| Revision as of 17:21, 28 September 2006 editSdedeo (talk | contribs)5,246 editsm →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:06, 28 September 2006 edit undoSdedeo (talk | contribs)5,246 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| <s>After a couple of months contributing to wikipedia in various ways, I've found that it's no longer as much fun as before. I've decided to go on an extended wikibreak, and I wish everyone luck. ] <small>(])</small> 01:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)</s> <s>I'm back, and working on ] again. I still have a great deal of faith in the wikipedia project. ] <small>(])</small> 22:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)</s> I have gone on another break; please see my user page for more discussion of this issue. ] <small>(])</small> 18:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | <s>After a couple of months contributing to wikipedia in various ways, I've found that it's no longer as much fun as before. I've decided to go on an extended wikibreak, and I wish everyone luck. ] <small>(])</small> 01:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)</s> <s>I'm back, and working on ] again. I still have a great deal of faith in the wikipedia project. ] <small>(])</small> 22:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)</s> I have gone on another break; please see my user page for more discussion of this issue. ] <small>(])</small> 18:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == ] == | |||
| Please see my comments on the talk page there. I do not appreciate what you are doing. ] 22:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for toning your comments down: we had an edit conflict, and I noticed that you had, so I toned my own response down as well. It seems we have had a very unfortunate misunderstanding, and been somewhat oversensitive about things. People have those awful little "wikistress" thermometers on their userpages...my mercury has boiled and shattered the glass into my face. And I have only been on this encyclopaedia for about 3 months! ] 00:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Another request. I ''really'', ''really'' don't like being associated with proponents of Heim theory; and I am certainly not one of the pile-in voters at ScienceApologist's RfA (I stay away from those). Is there any chance that you adjust your userpage so that it does not give the appearance that I am an irrational buffoon who randomly reverts positive contributions to scientific articles? I think you can see that I have well articulated reasons for doing what I did (I have written reams on the talk page justifying my removal), and even if we don't agree on some things, I don't agree with your classifying my edit as "removal of content I do not understand", when that is obviously not the case. | |||
| :As a "peace offering", I have voted delete on the Heim theory AfD (the first), for what it's worth (although I would have anyway). I have a bit of experience in these AfDs, and would have nominated Heim theory long ago, but it just won't go through. The pile-in voters will see to that. It has too much of a cult following. But it's worth a try, I guess. ] 01:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Moved from your Talk page== | |||
| ''I left the following by omission on your User page. Sorry. However that was the page you referred to me. I simply followed the link you left me and assumed it as an invitation for discussion.'' | |||
| You should have started with an explanation on the article Talk page. The way you edited the article with no explanation made YOU look like the non-scientist party. That's why I reverted you. I could have been wrong but you seemed to send all the well-known "wiki-kookism" signals. However, I made it clear that I mean the revert as temporary. And you, instead of providing the links to the relevant papers in a human readable way, started a revert war. | |||
| I accept that you may be right. Just show me the papers I should read (I have on-line access to most journals so they need not be pre-prints only). Please do it on ] not on my Talk page (in fact last time you left me a message on a Talk page of a dead account I do not control - luckily I have it on my Watch). | |||
| Regards, ] 05:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| As you may know, I've been dipping into the ] thing. I'm a bit concerned about Haisch's reputation (he has been appointed managing editor). I've done some research, and this suggests he is a bona fide scientist (i.e. has many articles in peer reviewed journals, all that sort of thing). On the other hand, a number of people in the WP expert community have been extremely negative about him, and their have been very public edit wars. Trouble is, I know very little science. (I can tell you about medieval theories on the existence of God, but limited beyond there). Without being personal, what scientific evidence is there for Haisch's research. The research is covered in the Wp page linked to above. Note Haisch claims the article itself is slanted. Grateful for your views. If you don't want to make them public , I am d3uckner AT btinternet.com ] 10:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Edwrad Buckner | |||
| :His work on inertia seems very much out of the mainstream; his founding 1999 in Phys. Lett A appears to have gained in the peer-reviewed literature by other authors. | |||
| :The basic idea -- rephrasing it in more standard language -- is that particle number changes depending on reference frame. This is a classic result in quantum gravity, is known as the ], and is related to the phenomenon of ]; nothing controversial there. What presumably puts him out of the mainstream is that he claims this effect is sufficient to explain the classical ]. | |||
| :To speculate a little -- ''i.e.'', if Bernard came up to me at a conference and told me his theory -- I would suggest that a problem might be the varying charge-to-mass ratio; the coupling of the particle to the electromagnetic field depends not on mass, but charge. It's unclear to me, for example, how the proton and the neutron could have nearly the same inertial mass if they gained it from coupling to electromagnetism. A more general problem is that the energy scales relevant to the Unruh effect are far larger than the scales at which we confirm Newton's laws. | |||
| :All this is a bit beside the point. I know a number of people in the field who have had wacky ideas -- even ones that turn out to be trivially wrong! What is important is that they are willing to discuss them in a friendly, rational fashion. It can be tough to be someone with out-of-the-mainstream ideas -- many people will just ignore you or treat you with distain and it can wear you down and make you bitter. Fortunately, the fate is avoided by many. Without mentioning names, for example, I've had happy interactions with folks who contest (incorrectly) basic ideas about the ] -- often times they are ignored because the errors they make are rather subtle and people can't immediately see them, and that makes people nervous and sometimes hostile. | |||
| :What I'm saying, I guess, is that I believe the correctness of Bernard's theories are beside the point. If he is committed to the scientific community, and is willing to acknoledge his own views as marginal, then he could very well be an excellent "guardian." That said, I would be less nervous if the "guardian" was someone whose views were more mainstream -- if only because s/he would have a deeper involvement in the more relevant theories for giving a complete picture of the current state of scientific knowledge. | |||
| :] <small>(])</small> 15:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:06, 28 September 2006
archive contains earlier material from the talk page; August 2005 -- February 2006. Sdedeo (tips) 20:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
archive2 contains earlier material from the talk page; March 2006 -- June 2006. Sdedeo (tips) 23:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
archive3 contains earlier material from the talk page; June 2006 -- September 2006. Sdedeo (tips) 22:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Please post new comments to the bottom of the talk page; I will almost always respond to comments on this page itself (makes comments easier to find -- I encourage you to do the same) so check back! Sdedeo (tips) 22:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
After a couple of months contributing to wikipedia in various ways, I've found that it's no longer as much fun as before. I've decided to go on an extended wikibreak, and I wish everyone luck. Sdedeo (tips) 01:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC) I'm back, and working on medcabal again. I still have a great deal of faith in the wikipedia project. Sdedeo (tips) 22:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC) I have gone on another break; please see my user page for more discussion of this issue. Sdedeo (tips) 18:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)