User talk:SCZenz/Archive10

Hello

How short is short enough? Will you return? (I sometimes visit your page to pick from its supply of templates). All the best, wherever you are! ---Sluzzelin talk 09:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Admin coaching request

Hi, I'm GorillaWarfare and am hoping to receive some coaching to become an admin. If you'd like to coach me, please leave a message on my talk page. You can see my edit count here but don't be surprised when you see that I have 25 edits. That is because I recently forgot the password to my old account, User:Theunicyclegirl. Here is my edit count from my old account. I almost have 2000 edits. I frequently revert vandalism by watching Lupin's filtered RCs. I also like to expand stubs, particularly those relating to cats or dogs. I am very good with user warning templates and speedy deletion templates. I sometimes respond on AFD. Thanks for considering me! --GorillaWarfare ^talk 17:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Twin paradox anon

I would politely suggest that the time for reasoning with this particular user is past, and that we should present a united front in regard to such soapboxing. Otherwise what he will learn--and probably has learned already--is that if he keeps re-posting rubbish, eventually someone new respond and the argument will resume, and his comments will stay up. I'm not criticizing you in particular--in fact, I've seen it happen repeatedly already--but I do think it's time to just revert and be done with it. (I'm happy to discuss if you disagree.) -- SCZenz 12:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... I see your point. It'd be so much better if the user would actually listen and attempt to understand... but it seems to have reached the "I'm right and you're wrong, no matter what you say" stage. So, we'll deal with it that way. Meh.

Oh well. From watching this I was actually gaining a bit more of an understanding of this topic... Gscshoyru 12:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Arrg... I so desperatly want to respond... point out his errors... sigh. Should I clear or should you? Gscshoyru 18:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I know the feeling, but it never helps. If you see something that needs to be cleared, you should definitely do it—I'm not around reliably. -- SCZenz 21:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I will. Someone else already did it, though. Gscshoyru 21:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to say thank you for noticing my mistake, I apologised to the user and I am confident that I won't make the same mistake again. Hope to chat with you soon in the future. Tarret 16:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Liouville

Hello,

If you have a chance please create the disambiguation page for Liouville as we discussed, I have the impression you are more experienced with this sort of move. Katzmik 09:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. In connection with Liouville equations, you may have noticed that a physics writer recently placed a link to it apparently intending the other Liouville equation site. A disambiguation page would also be helpful in avoiding this type of confusion. Katzmik 11:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I do plan to take another look at this soon. -- SCZenz 06:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Question about reasons for deleting

Hi SCZenz, why did you delete my response to Duae Quartunciae? And also a question to RE about his opinion on the tired light?

Another question I wanted to ask an administrator but never had time: why wikipedia propagates an idea that gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all objects attract each other (the first sentence of Gravitation) while general relativity attributes gravitation to the curvatures of the spacetime? Jim 16:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

For why I removed your comments, please see the Wikipedia policy on talk pages, particularly about how talk pages are not to be used for promulgating personal views. For why Wikipedia includes the perspectives it does, you might look at Wikipedia:Original research and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight. -- SCZenz 22:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the Wikipedia policy on talk pages and I didn't see the reason. Could you be more specific so I could guess easier what you mean?

As for next point I checked two other pages and didn't find a reason neither. I don't see why editor's POV presented on Gravitation (that gravitation is due to attractive forece, which contradicts also Newton's POV) is allowed and Einstein's POV (that it is due to curvatures of spacetime) is not. The latter is confirmed by experiments but the former is only a private opinion of editors, not confirmed by any reliable sources. And yet you allow the former (consensus of editors) and don't allow latter (Einstein's). And you are also trying to avoid answering a direct question. Jim 11:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The introduction of gravitation is quite careful not to refer to it as a force, and there are sections for both the Newtonian and and modern General Relativistic models of gravitation. I agree the introduction is not not perfect, but it's rather difficult to word the introduction properly without becoming too technical. The wording "phenomenon by which all objects attract each other" is meant to include the concept of object A curving spacetime and thereby causing object B to move closer, but if you have a better wording please do propose it.

The professional physics community has a broad consensus that Newtonian mechanics is an excellent model of the world and gravitation under many circumstances, but that GR is a more accurate (as far as we know, the most accurate) model under a wider range of circumstances. This view is reflected in many reliable sources, and in my experience it is reflected well on Wikipedia.

Finally, regarding talk pages, you cannot use them to make speeches about your personal interpretations and views. This has already been explained to you. You may notice that your comments are not any longer the only ones I have removed from Talk:Tired light. -- SCZenz 13:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The "attraction" is already a force or at least it is so interpreted by the readers. That's why the word should be avoided as misleading, especially to high school students, who don't know yet about the subtleties of gravitation. The danger is that those physicists who never learn about gravitation tend to remember only that it is an "attraction" sice this is what they learned from popular culture and then read also in an encyclopedia. While it is not. So the best way in my opinion is to provide a description of what it is: "a tendency of masses to get closer to each other". As it was formulated long time ago before it was replaced by "attraction" by guys who believe that it is attraction (I discussed it long enough with them to know that they don't believe in Einsteinian physics). By using "tendency to get closer" one is not fed old prejudice about the "attraction". The reader is just shown a description of how it looks to an outside observer who has to supply the reason for that tendency. And then he might accept the reason supplied by Einstein, or assume that it is caused by something else ("gravitons"?) but he's not forced to think that it is necessarily an "attraction", since it was imprinted on his brain and then difficult to get rid of.

As for my "personal speaches" they are such only for those who aren't familiar with literature on the subject. I just took Landau and Lifshitz "Theory of fields" that supply equation for total energy of a particle in "gravitational field" (eq. 88.9) and differentiated it along the distance(which I hope you don't object as something illegal). It turned out that the result is exactly the Einsteinian gravitational force $dE/dx=-mg$ (being a physicist you may repeat the differentiation yourself). I don't consider differentiation of someone else's equation an original research that as every editors accuses me of, insisting that therefore $mg$ is not a gravitational force. Well, I see that it is but how to convince non physicists, who voted 9:1 against me, that $mg$ is a gravitational force and that I just "propagate Einsteinian physics" and the source is Landau's book? They also removed other pages that I ever tried to write only because I wrote them and lacking credibility I might deceive the readers. That's why Wikipedia misleads its readers also on some other physics and ignores the existence of some subjects as e.g. cultural prejudice or empty idea which don't exist according to those editors, just Jim the troll made them up. Jim 10:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Interpreting the meaning of equations is original research, whether you read them directly out of a book or rearranged them yourself. Original research does not belong in articles, and its promotion does not belong in talk pages. There are many sources available explaining the relationship between different theories of gravity, which could be cited—but your own interpretation (which does not seem to agree with any such sources) will not go in Wikipedia.

I am a bit puzzled by some of your complaints. Regarding your first paragraph, I invite you to work with editors on Talk:Gravitation to find a more satisfactory wording. Regarding your second issue, it is extremely well-known that Newtonian gravity and mechanics can be derived from an appropriate limit of General Relativity; it seems like the philosophical ideas you apply to this are largely your own. -- SCZenz 07:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• If interpreting equations read directly out of a book (in this case Landau's) is original research then trying to popularize Einstein's theory of gravitation by explaining how gravitational force is generated in his theory, on an example of Landau's equation, was WP:OR (as much of everything else in Wikipedia is, by the above definition). So I have to agree with you that if this is really Wikipedia's policy I can't popularize Einstein. Most of the Wikipedia pages should be deleted on the above definition since most of them contains (illegal as it turns out) interpretations by editors of what they read.
• As for the invitation to work with editors on Gravitation, I already did, lost a lot of time on explaining physics of Einsteinian gravitation to them (in which I'm doing my PhD work now, however not on gravitational force, which is just my popularization work, apparently not welcome in Wikipedia). The editors didn't learn anything, neither intended to, and still think that "force of attraction" is the best explanation of gravitation, since it works almost exactly as such in Newtonian gravitation and they are sure that it will also work as such in the post Einsteinian gravitation, the one with creation of energy from nothing that is the basis of the Big Bang, that is going to be soon discovered in a form of quantum gravity. Apparently there is no need to learn about Einstein's gravitation and so high school kids should be spared the trouble as well. So I rather leave the editors to their strong convictions and won't waste any more time on the subject.

Thank you for your trouble of explaining all those things to me. Jim 08:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcom back

Hi SCZenz: glad to know you are back. We could use some help with the Black hole electron article if you want to be involved. Quantum gravity is a hot topic these days and I am expecting confirmation that the time dilation factor at 3Gm/c squared is a fixed ratio regardless of the mass value. This is the blueshift ratio L1/L2.--Wish you the best,-DonJStevens 16:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem reasonable(based on your wikipedia page)

help me! I want to associate the disappearing guns at "fort casey" (which should also be abbreviated to "ft. casey") with disappearing guns(which are wholy associated with "disappearing carriage") I'm not a troll. I just want to fix this.

Do people actually respond to discussion pages of unpopular pages?

If so, I will contribute to them.

Thanks.

saw fort(not ft...............yet?) casey I serioiusly don't know how to fix these pages.

- -

Archived by hand

I sent you an e-mail. The message was e-mail to protect others' privacy and also not to worsen a pre-existing debate between editors. Archtransit (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)