Talk:Gravitation Demystified

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Self-promotional. Delete, delete, delete (control alt). ThunderkatzHo! 17:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

PurgeТyTalk. 17:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I probably would have worded the delete-tag more strongly if I had looked at the user's edit-history first. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 17:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Where is the reason behind the delete?[edit]

Where is the reason behind the "delete"? What is here selfpromotional while I'm promoting Einsteins and he's not me? Where do I put questions to guys who deleted my stuff (I'm relatively new here (so excuse me if I behave as an elephant in china store). JimJast (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason it was deleted it simple: it wasn't an article. You can post links to your, ahem erm, material, on your userpage or a subpage thereof, or maybe on a relevant talkpage. You cannot however just create an 'article' in mainspace and plonk them there. I hope this explains it. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 16:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Del, It does only partly. Evidently I need to understand what makes an "RW article". I'd be happy had you taken your time and explained me shortly (possibly with regular English) what I did wrong linking the explanation of gravitation to this "article", titled "Gravitation demystified".
Gravitation turned out to be completely different than most astrophysicists believed and I showed how Einstein's relativity predicted various astrophysical phenomena almost a century ago and observed only recently (like e.g. "accelerating expansion of space" for which a mythical "dark energy" was blamed but what happened to be an illusion coming from the second term of Taylor series to which Hubble function has been split). I thought it is going to be interesting to everybody (of course except those who believe in creation of mater from nothing through divine intervention). I believe that most interesting stories are ones in which old prejudices die. I hope that the story will be allowed to be published in RW and we do it with your help, since my English is not that great. JimJast (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Once again Jim, two links does not an article make, regardless of the subject matter. It really is that simple. I'm sure many people will take issue with your bizarre claims, but the reason the page was deleted was because it wasn't a fucking article it was two fucking links to your own shit. Pardon my French. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 10:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Del, Luckily I understand your French much better than your English so now I understand what I did wrong and thanks for explaining it clearly this time (without slang). Your French (preferable to slang) is pardoned even if you argue that it was French too.
I'll try to write a separate article (the third one by my count, also my "own shit", and full of "bizarre claims", but luckily everything true, along the rules of Einstein's physics, (though it might be against the rules of Opus Dei), and possibly much shorter. However, depending on questions that I have to deal with later, it might not save much RW server space, which I tried to save before). JimJast (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
We have plenty of server space my son, so knock yourself out. Please make it as a user subpage, such as User:JimJast/My daft pseudoscientific quasi-religious bizarre philosophical hypothesis about gravity, or possibly in essay space (Essay:JimJast's gravity theory). Please do not create another mainspace article that explicitly states your claims as fact. Rock on bro! DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 14:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
If "we have plenty of server space" why don't you saparate your messages with 1 empty line which is only 2 chars max? It should be easier to find them.
I suspect that your advice to "knock myself out" maybe soemthing either in French or in slang or in both since I didn't get it despite working in the States for some time (as electrician, BTW :). So please be so kind and tell me what you mean by this phrase.
To create (Essay:JimJast's gravity theory) seems to be a good idea. However I don't state something as a fact if I don't verify it. I hate to deceive people nor I see any point in it. It seems silly. Unless I deceive myself, but I've been checking gravitation over 25 years and cross check it. Gravitation is not in high esteem in physics. That's probably why it happened to gravitation what we see. Feynman's rant supports my claim. So it all means that you don't know me yet but I hope you'll know me soon and learn to appreciate when I state somthing as a fact. There are many ways of verifying something as facts even when the facts look crazy. I might follow it after I find the way for my messages to stay on RW for longer than 5 sec though. JimJast (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
He's pulled shit like this at WP too: [1]. DFTT? ThunderkatzHo! 23:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but WP didn't have an option of writing the truth without being reverted if this truth was not said before and documented. RW is a big progress and I hope it's real. So far it looks good. It looks like many more smart folks here than in WP where one had an impression of being ovewhelmed by idiots (once I was outvoted 9:1 by guys in favor of gravitational attraction against curvatures of spacetime, 2 physicists between those 9, that's why I stopped showing up there for so many years: folks over there neither knew what holds them next to the Earth nor wanted to learn from Einstein - Newton was good enough for them.
I wouldn't like to be misunderstood: Newton was probably the best guy we ever had. If not for him, Einstein couldn't figure out how and why gravitation works. But since he did almost a century ago, we should learn it too and not, say after most physicists: "we don't know why things fall; Einstein made it too difficult to understand". "Learn AHs! (pardon my French), Newton would be happy meeting Einstein who could tell him what he missed about physics of gravitation". Since the math of gravitation Newton discovered himself - but, as Feynman says, the math is not yet physics. BTW, the head of Gravitation and Cosmology dept. in my school maintains that physics students are too dumb to understand gravitation when I argue with him that gravitation is not taught as it should to be understood by granies (as Einstein wanted). JimJast (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

As the article no longer exists I'm not quite sure what the debate is - though from the conversation here it looks like it was just a couple of links.

You should be aware that where controversial ideas are concerned we go with the scientific consensus and consider that the burden of proof lies with those would challenge that consensus. Edits or articles which run counter to that consensus would be unlikely to stand. Nevertheless, as has been pointed out, we also have the essay space. One of the reasons essay space exists is to give people the opportunity to present ideas to the community which would not find a home in mainspace and you are quite welcome to write an personal essay. How much interest such an essay might arouse would depend on a number of factors including how readable and convincing it is.--BobSpring is sprung! 16:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)--BobSpring is sprung! 16:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bob, we don't have any debate yet. I'm a new kid on the block and so DeltaStar is helping me out since for the time being other guys keep deleting my stuff for reasons not clear to me. Atually, now the reasons are clearer and I learned that I may write an essay on the interesting me subject. The subject is "Einsteinian gravitation" which in my opinion is completely different than what contemporary astrophysicists understand as "gravitation". The same thing happend in WP and I got deleted from there a few years ago for not agreeing on creationism sneaked into science through cosmology (the process started by John Archibald Wheeler, through publishing in 1973 his 1279 page book ""Gravitation", in which Einstein's paper published in 1950 in "Scientific American" was not even mentioned (possibly) since it was opposing Wheeler on a few issues). I see the issue is similar here though apparently you allow here speaking truth if it can be supported by rational arguments. Which is not allowed in WP (which is a pity).
So I'd like to write an essay titled "Gravitation Demystified" but I don't even know how to start: where to go, what to klick and where to palace the title and the rest so it won't be removed again. JimJast (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Just click Essay:Gravitation demystified and type away. Once you save it, the page/essay will be properly created with that title. As long as it's in essay space, you can do almost anything you want with it. If you'd like to know what an article should look like and why your first attempt wasn't sufficient, see RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article?. And please keep in mind that propagation of pseudoscience is exactly the opposite of what's supposed to be done here, so don't be too surprised if people will criticize your ideas. Röstigraben (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. Furthermore if you want people to engage with your essay I might make some suggestions on style. My suggestions are based on some other essays which have appeared over the years.
Write in terms a lay reader would understand; avoid a patronising or aggressive attitude and do not assume your audience is your enemy; make your points clearly and unambiguously.BobSpring is sprung! 18:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)