, although this time the name of the subject is given as "Arnoult Fin".

In 1530 the painting was inherited by Margaret's niece Mary of Hungary, who in 1556 went to live in Spain. It is clearly described in an inventory taken after her death in 1558, when it was inherited by Philip II of Spain. A painting of two of his young daughters, Infantas Isabella Clara Eugenia and Catalina Micaela of Spain (Prado), commissioned by Philip clearly copies the pose of the figures. In 1599 a German visitor saw it in the Alcazar Palace in Madrid. Now it had verses from Ovid painted on the frame: "See that you promise: what harm is there in promises? In promises anyone can be rich." It is very likely that Velázquez knew the painting, which may have influenced his Las Meninas, which shows a room in the same palace. In 1700 the painting appeared in an inventory after the death of Carlos II with shutters and the verses from Ovid.

The painting survived the fire in the Alcazar which destroyed some of the Spanish royal collection, and by 1794 had been moved to the "Palacio Nuevo", the present Royal Palace of Madrid. In 1816 the painting was in London, in the possession of Colonel James Hay, a Scottish soldier. He claimed that after he was seriously wounded at the Battle of Waterloo the previous year, the painting hung in the room where he convalesced in Brussels. He fell in love with it, and persuaded the owner to sell. More relevant to the real facts is no doubt Hay's presence at the Battle of Vitoria (1813) in Spain, where a large coach loaded by King Joseph Bonaparte with easily portable artworks from the royal collections was first plundered by British troops, before what was left was recovered by their commanders and returned to the Spanish.

Hay offered the painting to the Prince Regent, later George IV of the United Kingdom, via Sir Thomas Lawrence. The Prince had it on approval for two years at Carlton House before eventually returning it in 1818. Around 1828, Hay gave it to a friend to look after, not seeing it or the friend for the next thirteen years, until he arranged for it to be included in a public exhibition in 1841. It was bought the following year (1842) by the recently formed National Gallery, London for £600, as inventory number 186, where it remains. By then the shutters had gone, along with the original frame.

title: Arnolfini Portrait


text:
Talk:Pazyryk culture

But where were they located, geographically? ClockworkTroll 16:04, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What is the reason of this ?

"nomadic Iron Age archaeological culture (of Iranian origin; c. 6th to 3rd centuries BC)". Why you wrote there of Iranian origin :)) there is no source or proven thing about this. After that period, we can see the Yenisei Kyrgyz and Dingling people on the area. Which they were Turkic.

Plagiarism
This article is almost entirely pasted from the Britannica source, and contains no elaboration on the content of the source. Language could be much clearer. Dr. Bepsi (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pazyryk culture


text:
Harry Golden

Harry Lewis Golden (May 6, 1902 – October 2, 1981) was an American writer and newspaper publisher.

Early life
Golden was born Herschel Goldhirsch (or Goldenhurst) in the shtetl Mikulintsy, Austria-Hungary. His mother Nuchama (nee Klein) was Romanian and his father Leib was Austrian.

In 1904 Leib Goldhirsch, a former Hebrew teacher, emigrated to Winnipeg, Manitoba, only to move the family to New York City the next year and "became an editor of the Jewish Daily Forward."

For a time, Harry worked as a newspaper seller on the Lower East Side and could remember shouting out headlines about the Leo Frank case about which he later wrote a book. As a teenager, he became interested in Georgism, and later spoke on its behalf.

He became a stockbroker but lost his job in the 1929 stock market crash. Convicted of mail fraud because he had held onto funds entrusted and thereby caused a loss to investors, Golden served four years in a Federal prison at Atlanta, Georgia and, decades later President Richard M. Nixon gave Golden a full presidential pardon for the mail fraud conviction.

Desegregation
In 1941, he moved to Charlotte, where, as a reporter for the Charlotte Labor Journal and The Charlotte Observer, he wrote about and spoke out against racial segregation and the Jim Crow laws of the time.

From 1942 to 1968, Golden published The Carolina Israelite as a forum, not just for his political views but also observations and reminiscences of his boyhood in New York's Lower East Side. He traveled widely: in 1960 to speak to Jews in West Germany and again to cover the 1961 trial of Adolf Eichmann in Israel for Life. He is referenced in the lyrics to Phil Ochs' song, "Love Me, I'm a Liberal": "You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden."

His satirical "The Vertical Negro Plan," involved removing the chairs from any to-be-integrated building, since Southern whites did not mind standing with blacks such as at bank tellers' windows, only sitting with them.

Golden reportedly convinced a southern department store manager to put an "Out of Order" sign by the water fountain marked White; within three weeks all were drinking from the Colored-designated drinking fountain.

Calvin Trillin devised the Harry Golden Rule, which states that "in present-day America it's very difficult, when commenting on events of the day, to invent something so bizarre that it might not actually come to pass while your piece is still on the presses."

Golden's books include three collections of essays from the Israelite and a biography of his friend, poet Carl Sandburg. One of those collections, Only in America, was the basis for a play by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee. He also maintained a correspondence with Billy Graham.

Personal
His Irish Catholic wife, the former Genevieve Gallagher, had predeceased him.

Critical attention
Theodore Solotaroff addressed the "Harry Golden phenomenon" in "Harry Golden & the American Audience" in Commentary magazine, March 1961.

Irving Howe compared Philip Roth's early novel Portnoy's Complaint to For 2¢ Plain in a critical review of Roth's novel in Commentary when Complaint was published in 1969.

Awards

 * Golden is honored with a memorial on the central campus of Central Piedmont Community College in Charlotte.

title: Harry Golden


text:
Giovanni Arnolfini

Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini (c. 1400 – after 1452) was an Italian merchant from Lucca, a city in Tuscany, Italy. He spent most of his life in Flanders, then part of the Duchy of Burgundy, probably always based in Bruges, a wealthy trading city and one of the main towns of the Burgundian court. The Arnolfini were a powerful family in Lucca, involved in the politics and trade of the small but wealthy city, which specialised (like Florence) in weaving expensive cloth.

Life
Giovanni, known as di Nicolao or "son of Nicolao" to distinguish him from his cousin Giovanni di Arrigo Arnolfini (see below), moved to Bruges in Flanders at an early age to work in the family business and lived there for the rest of his life. He became wealthy trading in silk and other fabrics, tapestries and other precious objects, although in later years he seems to have suffered business reverses, and to have retired from trading. His fame arises because he is the most likely candidate, out of a number of male Arnolfinis, to have been the subject of two portraits by Jan van Eyck, the famous Flemish painter. These are: The Arnolfini Portrait of Giovanni and his wife, dated 1434 and now in London, and another portrait, evidently of the same sitter when slightly older, now in Berlin (below).

He was presumably born in Lucca, where his parents lived, but neither the place nor the date are documented. He was sent to Bruges whilst still technically a child, as the first record of him is a letter from his father Nicolao in Lucca to his agent in Bruges in 1419 empowering the agent to "emancipate" Giovanni – that is, to declare him adult. Since there was no fixed age for this, it gives no real clue as to his date of birth.

In the next few years, Giovanni di Nicolao worked with a very successful Italian merchant, Marco Guidiccioni, another Lucchese who was connected to him by marriage. Records of some of his dealings with the Ducal court have survived, but these were probably only part of his business activities. In 1422 he tried to sell a valuable gold collar to King Henry V of England, and in 1423 he sold Duke Phillip the Good six tapestries of scenes from the Life of the Virgin, which the Duke gave to the Pope. Other sales to the Court are recorded, although he may have been acting on behalf of Guidiccioni.

In 1426 he married Costanza Trenta, who is at first sight not the wife in the portrait, as a letter by her mother of 26 February 1433 mentions that she had died. She was also from Lucca, and her aunt Ginevra Cavalcanti was married to Lorenzo de' Medici, brother of Cosimo de' Medici. On the other hand, Margaret Koster has recently proposed that the double portrait may be a memorial one, including an image of Costanza, but painted a year after her death.

In 1442 he signed an agreement whereby, for a moderate fee, he became a burgess of Bruges after promising not to trade as a merchant. He was permitted to practise "the small burgess's crafts", but whether he ever did is unknown. In 1446 and 1452 he is documented as an arbitrator in disputes between other Lucchese merchants (in 1446 including his cousin Giovanni) over property; these are his last appearances in the documentary record. The double portrait remained in Flanders (see the Provenance section in that article), which suggests that Giovanni died there. He was referred to as Hernoul-le-Fin in the first inventory record of the double portrait.

A slightly younger first cousin of Giovanni called Giovanni de Arrigo Arnolfini (or "Jehan Arnoulphin le jeune" by the Burgundian accountants), also came to live in Bruges and was even more successful than Giovanni de Nicolao. Giovanni de Arrigo Arnolfini married, and was survived by, Giovanna (Jeanne) Cenami, and they were the couple thought to be the shown in the Arnolfini Portrait from 1861 until 1994, when a French naval historian, Jacques Paviot, discovered in the Ducal accounts that the Duke had in 1447 presented two silver pots to "Jehan Arnoulphin" on his marriage – by this time Van Eyck had been dead for six years. Jane or Jeanne Arnolfini is documented further until her death in Bruges in 1480. A further two Arnolfinis, each a younger brother of one of the two Giovannis, are possible candidates as the subject of the Van Eyck portraits, as they lived in, or passed through, Bruges; but neither was apparently there in 1434.

title: Giovanni Arnolfini


text: Talk:Waterbury, Connecticut

title: Talk:Waterbury, Connecticut


text:
Nikolaus Storch

Nikolaus Storch (born pre-1500, died after 1536) was a German weaver and radical lay-preacher in the Saxon town of Zwickau. He and his followers, known as the Zwickau Prophets, played a brief role during the early German Reformation years in south-east Saxony, and there is a view that he was a forerunner of the Anabaptists. In the years 1520–1521, he worked closely with the radical theologian Thomas Müntzer.

Weaver and lay preacher
Very little is known about the life of Storch. There are no data about his place or date of birth, but he is assumed to be a native of Zwickau itself. His activities both in and away from Zwickau are not well-documented. He left no letters or other writings. He was a weaver by trade, but it is not known whether he was an apprentice or a master-weaver. Zwickau, at that time a town of around 7,000 inhabitants, was a prosperous town with a significant cloth trade, with the burgeoning silver-mining operations in the surrounding Ore Mountains. The influx of wealth from the mines meant that several local master-weavers had the capacity to break smaller competitors. This introduced volatile social and economic relationships into the town. The weavers' religious organisation in Zwickau – the Fronleichnams-Bruderschaft or 'Brotherhood of Corpus Christi' – had an altar at the church of St. Catherine in the town.

Prior to 1520, a splinter group broke away from this guild under Storch's leadership, a sect whose members believed that the source of true Christian belief came through visions and dreams. Storch was remarkably well-read in the Bible, having been taught by Balthasar Teufel, one-time schoolmaster of Zwickau. Storch had made several trips to Bohemia in the line of business, and there had come under the influence of the Taborites of Žatec (Saaz). In Zwickau he conducted 'corner sermons' in the houses of other weavers. The town chronicler Peter Schumann thought of Storch as 'someone with a profound knowledge of Scripture and expert in the things of the Spirit'

Working with Thomas Müntzer
When the radical reformer Thomas Müntzer was appointed to preach at St. Catherine's Church, in October 1520, after a short period at the neighbouring St Mary's, he and Storch began to work together. Müntzer was greatly interested in Storch's doctrines, although he viewed Storch as a like-minded individual, rather than a follower or someone to follow. During the winter of 1520–21, tensions in the town ran high between Catholics and reformers, plebeians and richer citizens, sects and town-council. A number of disturbances took place in the town, usually involving the lower classes and frequently resulting in acts of violence against the Catholic monks.

On 14 April 1521, a 'Letter of the 12 Apostles and 72 Disciples' was posted up in the town, addressed to the Lutheran/Humanist reformer Johann Sylvanus Egranus, who had crossed swords with Müntzer and Storch on several occasions already. Egranus was described now as the "desecrator and slanderer of God ... who hounds God's servant ... a heretical rogue". The letter was almost certainly the work of Storch's group, but it defended both Storch and Müntzer jointly. It enumerated, in verse, all the false doctrines of Egranus, his denial of the suffering of the soul, his worship of the ‘world’ and of money, and his preference for the company of 'bigwigs' :

"And you seek mere chattles, cash and praise,

But that’s the last thing you'll get from the 72 Disciples,

And just watch what you'll get from the 12 Apostles,

And then even more from the Master...

And we want to prove in writing that you're an arch-heretic"

In a defamatory letter of that same month, Müntzer was depicted thus: “at that time preacher at St Katharine’s, [he] made them [the Storchites] his supporters, won over the weavers, particularly one named Nichol Storch, whom he praised so mightily from the pulpit, raised him above all other priests as the only one who knew the Bible better and who was highly favoured by the Spirit...that Storch dared to give corner-sermons beside Thomas... Thus this Nichol Storch was favoured by Master Thomas; who recommended from the pulpit that laymen should be our prelates and priests”. Although this same report talked of the 'Storchite sect', there is no indication that this included Müntzer: indeed, the report states that the 'secta Storchitorum ... conspired and gathered together as Twelve Apostles and Seventy-Two other Disciples ... reinforced by Master Thomas and his followers', which strongly suggests that there were two separate groupings.

In the event, the town-council retained enough authority in April to crack down on the unrest. Müntzer was forced to flee the town on 16 April, after yet another riot by Storch's supporters, 56 of whom were put behind bars.

One of Müntzer's friends, Markus Stübner (or Thoma) of Elsterberg, accompanied Müntzer on a journey to Prague, which lasted from late June until late November 1521; Stübner then returned to Saxony and teamed up with Storch.

After his departure from Zwickau in April 1521, Müntzer had no more dealings with Storch. In June 1521, he wrote to Mark Stübner wondering why Storch had not written to him. But his question is not shaded with any annoyance. His only other reference to Storch in later days was in a letter to Luther of July 1523: "You raise objections about Markus and Nicholas. What manner of men they are is up to them, Galatians 2... As to what they said to you, or what they have done, I know nothing about it". 'Galatians 2' is a quite telling reference: this tells the story of certain early Christians who, through lack of principle, drew back from arguments with the Jews. This judgement in 1523 indicates his doubts about Storch in the intervening period, and – with the man – his ideas.

Wittenberg
After the events of April, an uneasy peace settled over Zwickau which lasted until the end of the year. But in early December, the town-council summoned Storch and other members of his group to a hearing. The result of this being unfavourable, Storch left town. Nothing daunted, in mid-December 1521, he, along with Markus Stübner and Thomas Drechsel, turned up in Wittenberg to argue their interpretation of the reforms before the 'official' leaders. Luther was sitting at that time in the Wartburg Castle, whither he was spirited in April 1521 after the Imperial Diet at Worms, so it was left to his lieutenant Philipp Melanchthon and Nikolaus von Amsdorf to greet and debate with Storch, specifically on visions and baptism. Melanchthon's immediate reaction was one of excitement, a feeling shared by several of his colleagues. However, caution reared its head, and he decided to seek advice from Electoral Prince Friedrich and from Luther. To Prince Friedrich he wrote on 27 December: “Your Highness is aware that many, various and dangerous dissensions have been awoken in Your Highness’ Zwickau... Three men, expelled by the authorities because of those disturbances, have come here, two of them common but literate weavers, the third an academic [Stübner]. I have listened to them; it is a wonder, but they sat down to preach, and said clearly that they had been sent by God to teach, that they spoke familiarly with God, that they could see the future; in short that they were prophets and apostles. How much I was moved by them, I cannot easily express. Certain things persuade me not to condemn them... No one other than Martin can judge them more closely...”

In a covering note to Friedrich’s chaplain, Georg Spalatin, Melanchthon added: "The Holy Spirit is in these men..." The reaction of this leader of the Wittenberg movement was quite surprising; anyone without university training or a theological education was generally given short shrift; in later years, most unordained reformed preachers were regarded as 'Anabaptists'. But in the last months of 1521, radicalism was rampant, and Wittenberg was open to suggestion.

Prince Friedrich's reaction to Melanchthon's letter was to despatch Spalatin to Wittenberg post-haste to interview the three ‘Zwickau Prophets’, and to warn Melanchthon against Storch, whereupon Melanchthon changed his tune, and expressed an interest only in the question of baptism.

Later life
Storch stayed for a while in Wittenberg and then moved on. It is suggested that he spent some years in the west of Thuringia, and Luther reported that he was active in Andreas Karlstadt's town of Orlamünde in March 1524. A warning was issued by the Nuremberg preacher Dominicus Sleupner to the Strasburg town-council who stated that Storch was in their town in December 1524. However, none of these three reports have been validated.

According to the chronicler Enoch Widmann, Storch was in the Bavarian town of Hof at the end of 1524, working as a weaver, but still preaching and gaining followers. Towards the end of January 1525, he applied to the mayor of Zwickau to be allowed to return to his home-town, but this was refused. There is a false report of his death in Munich at the end of 1525, but he was still being mentioned in the Zwickau town records of 1536 – therefore alive, and back in or around Zwickau. After that date, there is no further report of him.

Doctrines
A summary of Storch's teachings in Zwickau was made in a letter, dated 18 December 1521, to Duke John of Saxony. The letter was probably written by the new Lutheran preacher at St Mary's Church, Nikolaus Hausmann: "some men doubted whether the belief of the godfather can be of use in the baptism. And some think that they can be blessed without being baptised. And some state that the Holy Bible is not useful in the education of men, but that men can only be taught by the Spirit, for if God had wanted to teach men with the Bible, then He would have sent us a Bible down from heaven. And some say that one should not pray for the dead. And suchlike horrible abominations which are giving your Lordship's town an unchristian and Picardish name."

In 1529, Melanchthon looked back to 1521 and described Storch's doctrines: "God had shown him in dreams what He wanted. He claimed that an angel had come to him and had said that he would sit upon the throne of the Archangel Gabriel, and would thus be promised mastery over all the earth. He also said that saints and the Elect would reign after the destruction of the Godless, and that, under his leadership, all the kings and princes of the world would be killed and the Church would be cleansed. He arrogated to himself the judgment of souls, and claimed that he could recognise the Elect. He simply laughed about Mass, baptism and communion. He invented certain worthless tricks with which he intended to prepare men for the reception of the Spirit: if they spoke little, dressed poorly and ate poorly and together demanded the Holy Spirit of God..."

The Lutheran Mark Wagner listed eight articles of faith proposed by Storch, which included: a condemnation of the ‘Christian’ institution of marriage, whilst propagating the idea that ‘anyone can take women whenever his flesh commands him...and live with them promiscuously as he wishes’; a call for the communalisation of property; an invective against secular and ecclesiastical authorities; arguments against infant baptism - but not, incidentally, in support of adult baptism; condemnation of the ceremonies of the Church; and a proclamation of Free Will in matters of faith.

Legacy
In general, Storch was considered by commentators of the 16th century as a leading ‘Anabaptist’. However, there was a tendency to call almost any radical preacher an Anabaptist, with hindsight only and without distinction. Such classification therefore needs to be treated with caution.

He is credited with having established Anabaptism in central Germany, after the report by the Hof chronicler Widmann that he practised adult-baptism in the town of Hof.

He is also credited by Melanchthon (in a letter to Camerarius, 17 April 1525) with having played a leading role in the Peasants War of 1525. This supposition is entirely without foundation, and probably reflects Melanchthon's continuing guilt about his waverings in 1521.

title: Nikolaus Storch