text:
Lorentz ether theory

What is now often called Lorentz ether theory (LET) has its roots in Hendrik Lorentz's "theory of electrons", which marked the end of the development of the classical aether theories at the end of the 19th and at the beginning of the 20th century.

Lorentz's initial theory was created between 1892 and 1895 and was based on removing assumptions about aether motion. It explained the failure of the negative aether drift experiments to first order in v/c by introducing an auxiliary variable called "local time" for connecting systems at rest and in motion in the aether. In addition, the negative result of the Michelson–Morley experiment led to the introduction of the hypothesis of length contraction in 1892. However, other experiments also produced negative results and (guided by Henri Poincaré's principle of relativity) Lorentz tried in 1899 and 1904 to expand his theory to all orders in v/c by introducing the Lorentz transformation. In addition, he assumed that non-electromagnetic forces (if they exist) transform like electric forces. However, Lorentz's expression for charge density and current were incorrect, so his theory did not fully exclude the possibility of detecting the aether. Eventually, it was Henri Poincaré who in 1905 corrected the errors in Lorentz's paper and actually incorporated non-electromagnetic forces (including gravitation) within the theory, which he called "The New Mechanics". Many aspects of Lorentz's theory were incorporated into special relativity (SR) with the works of Albert Einstein and Hermann Minkowski.

Today LET is often treated as some sort of "Lorentzian" or "neo-Lorentzian" interpretation of special relativity. The introduction of length contraction and time dilation for all phenomena in a "preferred" frame of reference, which plays the role of Lorentz's immobile aether, leads to the complete Lorentz transformation (see the Robertson–Mansouri–Sexl test theory as an example), so Lorentz covariance doesn't provide any experimentally verifiable distinctions between LET and SR. The absolute simultaneity in the Mansouri–Sexl test theory formulation of LET implies that a one-way speed of light experiment could in principle distinguish between LET and SR, but it is now widely held that it is impossible to perform such a test. In the absence of any way to experimentally distinguish between LET and SR, SR is widely preferred over LET, due to the superfluous assumption of an undetectable aether in LET, and the validity of the relativity principle in LET seeming ad hoc or coincidental.

Basic concept
The Lorentz ether theory, which was developed mainly between 1892 and 1906 by Lorentz and Poincaré, was based on the aether theory of Augustin-Jean Fresnel, Maxwell's equations and the electron theory of Rudolf Clausius. Lorentz's 1895 paper rejected the aether drift theories, and refused to express assumptions about the nature of the aether. It said:

That we cannot speak about an absolute rest of the aether, is self-evident; this expression would not even make sense. When I say for the sake of brevity, that the aether would be at rest, then this only means that one part of this medium does not move against the other one and that all perceptible motions are relative motions of the celestial bodies in relation to the aether.

As Max Born later said, it was natural (though not logically necessary) for scientists of that time to identify the rest frame of the Lorentz aether with the absolute space of Isaac Newton. The condition of this aether can be described by the electric field E and the magnetic field H, where these fields represent the "states" of the aether (with no further specification), related to the charges of the electrons. Thus an abstract electromagnetic aether replaces the older mechanistic aether models. Contrary to Clausius, who accepted that the electrons operate by actions at a distance, the electromagnetic field of the aether appears as a mediator between the electrons, and changes in this field can propagate not faster than the speed of light. Lorentz theoretically explained the Zeeman effect on the basis of his theory, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1902. Joseph Larmor found a similar theory simultaneously, but his concept was based on a mechanical aether. A fundamental concept of Lorentz's theory in 1895 was the "theorem of corresponding states" for terms of order v/c. This theorem states that a moving observer with respect to the aether can use the same electrodynamic equations as an observer in the stationary aether system, thus they are making the same observations.

Length contraction
A big challenge for the Lorentz ether theory was the Michelson–Morley experiment in 1887. According to the theories of Fresnel and Lorentz, a relative motion to an immobile aether had to be determined by this experiment; however, the result was negative. Michelson himself thought that the result confirmed the aether drag hypothesis, in which the aether is fully dragged by matter. However, other experiments like the Fizeau experiment and the effect of aberration disproved that model.

A possible solution came in sight, when in 1889 Oliver Heaviside derived from Maxwell's equations that the magnetic vector potential field around a moving body is altered by a factor of $\sqrt{1- v^2 / c^2}$. Based on that result, and to bring the hypothesis of an immobile aether into accordance with the Michelson–Morley experiment, George FitzGerald in 1889 (qualitatively) and, independently of him, Lorentz in 1892 (already quantitatively), suggested that not only the electrostatic fields, but also the molecular forces, are affected in such a way that the dimension of a body in the line of motion is less by the value $$v^2/(2c^2)$$ than the dimension perpendicularly to the line of motion. However, an observer co-moving with the earth would not notice this contraction because all other instruments contract at the same ratio. In 1895 Lorentz proposed three possible explanations for this relative contraction:
 * The body contracts in the line of motion and preserves its dimension perpendicularly to it.
 * The dimension of the body remains the same in the line of motion, but it expands perpendicularly to it.
 * The body contracts in the line of motion and expands at the same time perpendicularly to it.

Although the possible connection between electrostatic and intermolecular forces was used by Lorentz as a plausibility argument, the contraction hypothesis was soon considered as purely ad hoc. It is also important that this contraction would only affect the space between the electrons but not the electrons themselves; therefore the name "intermolecular hypothesis" was sometimes used for this effect. The so-called Length contraction without expansion perpendicularly to the line of motion and by the precise value $l=l_0 \cdot \sqrt{1- v^2 / c^2}$ (where l0 is the length at rest in the aether) was given by Larmor in 1897 and by Lorentz in 1904. In the same year, Lorentz also argued that electrons themselves are also affected by this contraction. For further development of this concept, see the section.

Local time
An important part of the theorem of corresponding states in 1892 and 1895 was the local time $$t'=t - vx / c^2$$, where t is the time coordinate for an observer resting in the aether, and t ' is the time coordinate for an observer moving in the aether. (Woldemar Voigt had previously used the same expression for local time in 1887 in connection with the Doppler effect and an incompressible medium.) With the help of this concept Lorentz could explain the aberration of light, the Doppler effect and the Fizeau experiment (i.e. measurements of the Fresnel drag coefficient) by Hippolyte Fizeau in moving and also resting liquids. While for Lorentz length contraction was a real physical effect, he considered the time transformation only as a heuristic working hypothesis and a mathematical stipulation to simplify the calculation from the resting to a "fictitious" moving system. Contrary to Lorentz, Poincaré saw more than a mathematical trick in the definition of local time, which he called Lorentz's "most ingenious idea". In The Measure of Time he wrote in 1898:

We do not have a direct intuition for simultaneity, just as little as for the equality of two periods. If we believe to have this intuition, it is an illusion. We helped ourselves with certain rules, which we usually use without giving us account over it [...] We choose these rules therefore, not because they are true, but because they are the most convenient, and we could summarize them while saying: „The simultaneity of two events, or the order of their succession, the equality of two durations, are to be so defined that the enunciation of the natural laws may be as simple as possible. In other words, all these rules, all these definitions are only the fruit of an unconscious opportunism.“

In 1900 Poincaré interpreted local time as the result of a synchronization procedure based on light signals. He assumed that two observers, A and B, who are moving in the aether, synchronize their clocks by optical signals. Since they treat themselves as being at rest, they must consider only the transmission time of the signals and then crossing their observations to examine whether their clocks are synchronous. However, from the point of view of an observer at rest in the aether the clocks are not synchronous and indicate the local time $$t'=t - vx / c^2$$. But because the moving observers don't know anything about their movement, they don't recognize this. In 1904, he illustrated the same procedure in the following way: A sends a signal at time 0 to B, which arrives at time t. B also sends a signal at time 0 to A, which arrives at time t. If in both cases t has the same value, the clocks are synchronous, but only in the system in which the clocks are at rest in the aether. So, according to Darrigol, Poincaré understood local time as a physical effect just like length contraction – in contrast to Lorentz, who did not use the same interpretation before 1906. However, contrary to Einstein, who later used a similar synchronization procedure which was called Einstein synchronisation, Darrigol says that Poincaré had the opinion that clocks resting in the aether are showing the true time.

However, at the beginning it was unknown that local time includes what is now known as time dilation. This effect was first noticed by Larmor (1897), who wrote that "individual electrons describe corresponding parts of their orbits in times shorter for the [aether] system in the ratio $$\varepsilon^{-1/2}$$ or $$\left(1-(1/2)v^2/c^2\right)$$". And in 1899 also Lorentz noted for the frequency of oscillating electrons "that in S the time of vibrations be $$k\varepsilon$$ times as great as in S0", where S0 is the aether frame, S the mathematical-fictitious frame of the moving observer, k is $\sqrt{1- v^2 / c^2}$, and $$\varepsilon$$ is an undetermined factor.

Lorentz transformation
While local time could explain the negative aether drift experiments to first order to v/c, it was necessary – due to other unsuccessful aether drift experiments like the Trouton–Noble experiment – to modify the hypothesis to include second-order effects. The mathematical tool for that is the so-called Lorentz transformation. Voigt in 1887 had already derived a similar set of equations (although with a different scale factor). Afterwards, Larmor in 1897 and Lorentz in 1899 derived equations in a form algebraically equivalent to those which are used up to this day, although Lorentz used an undetermined factor l in his transformation. In his paper Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity smaller than that of light (1904) Lorentz attempted to create such a theory, according to which all forces between the molecules are affected by the Lorentz transformation (in which Lorentz set the factor l to unity) in the same manner as electrostatic forces. In other words, Lorentz attempted to create a theory in which the relative motion of earth and aether is (nearly or fully) undetectable. Therefore, he generalized the contraction hypothesis and argued that not only the forces between the electrons, but also the electrons themselves are contracted in the line of motion. However, Max Abraham (1904) quickly noted a defect of that theory: Within a purely electromagnetic theory the contracted electron-configuration is unstable and one has to introduce non-electromagnetic force to stabilize the electrons – Abraham himself questioned the possibility of including such forces within the theory of Lorentz.

So it was Poincaré, on 5 June 1905, who introduced the so-called "Poincaré stresses" to solve that problem. Those stresses were interpreted by him as an external, non-electromagnetic pressure, which stabilize the electrons and also served as an explanation for length contraction. Although he argued that Lorentz succeeded in creating a theory which complies to the postulate of relativity, he showed that Lorentz's equations of electrodynamics were not fully Lorentz covariant. So by pointing out the group characteristics of the transformation, Poincaré demonstrated the Lorentz covariance of the Maxwell–Lorentz equations and corrected Lorentz's transformation formulae for charge density and current density. He went on to sketch a model of gravitation (incl. gravitational waves) which might be compatible with the transformations. It was Poincaré who, for the first time, used the term "Lorentz transformation", and he gave them a form which is used up to this day. (Where $$\ell$$ is an arbitrary function of $$\varepsilon$$, which must be set to unity to conserve the group characteristics. He also set the speed of light to unity.)

 * $$x^\prime = k\ell\left(x + \varepsilon t\right), \qquad y^\prime = \ell y, \qquad z^\prime = \ell z, \qquad t^\prime = k\ell\left(t + \varepsilon x\right)$$
 * $$k = \frac 1 {\sqrt{1-\varepsilon^2}}$$

A substantially extended work (the so-called "Palermo paper") was submitted by Poincaré on 23 July 1905, but was published in January 1906 because the journal appeared only twice a year. He spoke literally of "the postulate of relativity", he showed that the transformations are a consequence of the principle of least action; he demonstrated in more detail the group characteristics of the transformation, which he called Lorentz group, and he showed that the combination $$x^2+ y^2+ z^2- c^2t^2$$ is invariant. While elaborating his gravitational theory, he noticed that the Lorentz transformation is merely a rotation in four-dimensional space about the origin by introducing $ct\sqrt{-1}$ as a fourth, imaginary, coordinate, and he used an early form of four-vectors. However, Poincaré later said the translation of physics into the language of four-dimensional geometry would entail too much effort for limited profit, and therefore he refused to work out the consequences of this notion. This was later done, however, by Minkowski; see "The shift to relativity".

Electromagnetic mass
J. J. Thomson (1881) and others noticed that electromagnetic energy contributes to the mass of charged bodies by the amount $$m=(4/3)E/c^2$$, which was called electromagnetic or "apparent mass". Another derivation of some sort of electromagnetic mass was conducted by Poincaré (1900). By using the momentum of electromagnetic fields, he concluded that these fields contribute a mass of $$E_{em}/c^2$$ to all bodies, which is necessary to save the center of mass theorem.

As noted by Thomson and others, this mass increases also with velocity. Thus in 1899, Lorentz calculated that the ratio of the electron's mass in the moving frame and that of the aether frame is $$k^3 \varepsilon$$ parallel to the direction of motion, and $$k\varepsilon$$ perpendicular to the direction of motion, where $k = \sqrt{1- v^2 / c^2}$ and $$\varepsilon$$ is an undetermined factor. And in 1904, he set $$\varepsilon=1$$, arriving at the expressions for the masses in different directions (longitudinal and transverse):

 * $$m_L=\frac{m_0}{\left(\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}\right)^3},\quad m_T=\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}, $$

where
 * $$m_0=\frac{4}{3}\frac{E_{em}}{c^2}$$

Many scientists now believed that the entire mass and all forms of forces were electromagnetic in nature. This idea had to be given up, however, in the course of the development of relativistic mechanics. Abraham (1904) argued (as described in the preceding section ), that non-electrical binding forces were necessary within Lorentz's electrons model. But Abraham also noted that different results occurred, dependent on whether the em-mass is calculated from the energy or from the momentum. To solve those problems, Poincaré in 1905 and 1906 introduced some sort of pressure of non-electrical nature, which contributes the amount $$-(1/3)E/c^2$$ to the energy of the bodies, and therefore explains the 4/3-factor in the expression for the electromagnetic mass-energy relation. However, while Poincaré's expression for the energy of the electrons was correct, he erroneously stated that only the em-energy contributes to the mass of the bodies.

The concept of electromagnetic mass is not considered anymore as the cause of mass per se, because the entire mass (not only the electromagnetic part) is proportional to energy, and can be converted into different forms of energy, which is explained by Einstein's mass–energy equivalence.

Lorentz's theories
In 1900 Lorentz tried to explain gravity on the basis of the Maxwell equations. He first considered a Le Sage type model and argued that there possibly exists a universal radiation field, consisting of very penetrating em-radiation, and exerting a uniform pressure on every body. Lorentz showed that an attractive force between charged particles would indeed arise, if it is assumed that the incident energy is entirely absorbed. This was the same fundamental problem which had afflicted the other Le Sage models, because the radiation must vanish somehow and any absorption must lead to an enormous heating. Therefore, Lorentz abandoned this model.

In the same paper, he assumed like Ottaviano Fabrizio Mossotti and Johann Karl Friedrich Zöllner that the attraction of opposite charged particles is stronger than the repulsion of equal charged particles. The resulting net force is exactly what is known as universal gravitation, in which the speed of gravity is that of light. This leads to a conflict with the law of gravitation by Isaac Newton, in which it was shown by Pierre Simon Laplace that a finite speed of gravity leads to some sort of aberration and therefore makes the orbits unstable. However, Lorentz showed that the theory is not concerned by Laplace's critique, because due to the structure of the Maxwell equations only effects in the order v2/c2 arise. But Lorentz calculated that the value for the perihelion advance of Mercury was much too low. He wrote:

The special form of these terms may perhaps be modified. Yet, what has been said is sufficient to show that gravitation may be attributed to actions which are propagated with no greater velocity than that of light.

In 1908 Poincaré examined the gravitational theory of Lorentz and classified it as compatible with the relativity principle, but (like Lorentz) he criticized the inaccurate indication of the perihelion advance of Mercury. Contrary to Poincaré, Lorentz in 1914 considered his own theory as incompatible with the relativity principle and rejected it.

Lorentz-invariant gravitational law
Poincaré argued in 1904 that a propagation speed of gravity which is greater than c is contradicting the concept of local time and the relativity principle. He wrote:

What would happen if we could communicate by signals other than those of light, the velocity of propagation of which differed from that of light? If, after having regulated our watches by the optimal method, we wished to verify the result by means of these new signals, we should observe discrepancies due to the common translatory motion of the two stations. And are such signals inconceivable, if we take the view of Laplace, that universal gravitation is transmitted with a velocity a million times as great as that of light?

However, in 1905 and 1906 Poincaré pointed out the possibility of a gravitational theory, in which changes propagate with the speed of light and which is Lorentz covariant. He pointed out that in such a theory the gravitational force not only depends on the masses and their mutual distance, but also on their velocities and their position due to the finite propagation time of interaction. On that occasion Poincaré introduced four-vectors. Following Poincaré, also Minkowski (1908) and Arnold Sommerfeld (1910) tried to establish a Lorentz-invariant gravitational law. However, these attempts were superseded because of Einstein's theory of general relativity, see "The shift to relativity".

The non-existence of a generalization of the Lorentz ether to gravity was a major reason for the preference for the spacetime interpretation. A viable generalization to gravity has been proposed only 2012 by Schmelzer. The preferred frame is defined by the harmonic coordinate condition. The gravitational field is defined by density, velocity and stress tensor of the Lorentz ether, so that the harmonic conditions become continuity and Euler equations. The Einstein Equivalence Principle is derived. The Strong Equivalence Principle is violated, but is recovered in a limit, which gives the Einstein equations of general relativity in harmonic coordinates.

Constancy of the speed of light
Already in his philosophical writing on time measurements (1898), Poincaré wrote that astronomers like Ole Rømer, in determining the speed of light, simply assume that light has a constant speed, and that this speed is the same in all directions. Without this postulate it would not be possible to infer the speed of light from astronomical observations, as Rømer did based on observations of the moons of Jupiter. Poincaré went on to note that Rømer also had to assume that Jupiter's moons obey Newton's laws, including the law of gravitation, whereas it would be possible to reconcile a different speed of light with the same observations if we assumed some different (probably more complicated) laws of motion. According to Poincaré, this illustrates that we adopt for the speed of light a value that makes the laws of mechanics as simple as possible. (This is an example of Poincaré's conventionalist philosophy.) Poincaré also noted that the propagation speed of light can be (and in practice often is) used to define simultaneity between spatially separate events. However, in that paper he did not go on to discuss the consequences of applying these "conventions" to multiple relatively moving systems of reference. This next step was done by Poincaré in 1900, when he recognized that synchronization by light signals in earth's reference frame leads to Lorentz's local time. (See the section on "local time" above). And in 1904 Poincaré wrote:

From all these results, if they were to be confirmed, would issue a wholly new mechanics which would be characterized above all by this fact, that there could be no velocity greater than that of light, any more than a temperature below that of absolute zero. For an observer, participating himself in a motion of translation of which he has no suspicion, no apparent velocity could surpass that of light, and this would be a contradiction, unless one recalls the fact that this observer does not use the same sort of timepiece as that used by a stationary observer, but rather a watch giving the “local time.[..] Perhaps, too, we shall have to construct an entirely new mechanics that we only succeed in catching a glimpse of, where, inertia increasing with the velocity, the velocity of light would become an impassable limit. The ordinary mechanics, more simple, would remain a first approximation, since it would be true for velocities not too great, so that the old dynamics would still be found under the new. We should not have to regret having believed in the principles, and even, since velocities too great for the old formulas would always be only exceptional, the surest way in practise would be still to act as if we continued to believe in them. They are so useful, it would be necessary to keep a place for them. To determine to exclude them altogether would be to deprive oneself of a precious weapon. I hasten to say in conclusion that we are not yet there, and as yet nothing proves that the principles will not come forth from out the fray victorious and intact.”

Principle of relativity
In 1895 Poincaré argued that experiments like that of Michelson–Morley show that it seems to be impossible to detect the absolute motion of matter or the relative motion of matter in relation to the aether. And although most physicists had other views, Poincaré in 1900 stood to his opinion and alternately used the expressions "principle of relative motion" and "relativity of space". He criticized Lorentz by saying, that it would be better to create a more fundamental theory, which explains the absence of any aether drift, than to create one hypothesis after the other. In 1902 he used for the first time the expression "principle of relativity". In 1904 he appreciated the work of the mathematicians, who saved what he now called the "principle of relativity" with the help of hypotheses like local time, but he confessed that this venture was possible only by an accumulation of hypotheses. And he defined the principle in this way (according to Miller based on Lorentz's theorem of corresponding states): "The principle of relativity, according to which the laws of physical phenomena must be the same for a stationary observer as for one carried along in a uniform motion of translation, so that we have no means, and can have none, of determining whether or not we are being carried along in such a motion."

Referring to the critique of Poincaré from 1900, Lorentz wrote in his famous paper in 1904, where he extended his theorem of corresponding states: "Surely, the course of inventing special hypotheses for each new experimental result is somewhat artificial. It would be more satisfactory, if it were possible to show, by means of certain fundamental assumptions, and without neglecting terms of one order of magnitude or another, that many electromagnetic actions are entirely independent of the motion of the system."

One of the first assessments of Lorentz's paper was by Paul Langevin in May 1905. According to him, this extension of the electron theories of Lorentz and Larmor led to "the physical impossibility to demonstrate the translational motion of the earth". However, Poincaré noticed in 1905 that Lorentz's theory of 1904 was not perfectly "Lorentz invariant" in a few equations such as Lorentz's expression for current density (Lorentz admitted in 1921 that these were defects). As this required just minor modifications of Lorentz's work, also Poincaré asserted that Lorentz had succeeded in harmonizing his theory with the principle of relativity: "It appears that this impossibility of demonstrating the absolute motion of the earth is a general law of nature. [...] Lorentz tried to complete and modify his hypothesis in order to harmonize it with the postulate of complete impossibility of determining absolute motion. It is what he has succeeded in doing in his article entitled Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity smaller than that of light [Lorentz, 1904b]."

In his Palermo paper (1906), Poincaré called this "the postulate of relativity“, and although he stated that it was possible this principle might be disproved at some point (and in fact he mentioned at the paper's end that the discovery of magneto-cathode rays by Paul Ulrich Villard (1904) seems to threaten it ), he believed it was interesting to consider the consequences if we were to assume the postulate of relativity was valid without restriction. This would imply that all forces of nature (not just electromagnetism) must be invariant under the Lorentz transformation. In 1921 Lorentz credited Poincaré for establishing the principle and postulate of relativity and wrote: ''"I have not established the principle of relativity as rigorously and universally true. Poincaré, on the other hand, has obtained a perfect invariance of the electro-magnetic equations, and he has formulated 'the postulate of relativity', terms which he was the first to employ."''

Aether
Poincaré wrote in the sense of his conventionalist philosophy in 1889: "Whether the aether exists or not matters little – let us leave that to the metaphysicians; what is essential for us is, that everything happens as if it existed, and that this hypothesis is found to be suitable for the explanation of phenomena. After all, have we any other reason for believing in the existence of material objects? That, too, is only a convenient hypothesis; only, it will never cease to be so, while some day, no doubt, the aether will be thrown aside as useless."

He also denied the existence of absolute space and time by saying in 1901: "1. There is no absolute space, and we only conceive of relative motion; and yet in most cases mechanical facts are enunciated as if there is an absolute space to which they can be referred. 2. There is no absolute time. When we say that two periods are equal, the statement has no meaning, and can only acquire a meaning by a convention. 3. Not only have we no direct intuition of the equality of two periods, but we have not even direct intuition of the simultaneity of two events occurring in two different places. I have explained this in an article entitled "Mesure du Temps" [1898]. 4. Finally, is not our Euclidean geometry in itself only a kind of convention of language?"

However, Poincaré himself never abandoned the aether hypothesis and stated in 1900: "Does our aether actually exist ? We know the origin of our belief in the aether. If light takes several years to reach us from a distant star, it is no longer on the star, nor is it on the earth. It must be somewhere, and supported, so to speak, by some material agency." And referring to the Fizeau experiment, he even wrote: "The aether is all but in our grasp." He also said the aether is necessary to harmonize Lorentz's theory with Newton's third law. Even in 1912 in a paper called "The Quantum Theory", Poincaré ten times used the word "aether", and described light as "luminous vibrations of the aether".

And although he admitted the relative and conventional character of space and time, he believed that the classical convention is more "convenient" and continued to distinguish between "true" time in the aether and "apparent" time in moving systems. Addressing the question if a new convention of space and time is needed he wrote in 1912: "Shall we be obliged to modify our conclusions? Certainly not; we had adopted a convention because it seemed convenient and we had said that nothing could constrain us to abandon it. Today some physicists want to adopt a new convention. It is not that they are constrained to do so; they consider this new convention more convenient; that is all. And those who are not of this opinion can legitimately retain the old one in order not to disturb their old habits, I believe, just between us, that this is what they shall do for a long time to come."

Also Lorentz argued during his lifetime that in all frames of reference this one has to be preferred, in which the aether is at rest. Clocks in this frame are showing the "real“ time and simultaneity is not relative. However, if the correctness of the relativity principle is accepted, it is impossible to find this system by experiment.

Special relativity
In 1905, Albert Einstein published his paper on what is now called special relativity. In this paper, by examining the fundamental meanings of the space and time coordinates used in physical theories, Einstein showed that the "effective" coordinates given by the Lorentz transformation were in fact the inertial coordinates of relatively moving frames of reference. From this followed all of the physically observable consequences of LET, along with others, all without the need to postulate an unobservable entity (the aether). Einstein identified two fundamental principles, each founded on experience, from which all of Lorentz's electrodynamics follows:

 * 1) The laws by which physical processes occur are the same with respect to any system of inertial coordinates (the principle of relativity)
 * 2) In empty space light propagates at an absolute speed c in any system of inertial coordinates (the principle of the constancy of light)

Taken together (along with a few other tacit assumptions such as isotropy and homogeneity of space), these two postulates lead uniquely to the mathematics of special relativity. Lorentz and Poincaré had also adopted these same principles, as necessary to achieve their final results, but didn't recognize that they were also sufficient, and hence that they obviated all the other assumptions underlying Lorentz's initial derivations (many of which later turned out to be incorrect ). Therefore, special relativity very quickly gained wide acceptance among physicists, and the 19th century concept of a luminiferous aether was no longer considered useful.

Poincare (1905) and Hermann Minkowski (1905) showed that special relativity had a very natural interpretation in terms of a unified four-dimensional "spacetime" in which absolute intervals are seen to be given by an extension of the Pythagorean theorem. The utility and naturalness of the spacetime representation contributed to the rapid acceptance of special relativity, and to the corresponding loss of interest in Lorentz's aether theory.

In 1909 and 1912 Einstein explained:

 * ...it is impossible to base a theory of the transformation laws of space and time on the principle of relativity alone. As we know, this is connected with the relativity of the concepts of "simultaneity" and "shape of moving bodies." To fill this gap, I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz’s theory of the stationary luminiferous aether, and which, like the principle of relativity, contains a physical assumption that seemed to be justified only by the relevant experiments (experiments by Fizeau, Rowland, etc.)

In 1907 Einstein criticized the "ad hoc" character of Lorentz's contraction hypothesis in his theory of electrons, because according to him it was an artificial assumption to make the Michelson–Morley experiment conform to Lorentz's stationary aether and the relativity principle. Einstein argued that Lorentz's "local time" can simply be called "time", and he stated that the immobile aether as the theoretical foundation of electrodynamics was unsatisfactory. He wrote in 1920:

As to the mechanical nature of the Lorentzian aether, it may be said of it, in a somewhat playful spirit, that immobility is the only mechanical property of which it has not been deprived by H. A. Lorentz. It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the aether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the aether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility. [...] More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny aether. We may assume the existence of an aether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it.

Minkowski argued that Lorentz's introduction of the contraction hypothesis "sounds rather fantastical", since it is not the product of resistance in the aether but a "gift from above". He said that this hypothesis is "completely equivalent with the new concept of space and time", though it becomes much more comprehensible in the framework of the new spacetime geometry. However, Lorentz disagreed that it was "ad-hoc" and he argued in 1913 that there is little difference between his theory and the negation of a preferred reference frame, as in the theory of Einstein and Minkowski, so that it is a matter of taste which theory one prefers.

Mass–energy equivalence
It was derived by Einstein (1905) as a consequence of the relativity principle, that inertia of energy is actually represented by $$E/c^2$$, but in contrast to Poincaré's 1900-paper, Einstein recognized that matter itself loses or gains mass during the emission or absorption. So the mass of any form of matter is equal to a certain amount of energy, which can be converted into and re-converted from other forms of energy. This is the mass–energy equivalence, represented by $$E=mc^2$$. So Einstein didn't have to introduce "fictitious" masses and also avoided the perpetual motion problem, because according to Darrigol, Poincaré's radiation paradox can simply be solved by applying Einstein's equivalence. If the light source loses mass during the emission by $$E/c^2$$, the contradiction in the momentum law vanishes without the need of any compensating effect in the aether.

Similar to Poincaré, Einstein concluded in 1906 that the inertia of (electromagnetic) energy is a necessary condition for the center of mass theorem to hold in systems, in which electromagnetic fields and matter are acting on each other. Based on the mass–energy equivalence, he showed that emission and absorption of em-radiation, and therefore the transport of inertia, solves all problems. On that occasion, Einstein referred to Poincaré's 1900-paper and wrote:

Although the simple formal views, which must be accomplished for the proof of this statement, are already mainly contained in a work by H. Poincaré [Lorentz-Festschrift, p. 252, 1900], for the sake of clarity I won't rely on that work.

Also Poincaré's rejection of the reaction principle due to the violation of the mass conservation law can be avoided through Einstein's $$E=mc^2$$, because mass conservation appears as a special case of the energy conservation law.

General relativity
The attempts of Lorentz and Poincaré (and other attempts like those of Abraham and Gunnar Nordström) to formulate a theory of gravitation were superseded by Einstein's theory of general relativity. This theory is based on principles like the equivalence principle, the general principle of relativity, the principle of general covariance, geodesic motion, local Lorentz covariance (the laws of special relativity apply locally for all inertial observers), and that spacetime curvature is created by stress-energy within the spacetime.

In 1920, Einstein compared Lorentz's aether with the "gravitational aether" of general relativity. He said that immobility is the only mechanical property of which the aether has not been deprived by Lorentz, but, contrary to the luminiferous and Lorentz's aether, the aether of general relativity has no mechanical property, not even immobility: The aether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but which helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events. What is fundamentally new in the aether of the general theory of relativity, as opposed to the aether of Lorentz, consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian aether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same. The aether of the general theory of relativity is transmuted conceptually into the aether of Lorentz if we substitute constants for the functions of space which describe the former, disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also say, I think, that the aether of the general theory of relativity is the outcome of the Lorentzian aether, through relativization.

Priority
Some claim that Poincaré and Lorentz are the true founders of special relativity, not Einstein. For more details see the article on this dispute.

Later activity
Viewed as a theory of elementary particles, Lorentz's electron/ether theory was superseded during the first few decades of the 20th century, first by quantum mechanics and then by quantum field theory. As a general theory of dynamics, Lorentz and Poincare had already (by about 1905) found it necessary to invoke the principle of relativity itself in order to make the theory match all the available empirical data. By this point, most vestiges of a substantial aether had been eliminated from Lorentz's "aether" theory, and it became both empirically and deductively equivalent to special relativity. The main difference was the metaphysical postulate of a unique absolute rest frame, which was empirically undetectable and played no role in the physical predictions of the theory, as Lorentz wrote in 1909,Lorentz 1909, p. 229: It will be clear by what has been said that the impressions received by the two observers A0 and A would be alike in all respects. It would be impossible to decide which of them moves or stands still with respect to the aether, and there would be no reason for preferring the times and lengths measured by the one to those determined by the other, nor for saying that either of them is in possession of the "true" times or the "true" lengths. This is a point which Einstein has laid particular stress on, in a theory in which he starts from what he calls the principle of relativity, i. e. the principle that the equations by means of which physical phenomena may be described are not altered in form when we change the axes of coordinates for others having a uniform motion of translation relatively to the original system. I cannot speak here of the many highly interesting applications which Einstein has made of this principle. His results concerning electromagnetic and optical phenomena (...) agree in the main with those which we have obtained in the preceding pages, the chief difference being that Einstein simply postulates what we have deduced, with some difficulty and not altogether satisfactorily, from the fundamental equations of the electromagnetic field. By doing so, he may certainly take credit for making us see in the negative result of experiments like those of Michelson, Rayleigh and Brace, not a fortuitous compensation of opposing effects, but the manifestation of a general and fundamental principle. Yet, I think, something may also be claimed in favour of the form in which I have presented the theory. I cannot but regard the aether, which can be the seat of an electromagnetic field with its energy and its vibrations, as endowed with a certain degree of substantiality, however different it may be from all ordinary matter. In this line of thought, it seems natural not to assume at starting that it can never make any difference whether a body moves through the aether or not, and to measure distances and lengths of time by means of rods and clocks having a fixed position relatively to the aether. It would be unjust not to add that, besides the fascinating boldness of its starting point, Einstein's theory has another marked advantage over mine. Whereas I have not been able to obtain for the equations referred to moving axes exactly the same form as for those which apply to a stationary system, Einstein has accomplished this by means of a system of new variables slightly different from those which I have introduced. 1910 (published 1913), 1913 (published 1914), or in 1912 (published 1922).

As a result, the term "Lorentz aether theory" is sometimes used today to refer to a neo-Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity. The prefix "neo" is used in recognition of the fact that the interpretation must now be applied to physical entities and processes (such as the standard model of quantum field theory) that were unknown in Lorentz's day.

Subsequent to the advent of special relativity, only a small number of individuals have advocated the Lorentzian approach to physics. Many of these, such as Herbert E. Ives (who, along with G. R. Stilwell, performed the first experimental confirmation of time dilation) have been motivated by the belief that special relativity is logically inconsistent, and so some other conceptual framework is needed to reconcile the relativistic phenomena. For example, Ives wrote "The 'principle' of the constancy of the velocity of light is not merely 'ununderstandable', it is not supported by 'objective matters of fact'; it is untenable...". However, the logical consistency of special relativity (as well as its empirical success) is well established, so the views of such individuals are considered unfounded within the mainstream scientific community.

John Stewart Bell advocated teaching special relativity first from the viewpoint of a single Lorentz inertial frame, then showing that Poincare invariance of the laws of physics such as Maxwell's equations is equivalent to the frame-changing arguments often used in teaching special relativity. Because a single Lorentz inertial frame is one of a preferred class of frames, he called this approach Lorentzian in spirit.

Also some test theories of special relativity use some sort of Lorentzian framework. For instance, the Robertson–Mansouri–Sexl test theory introduces a preferred aether frame and includes parameters indicating different combinations of length and times changes. If time dilation and length contraction of bodies moving in the aether have their exact relativistic values, the complete Lorentz transformation can be derived and the aether is hidden from any observation, which makes it kinematically indistinguishable from the predictions of special relativity. Using this model, the Michelson–Morley experiment, Kennedy–Thorndike experiment, and Ives–Stilwell experiment put sharp constraints on violations of Lorentz invariance.

Works of Lorentz, Poincaré, Einstein, Minkowski (group A)

 * Preface partly reprinted in "Science and Hypothesis", Ch. 12.

 * . Reprinted in Poincaré, Oeuvres, tome IX, pp. 395–413

 * . Reprinted in "Science and Hypothesis", Ch. 9–10.

 * . See also the English translation.

 * . Reprinted in "Science and Hypothesis", Ch. 6–7.

 * Reprinted in Poincaré 1913, Ch. 6.

 * . See also: English translation.

 * . English Translation:

Secondary sources (group B)

 * In English:
 * In English:

Other notes and comments (group C)

title: Lorentz ether theory


text:
User talk:Invisible Queen

Just giving a shout out to a fellow #altermeta and Wikipedia user! --TheListener 15:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nicely with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! Dave (talk) 15:36, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

False
Regarding your joke: of course we won't kill you, just please don't do it again.. Thanks! --Joann e B 13:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Invisible Queen


text:
File:GoodDogCarlBookCover.jpg

Summary
Good Dog Carl book cover

title: File:GoodDogCarlBookCover.jpg


text:
Thomas Osborne Davis (Canadian politician)

Thomas Osborne Davis (16 August 1856 – 23 January 1917) was a Canadian Member of Parliament in the House of Commons of Canada representing the Provisional District of Saskatchewan, and later a member of the Senate of Canada.

He was tutored by his father Samuel Davis and became a general merchant at Prince Albert, Northwest Territories. In 1885, he married Rebecca Jennings. He served on the town council for Prince Albert and was mayor from 1894 to 1895.

Davis died in office in Prince Albert at the age of 60. His son Thomas Clayton Davis also served as mayor of Prince Albert, going on to serve in the Saskatchewan assembly, as a Saskatchewan judge and as an ambassador for Canada. Davis' daughter Alice was married to hockey executive and banker H. J. Sterling.

Legacy
The hamlet of Davis, Saskatchewan was named after him.


text:
User talk:Dgamer

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nicely with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here!

Dave (talk) 15:35, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dgamer


text:
Lydéric and Phinaert

Lydéric and Phinaert were semi-legendary figures tied to the foundation of the French city of Lille.

Legend
Around 620 AD, the prince of Duchy of Dijon, Salvaert, made his way to the lands that would become the Kingdom of England with his pregnant wife, Ermengaert. While traveling through Flanders, they fell into a trap laid by the local lord, the giant Phinaert. Phinaert had the prince and his men killed, but Ermengaert fled and found refuge at a hermit's home in the forest, where she bore a son. On her death bed, she entrusted the baby to the hermit. He fed the boy deer milk and baptized him with his own name, Lydéric.

Lydéric soon learned the truth about his origins, and as a youth, he set out to search for Phinaert. Lydéric found him at the court of Dagobert I at Soissons. Lydéric killed Phinaert in a duel and so avenged his parents' deaths. Phinaert's lands were given to Lydéric, where the young man founded the city of Lille in 640 AD.

title: Lydéric and Phinaert


text: User talk:83.217.130.108

title: User talk:83.217.130.108


text:
Thomas Osborne Davis

Thomas Osborne Davis may refer to:

 * Thomas Osborne Davis (Canadian politician) (1856–1917), Saskatchewan parliamentarian
 * Thomas Davis (Young Irelander) (1814–1845), Young Ireland writer and politician

title: Thomas Osborne Davis


text:
Talk:Pondus

Snip
From the article:
 * Just recently we got the unbelivebly news that Jokke and Camilla are expecting a baby (congratulations).

May I remind you that they are fictional characters? — J I P | Talk 15:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

 * That's taken out of the article now anyway Sam Vimes 15:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

They are fictional characters, yes. But does it really matter if it says congrats anyway? It can`t possibly hurt anyone (least of all Jokke and Camilla as they are fictional characters only). But I won`t put it back in the article as I have no problem with it not being there, I just wonder why anoyone can have a problem whith it being there...It doesn`t matter, your choise.

 * It's not something you'd find in an encyclopedia, though - it's a matter of style, really. Sam Vimes 14:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Understood!

Roger
I am sorely disappointed to not find a single mention of Roger! --Majushi
 * I put in a bit on him. M URGH   disc.  03:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Pondus. 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/20061230001732/http://www.samtiden.no/05_3/art0.php to http://www.samtiden.no/05_3/art0.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060830014110/http://www.dagsavisen.no/kultur/article991242.ece to http://www.dagsavisen.no/kultur/article991242.ece
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070921030049/http://www.bt.no/kultur/article300532.ece to http://www.bt.no/kultur/article300532.ece
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605001704/http://www.dagbladet.no/tv/index.html?clipid=16473 to http://www.dagbladet.no/tv/index.html?clipid=16473

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pondus


text:
Frédéric Dumas

Frédéric Dumas (14 January 1913 – 26 July 1991) was a French writer. He was part of a team of three, with Jacques-Yves Cousteau and Philippe Tailliez, who had a passion for diving, and developed the diving regulator with the aid of the engineer Émile Gagnan. Dumas participated with Cousteau in the discovery of deep sea reliefs and flora and fauna of deep sea life and in bringing it to the attention of the general public.

Biography
Frédéric Dumas was born on 14 January 1913 in Albi.

A pioneer of underwater fishing on the French Riviera, he met Jacques-Yves Cousteau and Philippe Tailliez in 1937 and his exploits served as a subject in the first Cousteau film "Par dix-huit mètres de fond" ("Eighteen meters deep"), made in 1942.

Cousteau again chose him as an "actor" when he made his second film, "Epaves" ("Wrecks") in 1943, the first film featuring the new Cousteau-Gagnan aqua-lung.

Dumas was a dive leader aboard the RV Calypso, and co-author or actor in many films and stories from the Cousteau team.

In 1953 he co-authored with Cousteau the book The Silent World: A Story of Undersea Discovery and Adventure. It was their first book. In 1956 he was one of the principal architects of the ground-breaking film The Silent World, in which his ballet with the grouper Ulysses (Jojo in French) is famous.

From 1945 to 1965, Dumas was also a civilian collaborator in the French Navy's (GRS or Underwater Research Group), which was set up by Cousteau and Taillez. It later became the Groupe d'Études et de Recherches Sous-Marines (GERS or Undersea Study and Research Group) and is nowadays known as CEllule Plongée Humaine et Intervention Sous la MER (CEPHISMER or Human Diving and Underwater Intervention Cell).

In 1946, Cousteau and Dumas dove into the Fountain of Vaucluse, a mysterious spring in the village of Vaucluse, hoping to discover the secret of its yearly flooding. Maurice Fargues was the operation's surface commander, in charge of the guide rope which allowed Cousteau and Dumas to communicate with the surface. When Cousteau and Dumas became affected by carbon monoxide in their air cylinders, Fargues saved their lives by pulling them back up to the surface.

Dumas was one of the major players in the rescue of Professor Jacques Piccard's bathyscaphe, the FNRS II, during the 1949 expedition in Dakar. Thanks to this rescue, the French Navy could use the bathyscaphe's sphere in creating the FNRS III.

He was a founding member of the Sea Research Society and served on the Society's Board of Advisors. In 1972 Dumas participated in the creation of the research/professional degree of Doctor of Marine Histories.

After he retired from the GERS, he devoted himself particularly to undersea archaeology and was chairman of the archaeology committee of the Confédération Mondiale des Activités Subaquatiques (CMAS or World Underwater Activities Federation) and the Fédération Française d'Études et de Sports Sous-Marins (FFESSM, French Undersea Studies and Sports Federation).

Frédéric Dumas died on 26 July 1991 in Toulon at the age of 78.

Museum
Opened in 1994, the is in a 13th-century Roman tower made available by the municipality of Sanary-sur-Mer where Cousteau had a Villa and that bills itself as an historical city of diving.

Publications

 * Deep-water Archaeology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul (1962).
 * Épaves antiques. Introduction à l'archéologie sous marine méditerranéenne. Paris. (1964).

title: Frédéric Dumas


text:
Talk:It Was Written

Untitled
Amount sold: These two statements appear to contradict each other: "On September 9, 1996, It Was Written was certified double platinum in sales by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), following sales in excess of two million copies in the United States.[28] On January 8, 1997, "Street Dreams" was certified gold in sales by the RIAA, following sales in excess of 500,000 copies.[29]". How could it be certified Gold months after it went Platinum? One of these is wrong but both of these are in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.241.249 (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't you hate how people follow other people's opinions?
Once the word gets out on an album it's like everyone just follows along with the review. It Was Written got a bad wrap because it was not like Illmatic, but this does not mean the album sucks in any way. Most of the reviews I've read on this album shitcanned it and gave it very undeserving comments. If you listen closely to this album with songs like The Message, I Gave You Power, Watch Dem Niggas, Take it in Blood, Nas is Coming (excluding the annoying chorus), Affirmative Action, The Set Up, Suspect, Shootouts, Live Nigga Rap and If I Ruled The World, how the Hell can someone honestly think they're wack with their great productions and excellent lyrics/flows? This has to be the absolute most underrated album of all time along with Onyx's "All We Got Iz Us". I'll go so far as to not only say that it's a great album, but I'll even say it's Nas' best. Disagree all you'd like. -Tainted Drifter

Everyone's welcome to their own opinions & preferences. Most peeps prefer Illmatic because of how fresh it was, as well as its varied production and content as opposed to the dark Mafioso-style that Nas adopted for It Was Written. Personally, I prefer Illmatic, God's Son, Stillmatic, and The Lost Tapes to It Was Written. I even prefer the Living Legends mixtape, although it used plenty of verses from Nas' second album. I don't dislike the album at all, and it's still one of my favourite of all time. I just feel that Nas has done a lot better.

- Mittens

Yeah, "everyone's entitled to their own opinion" is a saying created to defend those with horrible opinions. Lucky for you, it was created.--Tainted Drifter (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

and on the subject of opinion, the last sentence of the second prargraph... . "It Was Written also received mixed criticism for not being on-par with Illmatic, serving as an example of the sophomore slump." is judgemental and inacurate in that bad reviews (or mixed critisism) doesnt serve of an example of anything and the rhetoric gives the impression that the opinion "sophomore slump" is justified something that being "The album proved to be Nas’s most commercially successful release" it wasn't a slump. Perhaps the author intended some contextual consideration as the second quote comes from opening sentance of the same paragraph? it came across as misrepresentation when read by myself. and on the subject of opinion it is a crucial piece of work in NaS's cannon for a number of reasons and the only reason it was commercially sucessful is the quality therein. - anthony — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.138.67 (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Delight???
Who the hell is this "Delight" in the performers section of the tracklisting grid? I've never heard of him/her, and I'm sure it was Foxxy Brown who Nas collaborated with for Watch Dem Niggas. And where was this artist on If I Rules The World & Street Dreams? Now I've probably got the wrong idea, and it's someone who played an instrument for the track (as Olu Dara is sometimes credited as a performer on Life's A Bitch), but I wanna know coz it's doin my head in tryna think who it could be.

- Mittens

Fair use rationale for Image:Nas-it-was-written-music-album.jpg
Image:Nas-it-was-written-music-album.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Rolling Stone Review
The stars graphic shown next to Rolling Stone reviews were wrong for both this album and Nastradamus. Whoever had written/edited this had obviouisly looked at the "average user rating" rather than the actual RS score. In this case, RS gave the album 2 stars, rather than 4½ as Was Written. Thesean43 09:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Never Overshadowed By Reasonable Doubt
Jay-Z's Reasonable Doubt took 6 years to go platinum but received 5 mics from The Source. Nas It Was Written was and still is Nas's best selling album to date. Although Reasonable Doubt wasn't a commercial success, the album still did very well. The italian mafioso gangsta lifestyle that was portayed by both Nas and Jay-Z was well respected and more a real life street image portrayed by artwork in its purest form. When Nas's Illmatic dropped in April 1994, no one understood Nas's flow and lyrics. His artwork took his listeners awhile for them to understand him as an artist. Illmatic definitely wasn't a commercial success, but was instantly considered a classic album.

Chicago Sun-Times review
Transcription using Google News Advanced News Archive Search. Chicago Sun-Times (Williams, Jean A. 11. July 21, 1996) review of It Was Written (1996):

"Recently released recordings are rated on a scale between (STAR) (poor) and (STAR)(STAR)(STAR)(STAR) (essential)."

"NAS, "It Was Written" (Columbia) (STAR)(STAR)(STAR) 1/2"

"Upon initial listen, it's not easy to know what to make of "It Was Written." The wonderful melange of sounds seizes you and holds you captive as you offer your body to each chunky beat."

"Your ear automatically surveys the wild yet carefully crafted syncopation and unconsciously notes the detailed arrangements containing musical contributions from the likes of Stephanie Mills, rap pioneer Kurtis Blow and even Chuck Mangione, Earl Klugh and the Eurythmics. What a motley bunch from which to draw samples."

"Thankfully, though, NAS isn't one of the mad samplers who relies almost exclusively on borrowed sounds to carry his creations. Listening to "It Was Written" a second or third time, you'll realize with relief that the spurts of profanities caught whizzing through your brain were part of something much deeper than the words themselves. NAS, baby-faced though he may be, has blessed each morsel of music with perceptive, poetic and complex lyrics about street life. These aren't your run-of-the-mill rhyme schemes. Some top-notch talent turns up in guest spots, including Lauryn Hill of the Fugees on "If I Ruled the World" and AZ, Foxxy Brown and Cormega on "Affirmative Action." The various producers represent the cream of the rap world - including Dr. Dre and Havoc of Mobb Deep."

Dan56 (talk) 04:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Chicago Tribune review
Transcription using Google News Advanced News Archive Search. Chicago Tribune (Kot, Greg. 6. July 25, 1996) review of It Was Written (1996):

"Nas. It Was Written (Columbia) (star) (star) (star) 1/2."

"On "I Gave You Power," the key track from New Yorker Nas Jones' second album, the rapper delivers a devastating indictment of glock worship, the obsession with guns that is destroying young black males by the thousands. He imagines himself as a gun, "Making every ghetto foul/I might have took your first child/Scarred your life, crippled your style/I gave you power/I made you buck wild." Nas more than fulfills the promise of his hotly anticipated 1994 debut, "Illmatic," with its densely detailed ghetto vignettes. Behind a bevy of smoldering mid-tempo grooves, the rapper spills street-hardened rhymes without succumbing to thuggish posing. The disc, which also includes a somewhat disappointing summit between Nas and West Coast counterpart Dr. Dre, is neither melodically inviting enough to mount a Coolio-style takeover of the pop charts nor outrageous enough to suit gangsta fetishists. Instead, its power rests in the listen-up authority and devastating clarity Nas brings to his wordplay, a display of skills that evokes the '80s glory days of East Coast hip-hoppers Eric B and Rakim."

Dan56 (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Affirmative Action Sample
the sample that is stated is the sample from the remix version which is released on a single. that is not the sample from the album version of that song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.229.148 (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 19:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Poorly written and over-opinionated
Illmatic struggled to sell because Nas was “shy”? Is performing on stage, doing interviews, and going to clubs with a button-down shirt shy? Also it says that Illmatic was raw and unpolished. That is not true, Illmatic was well thought out, rehearsed, and well produced. There’s also no such thing as an “underground tone” as opposed to what? Nas was gangster rap, boastful, materialistic, hedonistic, etc. just like many mainstream 90s rapper, only he had a literary twist.

I made some changes and I hope no one minds. It easily improves it. 2600:1012:B1BB:3B93:B92A:8248:C935:87BA (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:It Was Written


text:
Noseband

A noseband is the part of a horse's bridle that encircles the nose and jaw of the horse. In English riding, where the noseband is separately attached to its own headstall or crownpiece, held independently of the bit, it is often called a cavesson or caveson noseband. In other styles of riding, a simple noseband is sometimes attached directly to the same headstall as the bit.

Development
A noseband may have been one of the first tools used by humans to domesticate and ride horses. The bit developed later.

The noseband was originally made of leather or rope. After the invention of the bit, the noseband was, in some cultures, demoted to a halter worn beneath the bridle that allowed the rider to remove the bit from the horse's mouth after work and leave a restraining halter on underneath, or to tie the horse by this halter, instead of by the bit, which could result in damage to the horse's mouth if it panicked. However, its ability to hold a horse's mouth shut over the bit was also recognized, as was its usefulness for attaching equipment such as a martingale, and so in some traditions it was sometimes left as a working part of a bridle. Still other cultures, such as that of Ancient Persia, developed the noseband as a tool for training young horses, called a hakma and this training noseband evolved into modern equipment such as today's bosal-style hackamore and Longeing cavesson.

Today, there are also many styles of bitless bridle that rely on a noseband as the main method of communication and control.

Uses
Today, the noseband has several uses:

 * First, to give a balanced and traditionally correct appearance to the horse's turnout at shows. When raised high, it can make a long-nosed horse's face look shorter and more proportional. Various positions up and down the nose may help the face look more handsome, and a wide noseband can make a heavy head appear more delicate.
 * Second, to keep the horse's mouth closed or at least prevent a horse from evading the bit by opening the mouth too far. It can sometimes prevent the horse from putting its tongue over the bit and avoiding pressure in that manner.
 * Third, the noseband is also used to help stop a horse from pulling. A correctly-fitted noseband can be used instead of a stronger bit, which makes it a valuable option for riders that want more control, but do not want to back their horse off, that is, to make the horse afraid to go forward, especially when jumping, which is often an undesirable consequence when the horse is placed in a strong or harsh bit.
 * Fourth, it can be an attachment for other equipment, such as a standing martingale or shadow roll.
 * It is also valuable for young horses just learning to go "on the bit", as it supports the jaw and helps the horse to relax its masseter muscle, and flex softly at the poll.
 * In some riding styles, a noseband is added simply for decoration and is not attached to the bridle or adjusted to serve any useful purpose.
 * All bitless bridles rely on a noseband instead of using a metal bit. Some are very similar to a cavesson (such as a sidepull or scrawrig style), some more like a drop noseband (crossunder or indian hackamore style) while others support a metal 'hackamore' piece.

There is a correlation between the sensitivity of a noseband and the amount of tension needed in the reins to obtain a response from the horse. In a 2011 study of horses being ridden in English riding equipment with the noseband in one of three adjacent adjustments, greater rein tension was needed to get a response from the horses when they had the looser adjustment. However, the study did not go on to examine the effects of no noseband at all or a very tight adjustment. Thus, nosebands may add some pressure to the nose when the reins are applied, depending on adjustment, style and the degree to which the horse resists the bit. With a soft leather noseband on a well-trained horse, the effect is minimal.

A bridle does not necessarily need a noseband, and many bridles, such as those used in Western riding, flat racing, or endurance riding, do not have one. Some horses shown in-hand do not use a noseband in order to better show off the animal's head. Many old paintings also depict a hunting horse without a noseband, since it was not always deemed useful by certain riders.

However, even in disciplines such as western riding, where it is considered a sign of a polished horse to not require a noseband or cavesson, one is often used on horses in training as a precaution to help prevent the horse from learning bad habits such as opening the mouth and evading the bit.

Types of English riding nosebands
In the English riding disciplines, the most common design of cavesson noseband is the Plain or French cavesson, a noseband that encircles the nose 1–2 inches below the cheekbone. This type of noseband is seen in most English disciplines, especially in dressage, show hunters, saddle seat, equitation and field hunters, but is the basic noseband for all disciplines. This noseband comes in various styles from a plain flat leather suitable for hunting, to raised, double raised, fancy stitched, colored and padded styles. All of them perform the same purpose.

Other designs include:

 * Aachen or Flash noseband: The flash was originally developed for show jumping riders, so they could close the mouth lower down in addition to having an appropriate noseband for a standing martingale. An additional feature of this noseband is that it holds the bit steady in the horse's mouth, which some horses prefer. The noseband is similar to the plain cavesson in that the top part encircles the nose 1-2 inches below the cheekbone, but it also includes a second strap that runs from the cavesson, around the nose in front of the bit and under the chin groove, then coming back around to the cavesson. This second piece is used to help keep the horse's mouth closed and to keep the horse from crossing his jaw. A flash noseband may be used with a standing martingale when the martingale is attached to the cavesson piece. This noseband is usually seen at the lower levels of dressage, or in the dressage phase of eventing.

The flash nose band was named for King George III's horse Bold Flash. It was developed by a stable hand to increase King George's control over his mount.

 * Crank noseband or Swedish Cavesson: used most often on dressage horses at levels where a double bridle is worn, this noseband is similar to the plain cavesson except it has a leveraged buckle design that may be adjusted very tight, so as to keep the horse's mouth closed. Double bridles cannot use flash or drop cavessons, so the crank is usually seen on upper level dressage horses who will not keep the mouth shut. It is also used occasionally on show hunters and hunt seat equitation horses. If adjusted so the horse can't open its jaw at all when the crank is tight, the horse also cannot relax its jaw. Additionally, it can push the cheeks against the horse's teeth when overtightened, which is painful.
 * Drop noseband: Invented by the Spanish Riding School, this noseband encircles the nose around the chin groove, as opposed to just below the cheekbone, with the strap on the nasal bone, and never below it. It reminds the horse to keep its mouth closed and prevents the horse from crossing the jaw. Due to its position on the lower part of the face, it should not be used with a standing martingale. A drop noseband is also not suitable for galloping work, as it tends to restrict the nostrils if it is fitted incorrectly. Although the drop used to be very popular in dressage, it is very rarely seen today, partly because many riders dislike the look it gives the horse's head. However, many horses prefer the drop noseband to the flash, and it is a very useful piece of equipment.
 * Figure-eight: Also called a  crossed, Grackle or Mexican noseband, this noseband crosses from the top of the cheekbone on one side, over the nose to the chin groove on the other side, under the horse's chin, and back up to the opposite cheekbone. It is used to remind the horse to keep its mouth closed and prevents him from crossing his jaw, and its design provides more expansion of the nostrils, which is preferable for horses performing work involving galloping (eventing, polo, racing), and has always been popular in show jumping. Many people believe that this type of noseband is more comfortable than a flash.
 * Hanoverian: Also called a "crank with flash" this is the same as a flash noseband, but with the addition of a padded jawband like a crank noseband has. It operates to hold the horse's mouth shut and hold the bit steady in the horse's mouth. It is very commonly found on dressage bridles.
 * Kineton or Puckle: Named for the English town of Kineton, and originating in horse racing for animals uncontrollable at high speeds, this noseband often cited as being rather severe. It transfers bit pressure from the rider's hand to the nose. The Kineton has metal half-rings that pass under the bit, and a leather strap that sits below the bit and over the nose (which it does not encircle) about where a drop noseband would cross. There is no strap to keep the horse's mouth closed. This noseband is only used with a snaffle bit and without a martingale. It is most commonly seen in eventing on the cross-country phase, and in show jumping. This noseband allows the rider to ride lightly with a mild bit and still stop a strong horse.
 * Lever or combination noseband: this noseband has a half-moon piece of metal that goes on each side of the horse's face. On the "top" end of the curve (near the horse's cheek bone), a piece of leather is attached that runs under the jaw and attaches to the other side of the face. At the peak of the curve is a piece of leather that runs over the top of nose in a position slightly lower from where a regular cavesson would cross. At the "bottom" of the curve, a third piece of leather goes under the chin groove of the horse. This noseband is similar in design to the figure-eight, and works similarly by preventing the horse from crossing his jaws (which is especially helped by the metal on either side of the face). Unlike the figure-eight, it does not stabilize the bit and it tends to push the cheeks in against the horse's molars which can be painful.
 * Worcester noseband: This noseband is based on the cavesson, but has a second narrower strap sewn in an inverted V shape to the front, which attaches directly to the bit on each side. This transfers some of the pressure from the reins to the nose, and is a less severe noseband than the Kineton, while still giving more control on a strong horse than a plain cavesson.

Training designs
Noseband and cavessons generally used only for training, or ground handling, include:
 * Longeing cavesson (UK: "Lungeing") is a piece of equipment used in longeing a horse, made of leather or nylon web. Though the longeing cavesson looks a bit like a halter, the noseband can be tightened and rings are strategically placed on the sides and at the front of the nose for attachment of a longe line or side reins. It provides much better leverage and more precise control of a horse in ground training, yet it is a relatively gentle piece of equipment.

 * Serreta: A type of noseband built into a halter or bridle, made of metal and usually with one or three rings protruding outward.  Because it is heavy, it commonly is supported with a frentera.  The serreta sometimes is studded inside.  It is most commonly seen in the Iberian peninsula and Hungary.
 * Studded: a studded cavesson has round or sharp studs on the inside. This cavesson is most common in Iberia, especially on young horses, so as not to "spoil" their mouths, and in Austria and Hungary. They have also been adopted in other disciplines as a means of controlling a difficult horse, or as a training shortcut, but they are generally illegal in most horse show competition. Blunt studs have a relatively mild effect. Sharp studs, like a serrated knife, are extremely painful and can cut the horse. When used while riding, they act with the normal action of the noseband, which applies pressure to the nose when the horse fails to submit to the bit, and increases the effect of this pressure.

Western designs
In western riding, nosebands are not generally worn with an ordinary working bridle. Nosebands attached to the cheekpieces of the bridle, used purely for decorative purposes, were popular during the 1950s and in many western movies, but are not common today. When nosebands are used with western equipment, they usually fall into one of three categories:
 * 1) A relatively strong noseband, often on its own headstall, may be worn for the purpose of supporting a standing martingale or tiedown. It is generally adjusted to lie just below the cheekbones, but is adjusted loosely or may not be adjustable. It does not keep the horse's mouth shut, it only supports the tiedown.
 * 2) Nosebands are used in training. Some young horses are started in a hackamore that includes a specialized design of rawhide noseband called a bosal, to which reins are attached.  As a trained hackamore horse advances into a bit, a lightweight bosal, sometimes called a "pencil bosal" may be kept on the bridle, with or without a separate set of reins.  On young horses started in a snaffle bit, some western trainers use a light rope or pencil bosal as a loose noseband to prevent the horse from gaping its mouth to avoid the bit.  It is adjusted loosely, but the material is more stiff and unyielding than leather. On hot or sensitive horses, a standard plain cavesson similar to that used on English bridles may be used instead.
 * 3) There are various designs of bitless bridles that incorporate nosebands in lieu of a bit for control, including the sidepull and the mechanical hackamore.

Fitting
Different styles of noseband are fitted according to their purpose. A horse must be able to part its teeth and open its mouth slightly (not visible on the outside) in order to flex correctly at the jaw, relax and come onto the bit. An excessively tight noseband will prevent this. If a horse cannot relax its jaw, it will have problems with proper head carriage, and the rider may then try to force the horse into position by pulling back on the reins or using artificial leverage devices.

Standard adjustment of a noseband is to allow one or two fingers between the noseband and the nasal bone of the horse's head, though many riders adjust it tighter. Research is ongoing to determine stress and pain levels related to excessively tight nosebands. Recent studies in equitation science now strongly recommend that traditional and crank nosebands be adjusted so that two fingers can be inserted at the "nasal midline"—where the noseband crosses the top of the nose. The International Society for Equitation Science has stated that tight nosebands may lead to physiological stress and mask unwanted behavior and they encourage competition rules to be amended to require horse show stewards to check noseband tightness with a standardized gauge and see that competitors adjust their equipment accordingly.

 * French or plain cavesson: The headstall is adjusted so that the noseband sits roughly equidistant between the prominent cheek bone and the horse's lips. Around the nose and jaw, this cavesson should be fitted so that, depending on the size of the horse and the size of the rider's hand, one or two fingers can be easily inserted between the noseband and the top of the nose.
 * Drop: This style is fitted with the strap and buckle fastening below the bit in the chin groove. Care should be taken not to allow the top part to rest below the nasal bone – if it presses on the soft tissue below this bone it can impede breathing. In general, a drop noseband is fitted so that a finger can be placed between the front and the nasal bone.
 * Flash: The upper cavesson is adjusted somewhat tighter than a plain cavesson to prevent it from being pulled toward the end of the muzzle by the lower flash strap. The lower flash strap runs below the bit and under the chin groove. It is buckled so the remainder of the strap points downwards.
 * Crank: Opinions vary on the adjustment of this style. Some believe it should be extremely tight, to prevent the horse from opening or crossing its jaws. Others think tight cavessons mask undesirable behavior, recommending the traditional adjustment of one or two fingers to pass between the noseband and the top of the nose. Recent studies by the International Society for Equitation Science discourage extremely tight adjustment of any noseband and recommend a "two fingers" adjustment to all nosebands in competition.

title: Noseband


text:
Apamea

Apamea or Apameia (Απάμεια) is the name of several Hellenistic cities in western Asia, after Apama, the Sogdian wife of Seleucus I Nicator, several of which are also former bishoprics and Catholic titular see.

Places called Apamea include:

Asia Minor (Turkey)

 * Apamea (Euphrates), in Osroene, opposite Zeugma on the Euphrates, now flooded by the Birecik Dam
 * Apamea (Phrygia) or Apamea Cibotus, formerly Kibotos, commercial center of Phrygia, near Celaenae, now at Dinar, Afyonkarahisar Province; former bishopric and now a Latin Catholic titular bishopric
 * Apamea Myrlea or Apamea in Bithynia, formerly Myrlea and Brylleion, in Bithynia, on the Sea of Marmara; currently near Mudanya, Bursa Province; former archdiocese, Latin Catholic titular archbishopric

Iraq

 * Apamea (Babylonia), on the Tigris near the Euphrates, precise location unknown
 * Apamea (Sittacene), on the Tigris, precise location unknown

Iran (Persia)

 * Apamea (Media), in Media, near Laodicea (Nahavand, Iran), precise location unknown
 * Apamea Ragiana, south of the Caspian Gates, in Parthia (later Media)

Syria

 * Apamea, Syria, on the Orontes River, northwest of Hama, Syria, a former Roman provincial capital and Metropolitan Archbishopric, now
 * Latin Catholic titular Metropolitan archbishopric
 * Melkite Catholic titular Metropolitan archbishopric
 * Syriac Catholic Catholic titular Metropolitan archbishopric
 * Greek Orthodox titular bishopric
 * Maronite Catholic titular bishopric

title: Apamea


text: User talk:81.179.68.71

title: User talk:81.179.68.71


text:
Talk:I4

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

move. — Nightst a  llion  (?) 09:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Engine or Highway
Okay, rather than possibly get into a long and pointless edit war, the destination of the redirect should be discussed here.

I hold that I4, which has always directed to Straight-4, and I-4, which has (until recently) directed to Interstate 4, should be consistent in order to avoid confusion. If the two redirects directed to two different pages, then imagine this:

Straight-4 I4 redirects here. For the highway, see Interstate 4.

Interstate 4 I-4 redirects here. For the engine, see Straight-4.

That would cause undue confusion. Keeping the two consistent serves to minimize confusion, perhaps at the expense of common usage (I4 is most common for the Straight-4, I-4 is most common for Interstate 4. But either can be used for either.)

BorgHunter 15:41, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree. And I've been trying to get all the related pages done, too.  The latest guidelines expect the abbreviations to be listed at I4, I-4 redirect there, and all instances of I4 and I-4 to be expanded at the relevent pages.
 * --William Allen Simpson 09:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

title: Talk:I4


text:
Wickham Market

Wickham Market is a large village and electoral ward in the River Deben valley, Suffolk, England, within the Suffolk Coastal heritage area.

It is on the A12 trunk road 13 mi north-east of the county town of Ipswich, 5 mi north-east of Woodbridge. Its railway station is 2 mi east at Campsea Ashe. The population at the 2011 Census was 2,156.

All Saints Church is over 700 years old and its octagonal tower and lead spire (137.5 feet tall) dominate the skyline and make it visible for miles over the surrounding countryside. The exterior of the church is stone and flintwork. Inside there are four stained glass windows, a 600-year-old font, a carved pulpit and an altar table with a painted reredos. There are six bells in the tower and a Sanctus Bell in the cote. Nearby attractions include: Valley Farm Equestrian Visitor Centre, Easton Farm Park, Glevering Hall, the Snape Maltings, Framlingham Castle and Sutton Hoo.

Wickham Mill
Deben Mill, also known as Wickham Mill is a grade II* listed watermill dating from the 18th century. The machinery is complete and in working order. In 1893, mill owner Reuben Rackham purchased a Whitmore and Binyon horizontal condensing steam-engine for his mill, priced at £25,000, to drive the entire plant. The engine was installed in July 1893 and the entire plant was operational by October of the same year. The engine was last worked in 1957 and was subsequently moved to Museum of East Anglian Life in Stowmarket as a gift of Edward and Robert Rackham, Rueben Rackham's sons.

Wickham Market Hoard
In 2008, one of the largest Iron Age coin finds was discovered at a site near Wickham Market.

The hoard of Iron Age gold staters was found in a field at Dallinghoo near the village, by car mechanic, Michael Dark using a metal detector. After excavation of the site, a total of 825 coins were found, and by the time the hoard was declared a treasure trove, 840 coins had been discovered.

The hoard was described as "the largest hoard of British Iron Age gold coins to be studied in its entirety", and was also significant in providing "a lot of new information about the Iron Age, and particularly East Anglia in the late Iron Age". It was the largest hoard of staters to be found since the Whaddon Chase Iron Age hoard in 1849.

The coins dated from 40 BC–15 AD and, at the time, would have been worth between £500,000–£1,000,000 to the Iceni tribes who inhabited the area.

Notable residents

 * Charles Emeny (1846–1924), an early photographer was born here
 * Francis Lucas (1850–1918), businessman and Conservative Member of Parliament for Lowestoft 1900–1906

 * Chinwe Chukwuogo-Roy MBE (1952–2012), Royal Portrait painter best known for her many studies of famous people, the portrait for the Golden Jubilee of Elizabeth II and her innovative techniques.
 * Flora Sandes (1876–1956), the only British female soldier to officially serve in World War I.

title: Wickham Market


text:
Sir J. J. School of Art

The Sir Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy School of Art (Sir J. J. School of Art) is the oldest art institution in Mumbai, India, and is affiliated with the University of Mumbai. The school grants bachelor's (B.F.A) degrees in Painting, ceramic, Metal work, Interior decoration, Textile design and Sculpture as well as Master's degrees (M.F.A) in Portraiture, Creative Painting, Murals, Sculpture, and Printmaking.

Early history

The School founded in March 1857, was named after Sir Jamsetjee Jeejebhoy, a businessman and philanthropist who donated Rs. 100,000 for its endowment. Operations were managed by a committee headed by the Chief Justice of Bombay. The School's first class was in drawing, and began on 2 March 1857. Classes were held at the Elphinstone Institution. John Griffiths became Principal of the School in 1865. He later became famous for copying the murals in the Ajanta Caves temple complex, a project which lasted from 1872 to 1891, and which the School's students assisted in.

In 1866, management of the school was taken over by the Government of India. Also in 1866, Lockwood Kipling, who had become a professor of the School in 1865, established three ateliers for (i) Decorative Paintings, (ii) Modelling; and (iii) Ornamental Wrought Iron Work, and became its first dean. He was the father of the author Rudyard Kipling, who was born on the School's campus. In 1878, the school moved to its own building, where it is currently situated. The building was designed by architect George Twigge Molecey, in neo Gothic architecture. The School campus, including the Kipling House, better known as the Dean's Bungalow, is classified as Grade II heritage structure by the Government of Maharashtra, and underwent a restoration in 2002-2006, and again in 2008.

Drawing instruction as a subject was introduced in 1879 and a programme for training drawing teachers was started in 1893. In 1891, the Lord Reay Art Workshops (now known as the Department of Art-Crafts) were established.

1900s
The School had an important tradition in architecture. In 1900, the School offered its first course in architecture, taught by John Begg, later Consulting Architect of Bombay and of the Government of India. A complete 4-year programme was established in 1908 under Begg's assistant George Wittet. In 1917, architect Claude Batley became a visiting professor; he was Principal of the School from 1923 to 1943, and is commemorated in the Claude Batley Architectural Gallery for architectural exhibitions, opened in 1996.

In 1896, the Draughtsman's classes, the nucleus of the Department of Architecture, were added. This Department was later organised for a 3 years Diploma Course which was duly recognised by the R.I.B.A. Board.

In 1910, the Sir George Clarke Studies and Laboratories were built for the advanced study of crafts, pottery being the first craft taken up for study. In 1929, the head of the School was renamed "Director", and in 1935, the Department of Commercial Art was also started.

In 1937 M.R. Acharekar was appointed deputy director and continued his tenure till 1939. Shri. V. S. Adurkar was the first Indian head of the school, succeeding Claude Batley as Director in 1943.

Post-independence
In 1958, the school was divided, with the Departments of Architecture and Applied Art becoming the Sir J. J. College of Architecture and Sir J.J. Institute of Applied Art respectively.

In 1981, the School became affiliated with the University of Mumbai.

List of alumni
• António Xavier Trindade

• Angela Trindade

• A. R. Hye (1919–2008)

• A.A. Raiba (1922–2016)

• Akbar Padamsee (1928–2020), painter

• Divita Rai Miss Universe India 2022

• Abid Surti (born 1935)

• Amol Palekar (born 1944), actor

• Antonio Piedade da Cruz (1895–1982), painter and sculptor

• Arun Kolatkar (1932–2004)

• Atul Dodiya (born 1959)

• B. V. Doshi (1927–2023), architect

• Bhanu Athaiya (born 1929), costume designer

• Brendan Pereira (born 1928), advertiser

• Dadasaheb Phalke (1870–1944), film director

• Francis Newton Souza (1924–2002), painter

• Ganpatrao K Mhatre (1879–1947), sculptor

• Govind Solegaonkar (1912–1986), painter

• Homai Vyarawalla (1913–2012), photojournalist,

• James Ferreira (born 1956), fashion designer

• Jatin Das (born 1941), painter

• Jitish Kallat (born 1974)

• Justin Samarasekera (1916–2003), architect

• K. K. Hebbar (1911–1996)

• Kalidas Shrestha (1923–2016)

• Laxman Pai (1926–2021), painter

• M.F. Hussain (1915–2011), painter

• M.V. Dhurandhar, (1867 – 1944) painter, vice-principal of the school

• Nadhiya (born 1966), actor

• Nana Patekar (born 1951), actor and filmmaker

• Nitin Chandrakant Desai, art director and production designer

• Pralhad Anant Dhond (1908–2001), Dean of Sir J. J. School of Art from 1958

• Pramila Dandavate (1928–2001), socialist leader and Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha

• Prof. Sambhaji Kadam (1932–1998)

• R. D. Raval (1928–1980)

• R.Verman (1947–2019)

• Raj Thackeray (born 1968), president of Maharashtra Navnirman Sena

• Ram V. Sutar (born 1925), sculptor

• Ratnadeep Adivrekar (born 1974), artist

• Reena Saini Kallat (born 1973), painter

• Riyas Komu (born 1971), artist

• Syed Haider Raza (1922–2016), painter

• Sadanand Bakre (1920–1987), painter

• Saryu Doshi (born 1932), art historian and Padma Shri awardee

• Shashi Bikram Shah (born 1940), Nepali artist

• Shivkar Bapuji Talpade (1864–1916)

• Tyeb Mehta (1925–2009), painter

• Uday Shankar (1900–1977), dancer

• V. S. Gaitonde (1924–2001), painter

• Waman Thakre (born 1932), photographer and Padma Shri awardee

title: Sir J. J. School of Art


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamino Saberdarts

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Kamino Saberdarts
Amoung it's other problems, I only get 13 returns in a Goodle search, 12 on Yahoo. delete Rx StrangeLove 15:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy as nonsense. Bollar 15:50, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.