User talk:Veulm

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Veulm!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Hi. I'm sorry but I've put a merge template on your Perpetual motion article as, well, we already have a Perpetual motion article. Sorry about that. :-( --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 17:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: perpetual motion. See the Talk page before reinstating your edit. Scream!! (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
re: Perpetual Motion As Its Own Science. I've marked it for deletion. see here Scream!! (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
DON'T ALTER OLD COMMENTS. Make new ones. Scream!! (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
The article is on perpetual motion machines, right? I mean, that's not part of the scientific consensus by itself. So you have to consider theories which relate to the topic, right? But then, what is everyone else talking about? Not perpetual motion, presumably. Maybe physics knowledge in a generic, un-applied sense. Veulm (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Which talk page should I use?Veulm (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I want a page on perpetual motion principles which are proven to work in real-life experiments. Not fringe science, but ordinary more-than-theoretical things which have existed for ages. For example, I could write something about how equilibrium using equal counterweights could be used for perpetual motion in varying applications with varying lengths of levers on either side of the fulcrum, but any prospective device must overcome a proportionality problem before it could ever work. A scientist could look at this and say, well, it doesn't work, because there is no way to overcome the proportionality problem. But someone else could think: well, what the hey, one in a billion, but there might be a way to overcome proportionality.Veulm (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Signing[edit]

You don't have to put four tildes in edit summaries - signing is necessary only on talk pages. Summaries are displayed together with the user name of the author of that edit in page histories.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You also shouldn't sign in articles, as you did here - again, signing is only for discussion ("talk") pages. BTW, I'm going to move that text to Talk:Perpetual motion, since I'm not sure if it belongs in the article.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Understood, although it seems to me it should have some usefulness, perhaps in a different article topic, like I planned originally.50.163.19.46 (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
To make things absolutely clear - if it's not part of the current accepted scientific consensus then it's not for us.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 21:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
there are cases where ideas can be put in articles as long as they are referenced and discussed. Matt Brown and his hydroplate theory I think we have an article on. Discuss what you want on the talk page Hamster (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)