User talk:Zee99

Welcome!

Hello Zee99, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

At Wikipedia, new Users do not automatically receive a welcome; not even a machine-generated welcome. Welcome messages come from other Users. They are personal and genuine. They contain an offer of assistance if such assistance is ever desired.

I suggest to everyone I welcome that they may find some of the following helpful — there’s nothing personal in my suggestion and you may not need any of them:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Dolphin (t) 11:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding citations

Hello Zee99. I see you edited Inertia today and asked how to properly insert a reference to substantiate your new text. There is good information available at Wikipedia:REFBEGIN. Best wishes. Dolphin (t) 11:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Custer Edits

Hello Zee99 - In reference to your recent edits to the GAC page. You appear to be new to Wikipedia and may not be aware of the rules and protocols - if you are a veteran, then you must now about WP:CONTROVERSY and WP:RS. I've written a paper that I'd like you to read. It's called "Deriving Inertial Mass and Time Interval Dilation." I've been frustrated in getting it published because editors are too embarrassed to have let prior errors slip by. My catching these errors places my name up with the greats in physics, like Einstein, Newton, Planck, Lorentz, etc., and I clearly don't deserve that. So what do we do? Read the paper and critique it here in Wikipedia.'

These protocols require two considerations:

a) Neither Smalley nor any other author knows for sure what Custer thought or saw, and as a student of the battle, you must know that the exact route that his detachment took to the Last Stand area has never been definitively established and remains a source of hot dispute. We know from Martini that Custer saw Reno's attack - but his last reported words (again as you know) were the "we've caught them napping" quote - suggesting strongly that this occurred at a point where he saw Reno charge but not where he saw Reno stop, dismount, and form a skirmish line. The point is that it's uncertain - no one knows for sure. ' Smalley replies: Yes, I do know what route Custer took. Would you like to discuss it? Determining the exact course is really quite straight forward as long as we can disregard those who consult comic books for their data.'

The upshot of this is of course disagreement - controversy. Neither Smalley nor Utley nor Michno nor any single source can prove definitively what happened. In keeping with WP:BALANCE, the article must include all major POV without favoritism. One recent editor wanted to base the entire section and the LBH article on Michno's Lakota Noon, which fine book though it is, pursues the thought that only Native American participant testimony should be relied upon - which would make Smalley's list of 7th Cavalry estimates of Lakota strength moot.

No one will be able to "prove definitively" to someone who has a vested interest to be beyond being convinced.

I mention this to illustrate the idea that an article like this must tread a narrow middle path, one that recognizes differing and even contradictory theories without favoring one (as your edit summaries imply) as truth.

b) My earlier edit summary comments about Smalley were not meant to disparage a source that I haven't read - or heard of - but were rather to call for vetting that source. Utley, Michno, Graham, Connell, Ambrose and others cited here are professional historians whose work has been published, widely circulated, and vetted by their peers. I can find no such trail for Smalley - and the Little Buffalo Press that published the book you cite appears possibly to be a mechanism for self-publishing. Smalley replies: I'd be very pleased to help you vet Utley, Michno, Graham, Ambrose and any other professional historian to compare with what Smalley came up with. Smalley relied almost entirely on statements from the battle survivors, and at least Mitchno and Utley did not.

It's must unfortunate that we don't have a Little Bighorn Battle expert reviewing this section. My two volumes have been on sale at the Little Bighorn Battlefield Visitor Center for the past five years, and the curator tells me that they are very good sellers. I keep getting orders for more copies. They are also now available on Amazon.com. It would be refreshing to have a reviewer be familiar with the subject being reviewed so they don't have to evaluate contributions from a philosophical viewpoint.

So what I've done if you look at the "Show changes" tab on my most recent edit has been to preserve your contributions but to frame them in the context of what other editors have contributed before you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sensei48 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 20 June 2009‎

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inertia

I haven't read Smalley, so I'm not qualified to criticise your additions to the article on Inertia, but what you added could easily be misinterpreted. I was brought up with the concept of relativistic mass fifty years ago, but the modern approach seems to be to avoid this concept (in fact Einstein himself questioned its usefulness), and modern physicists prefer to use just invariant mass which remains identical to gravitational mass regardless of the speed of the observer (see Mass in special relativity). I've made some small alterations to the article, but I'm no happier with my alterations than with yours. Would you be prepared to take the discussion to the Science Reference Desk where there are some experts who could clarify our thinking? Dbfirs 09:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... (later) ... I've just discovered who you are. I don't think you can use your own publications as references. See Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Best wishes, Dbfirs 10:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you discovered "who I am." Then you also know that I've offered to show my paper to people who ask to see it. I'm new to the Wikipedia protocol, but not to physics. I didn't mean to use my paper as an absolute reference, but having no one else to guide me, I did refer to it. Now we can discuss it.

I would be pleased to meet you over at the reference desk (assuming I can find it).

Sorry, I should have linked to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Wikipedia requires papers to be published (or at least widely reported in the press) before they can be used as references. I'm not convinced by your argument that there is a difference between inertial mass and gravitational mass, even when observed from a moving reference frame. Energy and mass are equivalent in their gravitational effect too, are they not? Dbfirs 20:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Why do masses have inertia?

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 01:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Inertia has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I have been looking for Materialscientist for the last hour and I am really getting depressed. Where is he? How do I find him?

I'd love to talk to him, or at least leave a message for him. How do i do that?

Any hint would be appreciated BUT you must leave the hint where I can find it.

Zee99 (Vern).

You can use the links in Materialscientist's signature or the "my talk page" link he gave above to find his user page and user talk page. If you want to contact him, leaving a message on his user talk page (via the "New section" tab at the top of the talk page) will work, though there's no guarantee he'll answer within the hour. Huon (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Message for Materialscientist

I feel like I'm in an "N-dimensional space filled with mirrors. Navigating Wikpedia is infinitely challenging.

I need to talk with Materialscientist, and I am struggling with this unknown (to me) protocol.

I was told to leave a message on his talk page at the "New section" tab, but the only "New section" I've found is on this page. So here is where I'll leave my message.

Zee99 (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the picture to the right. Let me know if you have any questions – I'll be watching this talk page. Mz7 (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Zee99. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Mz7 (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Equivalence principle

Wikipedia stated that the gravitational mass is the same as inertial mass. I disagreed and added "at zero velocity," which was edited out.

If inertial mass increases with velocity (I know why it does, if anyone is interested) then in order for gravitational mass to equal inertial mass at all velocities, gravitational mass must increase with velocity.

If gravitational mass increases with velocity, there is no known explanation for the increase and there is no reason why or how the gravitational field is increased. I conclude that gravitational mass does not increase with velocity. It remains constant at all velocities.

BTW, although Mach and Sciama are given as references, neither one claimed gravitational mass increases with velocity. Only Einstein came up with the idea and he did so in a thought experiment.

Zee99 Zee99 (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Only Einstein came up with the idea"? Most of Einstein's work is accepted by (and is the foundation of) modern physics. Find a reliable source that says that Einstein was wrong about this, and then you can put it in the article. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Zee99. You have new messages at Mz7's talk page.
Message added 04:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Mz7 (talk) 04:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]