User talk:Michael Fontenot

Welcome!

Hello, Michael Fontenot, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as The CADO Reference Frame for an Accelerating Observer, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! andy (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The CADO Reference Frame for an Accelerating Observer

The article The CADO Reference Frame for an Accelerating Observer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Only ghits have been posted by the author, nothing in google scholar. References don't mention the "CADO frame". This is original research lacking reliable sources

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. andy (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(response from Michael Fontenot)

You wrote: "References don't mention the "CADO frame". This is original research lacking reliable sources".

My CADO article is a description of the material in reference 1. It was published in a refereed physics journal, more than ten years ago. Although the exact phrase "CADO frame" may or may not appear anywhere in that published paper, the phrase "CADO" is used pervasively, and there is no doubt that the definitions and results specify a frame of reference for an accelerating observer. The CADO reference frame fills an important need: as far as I know, it is the only published definition of a reference frame that is consistent both with Taylor and Wheeler's results, in Example 49 of their SPACETIME PHYSICS book, and with the "gravitational time dilation" frame described on the "Twin paradox" Wiki page, both of which are widely accepted. There have been other published reference frames defined for an accelerating observer, which, like the CADO frame, don't rely on fictitious gravitational fields, but (as far as I know) they are not consistent with Taylor and Wheeler's results, nor with the gravitational time dilation results.

Michael Fontenot (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The CADO Reference Frame for an Accelerating Observer for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The CADO Reference Frame for an Accelerating Observer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The CADO Reference Frame for an Accelerating Observer until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. andy (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Twin paradox. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Your edits to this article promote your own WP:OR point of view and have been reverted by myself and another experienced editor several times. Your main article on your theories is currently being debated for possible deletion. Until this matter is resolved please do not continue to promote your theories because you run the risk of being blocked from editing wikipedia. andy (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your potentially deleted article....

It is unfortunate others are attempting to delete your publication here. There is a version of your publication at http://en.wikademia.org/The_CADO_Reference_Frame_for_an_Accelerating_Observer

There are no current plans to delete it. Although please be sure to read the disclaimers on the site.

EME44 (talk) 06:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind comment ... positive feedback seems to be rare. Michael Fontenot (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody wishes to be negative but wikipedia, like any other entity, has rules and there is a reasonable enquiry into whether your article steps outside those rules. No reason to get heated about it - simply provide evidence that it fits within wikipedia's scope. If a bunch of editors disagree and the article is deleted then there's still an appeals procedure. andy (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Twin paradox. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Please see the article talk page, justify your edits with reliable sources, and attempt to come to a consensus before re-inserting material which has been challenged. Thanks. Tim Shuba (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(My response to Shuba and Smith):

In each of the three references (Dolby&Gull, Minguzzi, and Taylor&Wheeler) that I have cited, in the subsection "Reference frames without fictitious gravitational fields, for the accelerating twin" (which I have added to the "Twin Paradox" Wiki article), the authors explicitly provide their answer to the question: "How does the home-twin's age change, according to the traveler, as the traveler's trip proceeds?". Any rational person reading those references cannot fail to conclude that those authors' three answers are all different. It is absurd to contend that some additional published source is needed, in order to reliably come to that conclusion.

In the section preceding my added subsection, there is a reference cited (Einstein, 1918) which gives the "gravitational time dilation" determination of the traveler's viewpoint. That reference answers the above question with the same answer that Taylor&Wheeler give, although the approach used in Einstein-1918 to get that answer is quite different (fictitious gravitational fields are utilized).

My CADO reference (which I cited in the subsection I added to the "Twin Paradox" article) explicitly gives the same answer that both Taylor&Wheeler and Einstein-1918 got: all three of those references say that the home-twin's age will change abruptly during the traveler's abrupt turnaround.

Dolby&Gull, and Minguzzi, clearly do not get that answer: they say that the home-twin's age changes only gradually, over a prolonged period of the trip, even when the traveler's turnaround is instantaneous. But they disagree with one another about how that gradual "her age versus his age, according to him" curve is shaped.

I'm sorry but you have totally and utterly missed the point. Wikipedia is explicitly not a place for promoting your own views even if you are certain that they are correct. That's for other people to do provided they can show clear evidence that you are correct. Arguments won't do, wikipedia requires reliable sources which basically means independent third party sources that cover the subject in reasonable depth. You aren't independent from your own work so you can't cite yourself in an article. That's the rule. You just can't. Not at all. Not even a little bit. Don't even think about it - you'll always find your edits reverted.

WP:NOTESSAY, which is part of a key policy, states clearly that "If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report about your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge". And WP:PRIMARY states "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources". In order for your work to have become "part of accepted knowledge" it must of course be cited elsewhere in reliable, secondary sources. andy (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 Hours for Edit Warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mike, you are 100% correct, but see the above comments and the comments at the article's deletion page. Too bad, but keep cool: Wikipedia can use your input, so don't go away and make sure you understand the five pillars. MultiCheers - DVdm (talk) 10:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Pity - DVdm (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Radar Distance, Simultaneous Distance, and Image Distance

Hello Mike, I don't know if it will help you get anything published on Wikipedia, but I have been thinking about this issue of radar-distance vs. simultaneous distance, vs. image distance.

http://www.spoonfedrelativity.com/pages/Radar-v-Simul-v-Image.png

I think it is important to distinguish between the different ideas. It seems to me that your focus is on the simultaneous distance (and age). While Dolby and Gull are focused on the Radar-Distance. It seems to me that the literature is extraordinarily clumsy in distinguishing between the three ideas.

I've written what I think is a fairly simple quiz-based introduction to Special Relativity, focusing on the image distance. http://www.spoonfedrelativity.com/pages/SR-Starter-Questions.php I would like to invite your comments.

I think it is worth noting that your published paper, may not be getting traction on wikipedia wikidamia.org CADO article because I think it very rare for published articles to break with Machian Principle and "assume" that Observer-Dependent-Coordinate systems have any validity.

I think PAllen really hits the philosophical nail on the head here when he says "Is it reasonable to interpret observations according to a counterfactual model (I wasn't always moving the way I am now)? I've expressed the view that it is perfectly feasible to do this, but not required or preferred."

My answer, is to say YES ABSOLUTELY; it is not only preferred, but it is required. At any given moment, there is a momentarily comoving reference frame, and within that reference frame, all objects have a distinct location, and a distinct age.

One problem that you will have in communicating with many General Relativity Experts is that they appear to have re-defined the term Inertial Reference Frame so that it means a free-falling frame. And they have decided that static reference frames of infinite volume simply do not exist. So there is a huge mountain of incomprehension in the way JDoolin (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that information, Jonathan ... I appreciate it.

Mike Fontenot 2-12-12.