User talk:Xinhangshen

Welcome!

Hi, Xinhangshen. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. M∧Ŝc²ħε И_τlk 08:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Special relativity#Special Relativity is Wrong!

Replied to you and another person who apparently thinks SR is wrong. Thanks, M∧Ŝc²ħε И_τlk 08:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page guidelines

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic as you did with this edit. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Time dilation are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Hafele–Keating experiment for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics, as you did with these edits. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DVdm, the article is wrong about the interpretation of clock time in the experiment, which is to mislead readers. Please add back what I wrote. It is not a place for people to continue their misleading. Thanks!

The article is properly sourced. Wikipedia is not a forum. As your edit history shows, this is not is the first time you are using article talk pages to prove relativity wrong. You will have to find another place for that. Good luck! - DVdm (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DVdm, you are wrong! I am not using it as a forum, but just correct errors of the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xinhangshen (talk • contribs) 13:59, 16 September 2015 ‎(UTC)[reply]

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

Article talk pages are not for proving their subjects wrong. If there is a specific error in the article, you are free to propose a specific corrrection, provided you can back it up with specific relevant wp:reliable sources, but do keep wp:FRINGE in mind. As can be seen in this edit and in your edit history your aim is to prove relativity wrong. Wikipedia is not the place for that. - DVdm (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DVdm, Wikipedia is a place to spread correct information. If the main page is the place to put all original information, then the talk page is the place to put all suggestions and corrections of the original page. Clock time records the number of the cycles of oscillation, which is the multiplication of time and frequency. It is a common sense that every high school student knows. Should I give you a reliable source for it? The frequency of a clock is not an invariant of Lorentz Transformation but changes in LT like Transverse Doppler Effects. Should I give you a reliable source for that? Therefore, the multiplication of time and frequency is not the same as time itself. It is an error to use clocks to measure the abstract time. This error correction is definitely a suggestion to improve the main page. You should actually add the correction to the main page as a side note to make readers aware of the problem.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xinhangshen (talk • contribs) 14:34, 16 September 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Repeating:

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

If there is a specific error in the article, you are free to propose a specific corrrection, provided you can back it up with specific relevant wp:reliable sources, but do keep wp:FRINGE in mind. - DVdm (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Hafele–Keating experiment, you may be blocked from editing. - DVdm (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DVdm, please show respect to contributors. I just did as you suggested. What's wrong with my suggestions? This is a democracy, no place for your dictatorship. Please add it back. Otherwise I will make an official complaint about you!!!Xinhangshen (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do read my previous reply and look at the emphasised words. - DVdm (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be painfully clear once Xinhangshen. Yes WP is a place to spread correct information, so your nonsense paper should not be included in WP at all. It is not even worth the data that forms the pdf it is presented in. Here's a newsflash: special relativity has been tested over so many times and its predictions actually agree with experiments. SR is built into relativistic quantum field theories including one of the most accurate and successful theory ever made: quantum electrodynamics.

So people accept SR not because of Einstein's reputation, nor the weather. It's because special relativity is in agreement with experiment where it applies. The fact that crackpots all over the world fail to understand the theory, daydream their own personal interpretations, and provide "corrections" in self-published "papers" which have been or would be rejected by reputable scientific journals, just shows they are not really interested in the scientific process of interplay between theory and experiment. Just attention-seekers badly wanting fame for "showing" how backwards the rest of the world is.

Nobody expects you to admit you're wrong, but the least you and every anti-SR "corrector" could do is to stop forcing your personal theories into this project, because it's not allowed. WP uses reliable sources from reliably published journals or books. M∧Ŝc²ħε И_τlk 16:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, guys, this is not a forum to discuss the right or wrong of the entire special relativity theory, but a place to discuss how to improve the page Hafele-Keating Experiment. 1)Do you agree that clock time records the number of cycles which is the multiplication of time and frequency? 2) Do you agree that the frequency of a clock changes in Lorentz Transformation? 3)Do you agree that the clock time is invariant of LT as the changes of time and frequency cancel each other? 4)Do you agree that LT invariant clock can never show time dilation? Please stop your ad hominem attack and provide your own reasoning here if you insist to remove my contribution. Xinhangshen (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, you don't have a contribution, so there is nothing to reason against. Here on your user talk page you are (almost) free to say what you like, but the article talk page is for specific proposals to edit the article, provided you can back them up with specific relevant wp:reliable sources. And keep in mind that we have no obligation whatsoever to help you understand relativity and explain the nature of your misconceptions. You will have to take this elsewhere. Try, for instance, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sci.physics.relativity . - DVdm (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DVdm, I indeed made contributions, but you just removed them because you don't like them, which is obviously an abuse of your power. I read through all the terms of use for contributions to Wikipedia and have never found any legal basis for your action. The talk page is the place for people to suggest improvement of the main page. The removal of may contributions on that page is just killing democratic talk!!!Xinhangshen (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read the wp:talk page guidelines, and note that Wikipedia is not a democracy. See WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. - DVdm (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Twin paradox

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Twin paradox, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that https://spie.org/Publications/Proceedings/Paper/10.1117/12.2185474 (that you mentioned [1] on talk page of Materialscientist) is not a reliable source. First, you wrote it, and Wikipedia is not a place where we come to promote our own work. Second, the article is not peer-reviewed (see [2]). Third, even if it were peer-reviewed and relevant, it would still be a single wp:primary source, introducing wp:undue content in an article, whereas such content would need solid wp:secondary sources. Fourth, your article claims that "A critical error is found in the Special Theory of Relativity (STR): mixing up the concepts of the STR abstract time of a reference frame and the displayed time of a physical clock...'" Perhaps you don't know, but there is no concept of abstract time in science. In physics, time is defined as what a clock reads, and nothing more. So your cited article would therefore be irrelevant anyway. - DVdm (talk) 10:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DVdm (sorry that I call you DVdm because I don't have any idea whether it is a person, an organization or a robot. I hope that you can provide your real identity.), first, I would let you know that I didn't try to promote my work, but only convey a fact (a clear logical statement that everybody can understand without any help) in my first post. It was Materialscientists who requested a reliable source for such a straightforward statement. Second, you made a statement "the article is not peer-reviewed" without any investigation while it was indeed peer-reviewed. Third, please provide the definition of "solid" in the Wikipedia rules. Fourth, you made another claim my paper is wrong even without any knowledge about it. My paper actually confirms "time is what a clock reads" and denies the time of STR as the time of clocks. It is STR making abstract time without backup of physical processes as proved in my paper.Xinhangshen (talk)

From your edits up to now ([3]) it is clear that you are here with an agenda to prove relativity wrong. In that respect, see wp:FRINGE, and - for instance User talk:LCcritic#Warning.

There is no need to copy your messeges to my talk page, as I explained on top of it. By the way, you can continue calling me DVdm. No problem :-) DVdm (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Herbert Dingle. - DVdm (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]