|
User talk:Synchronist
Welcome!Hello, Synchronist, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for BLAST (protocol). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place Talkback Message added 10:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Art & AIProbably the most pleasant request for a WP:PLUG waiver that I've ever read. Leondz (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Happy New Year Synchronist!  Synchronist, Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.
Happy New Year to you also, Dragan -- and let us resolve to continue our collaboration. Synchronist (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC) And thanks also for the portal links! Synchronist (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Another Attempt to Visualize Special RelativityDear Synchronist, I see the paper "Yet Another Attempt to Visualize Special Relativity" is getting ready. This article will maybe contribute. It is in accord with Lorentz’s theory. Please, look at : http://www.special-relativity-simulation.com/. The Poincaré-Einstein convention is also employed in this model, making the one-way speed of light isotropic in all frames of reference. As soon as the moving barge “thinks” the speed of the “information boat” to the barge “at rest” and back is equal and synchronizes clock using Einstein Technique, relativistic symmetry appears – until the last detail. Twin Paradox, Bell relativistic paradox – everything .
During the simulation of the twin paradox, two cases of relative motion are considered: - One of two barge groups at rest relative to the water, breaking the inertia, floats away from the other one, makes a U-turn, and comes back again; - Two barge groups float on the water beside one another. One group, breaking the inertia, stops,then catches up to the one in motion. Elementary calculations demonstrate that in both instances time passes more slowly on the noninertial barge than on the inertial one. Simplified paper is at http://www.theoryrelativity.com/EN/all-articles/11-simulation-of-time-dilation-and-other-relativistic-effects-based-on-the-example-of-floating-ships.htm --Olgmtv (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
KIC 8462852Something else relevant to our discussion at that page. You should be aware that using Wikipedia for self-promotion, which includes ones own theories, is something that is very much frowned upon. Geogene (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
May 2017 Your recent editing history at KIC 8462852 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. VQuakr (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC) Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
VQuakr and I submitted reports almost simultaneously. VQuakr just removed their report. The active report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Synchronist reported by User:Alsee (Result: ). Alsee (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC) Alsee, given that you have provided a link to your talk page, I am assuming that you would be willing to spend some -- but obviously not an unlimited -- amount of time conversing with me about what's going on here; and if so, would you prefer to talk here or on your talk page?Synchronist (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC) Edit warring at KIC 8462852 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC) CollaborationHi. I see you've done good work on various articles, and you clearly have valuable knowledge in various areas. The purpose of the block was not to punish or drive you away, it's to halt an immediate editing-problem and to ensure everyone can work together collaboratively in the future. As you've mentioned in your comments, one of the things that helps articles get built is when people have a passion for a subject. While that can be a valuable force for creation, it can also turn into a problem when someone's personal passion, values, or goals, are put ahead of collaboration and the policies of Wikipedia. Edit-warring back and forth on the article page is corrosive to the project as a whole. We can't allow the most passionate and uncooperative people to try to "win" by reverting 101 times... driving everyone else to quit Wikipedia completely in frustration after 100 futile reverts. It is also undesirable for articles to randomly flip back-and-forth on readers, and we don't want the article edit-history spammed with useless reverts back and forth. See WP:BRD: Bold, Revert, Discuss. Don't make an article-edit when you already know someone objects, when it's likely to be reverted. Disagreements belong on the Talk page. If there is difficulty reaching agreement, then other editors can weigh in. We have various options that can help with WP:Dispute resolution. Ultimately we expect Wikipedia Policies and community WP:Consensus to prevail. Is community consensus always right? Nope. It's like democracy, it's the best we've got and it mostly gets things right. Editing against consensus is disruptive. If you disagree with consensus, accept it so we can all just get back to other productive work. There are countless disputes on Wikipedia every day. We can only function when people respect the collaborative, policy-based, consensus-based process. I don't want to get into the content of your edits here, that belongs on the article_talk. But to discuss it from a general community process view: I know you were trying to improve the article. However it was a problem when you simply went back the article page and added the content a fifth time. You knew everyone else objected, and you got multiple warnings not to do so. When the block expires you can seek more discussion on the article talk page. If you convince people, ok. If you don't convince people, it should not drag on into clearly-unproductive endless disruption. If you really believe the current WP:Local consensus doesn't reflect true community consensus, you can open an WP:RFC. That will call in random uninvolved editors to look over the situation and reach a broader community-consensus. Whichever way the RFC turns out, that's the end of that. However I advise that you just let this go. The content is not going to go in the article unless and until a significant number of Reliable Sources publishing about it as a significant matter. That's general Wikipedia policy for this kind of thing. You'll just get squashed if you try to fight community consensus policies. Trying to start an RFC after a block is even more doomed to fail, the first thing people will see is a blocked-editor continuing a battle. You'll be welcomed back if you just move on to other helpful edits. You'll particularly win back respect if you post something at article_talk showing you now understand and accept why the edit isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. P.S. People will be notified of your message if you post on their talk page, and they will usually catch the message if they have the page watchlisted. However when you reply to people on your own talk page, or if you want to specifically want someone to get a message at article_talk or elsewhere, you need trigger a mention notification. A mention notification is triggered when you link to their userpage (or their talk page), in a signed edit. Something like: Hello [[user:Alsee|]] this is a message to you. ~~~~
{{ping|Alsee}}, This is a message to you. ~~~~
I find it easiest to copy-paste the user link from their comment. Alsee (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC) Re occlusion theoriesPer WP:TALK#USE and your question here, the article talk pages are for discussion of improvements to the article. An astronomy forum (I like Cosmoquest) would be a great place to discuss hypotheses. If you wish to discuss this on Wikipedia, your user talk page would be a more appropriate location than article talk space. VQuakr (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Still somewhat in shock from having been blocked from editing on Wikipedia for forty-eight hours, I feel like a puppy learning where and where not it may do its business (and yes, fellow Wikipedians, that's how humiliated I feel about the entire affair!); and so VQuakr himself having created the above heading, and having apparently invited me to share my speculations here, I happily and completely relieve myself as follows: The renewed dimming of Tabby's Star having been widely announced in the press on May 20th, I was suddenly and irresistably seized with an intuition as to its import -- perhaps not an unexpected experience for someone who has spent much of his professional life dealing with space-based communications; I waited, however, until the negative Liverpool Telescope spectroscopic findings confirmed the possibility of a purpose-made occluding body; and at that point I shared my intuition via email with someone whom I consider myself quite fortunate to have as a correspondent, namely, Roger Malina -- a former UC Berkeley astrophysicist, principal investigator for the NASA Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer mission, and current Exeutive Edtor of the MIT Press journal Leonardo; and the key portion of my 20 May 2017 email to Roger regarding the possibility of a purpose-made occluding body is as follows:
It was my mere hope at that point to have registered my intuition with someone who could appreciate its import; however, Roger replied the next day in a most unexpected manner:
The email list to which he refers is maintained by OLATS, the European arm of Leonardo/ISAST, and which goes out to the not-inconsiderable "space arts" community, i.e., those who are interested in outer space as a venue for the arts. (And how else, except as theater, are we to regard the original Sputnik, which could do little more than broadcast its presence from orbit?) "Well", I thought to myself, "if Roger has thought this worth sharing with the OLATS space arts community -- and has in a sense published it via their mailing list -- then perhaps I would be justified in posting it to the Wikipedia article on Tabby's Star." And so, my fellow Wikipedians, I've put myself well out on a limb -- and so it will be very interesting to learn of the Keck spectroscopic results!!!! Synchronist (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Total number of stars like KIC 8462852Hi, the article talk page is not the right place for that. Kepler observed about 150,000 stars out of ~100-400 billion in our galaxy, or roughly 1 in a million. Stars like KIC 8462852 cannot be much more frequent than 1 in 150,000, otherwise Kepler would have seen more. That sets an upper limit of about 1 star per 50,000, or 2 to 8 million in the galaxy. The lower limit is 1 star, and with a single example we cannot improve on that limit. --mfb (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Reply re interest in the BLAST protocolMy interest was based on recalling using Kermit and, on a limited basis, BLAST. To answer what may be an implied question, I'd think you'd get more out of being in touch with Frank DeCruz. Pi314m (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
|
