| Revision as of 06:42, 14 December 2009 editNeptunerover (talk | contribs)1,605 edits →Stars: curtain of night, how close?← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:45, 14 December 2009 edit undoNeptunerover (talk | contribs)1,605 edits →Stars: kitty wanna touch it--> added picNext edit → | ||
| Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
| Within the ], two stars that are observed to be separate in space can just as easily be considered to be separated in time. This way they can be seen as two stars occupying the same space, separated by time. This separation however does not indicate one being in the past while one is in the future, for they are both there at the same time; their times are just separate. The section of time each one inhabits is separate from that of the other, although still within the same overall time of our universe. The inference is that time is not the solid that it appears to our senses to be. Time not only has length, but also width, which our awareness generally does not perceive due to the time thread limitations of perception (see the live/dead ] thought up by ]). | Within the ], two stars that are observed to be separate in space can just as easily be considered to be separated in time. This way they can be seen as two stars occupying the same space, separated by time. This separation however does not indicate one being in the past while one is in the future, for they are both there at the same time; their times are just separate. The section of time each one inhabits is separate from that of the other, although still within the same overall time of our universe. The inference is that time is not the solid that it appears to our senses to be. Time not only has length, but also width, which our awareness generally does not perceive due to the time thread limitations of perception (see the live/dead ] thought up by ]). | ||
| ] | |||
| The ] is where one space ] collapses, transforming into another time dimension. ] does not slow to a stop at the speed of light, but rather it expands into a higher dimension of time not separated in space. Considering this, in retrospect it can be thought of as almost silly (although completely understandable as with geocentric thinking) for someone to describe light as taking years to get from point A to point B. | The ''']''' is where one space ] collapses, transforming into another time dimension. ] does not slow to a stop at the speed of light, but rather it expands into a higher dimension of time not separated in space. Considering this, in retrospect it can be thought of as almost silly (although completely understandable as with geocentric thinking) for someone to describe light as taking years to get from point A to point B. | ||
| The dimensions used in mapping the space-time continuum are interchangeable, i.e., three space dimensions and one time could just as easily be represented by two space & two time, or one space and three time. This explains "]" transmissions as being possible because they only have two space dimensions to contend with, or just one, depending upon how you look at it. | The dimensions used in mapping the space-time continuum are interchangeable, i.e., three space dimensions and one time could just as easily be represented by two space & two time, or one space and three time. This explains "]" transmissions as being possible because they only have two space dimensions to contend with, or just one, depending upon how you look at it. | ||
Revision as of 07:45, 14 December 2009
Welcome
Hello Neptunerover and welcome to Misplaced Pages! I am Ukexpat and I would like to thank you for your contributions.
 Getting Started
 Getting help
 The Commmunity
|
 Policies and Guidelines
 Things to do
| |
ukexpat (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
touch up
I like your reformulations in atlantic blue marlin. --Ettrig (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hey thanks. I know it's sick, but I sort of like working on puzzles like that. The article still has a problem in one spot, but I think I figured it out. --Neptunerover (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's not sick. You derive pleasure at the same time as improving humanity's knowledge base. Today I was very puzzled at first by finding a NEW user page on my watchlist. But of corse, the talk page could exist and be watched before the user's own presentation. --Ettrig (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Improving the readability thereof, perhaps, one tiny little bit at a time, but all of my original research, it's no good here. Neptunerover (talk) 07:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, I discovered I was basically already on the typo team, but I needed a user page to flash the badge. Neptunerover (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's not sick. You derive pleasure at the same time as improving humanity's knowledge base. Today I was very puzzled at first by finding a NEW user page on my watchlist. But of corse, the talk page could exist and be watched before the user's own presentation. --Ettrig (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Incorrect label of "vandalism"
It is never helpful to refer to "vandalism" in an edit summary. If it's really obvious (adding genuine nonsense and so on), just revert (or say "rvv" and mark your change as minor). Vandals know what they are doing and will regard a "vandalism" comment as a badge of honor (see WP:DENY). If it is not vandalism (like in this edit where you incorrectly accused an established editor of vandalism), the damage can be quite severe (a good editor may be lost). Per WP:CIVIL, we comment only on edits and do not inject opinions of other editors (like "identified as possible vandalism motivated by personal reasons" in your edit summary). Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would think an established editor should know better than to remove something from an article while summarizing their edit by saying basically "I'm sick of all this crap, and this has got to go."--Neptunerover (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- It is true that the user you reverted gave an unhelpful edit summary ("this entire article is a piece of garbage, but I cannot stand this idiotic picture and its caption any more - please, someone delete the whole mess"). However, that summary does not violate any rule (it's not uncivil, it's not a WP:BLP problem, etc), and the edit (removal of an image) does not meet the definition of vandalism used on Misplaced Pages (see WP:VAND). Reverting vandalism is very worthwhile, but it must be done carefully. Please read WP:VAND#How not to respond to vandalism. Finally, even if the edits were vandalism, WP:CIVIL requires us to not comment on the possible motivations of other editors. In your position, I would have just clicked "undo" and added "unexplained" to the edit summary (or perhaps, "revert to consensus state"). Johnuniq (talk) 09:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- I do agree, and I thank you for the helpful direction. Indeed my motivation was likely inappropriate as I was not actually trying to label someone a vandal, but rather send a wake-up call to a veteran editor who appeared to me, at the time, to be perpetrating destruction out of frustration, but it's not my place to send such a call. --Neptunerover (talk) 10:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- It is true that the user you reverted gave an unhelpful edit summary ("this entire article is a piece of garbage, but I cannot stand this idiotic picture and its caption any more - please, someone delete the whole mess"). However, that summary does not violate any rule (it's not uncivil, it's not a WP:BLP problem, etc), and the edit (removal of an image) does not meet the definition of vandalism used on Misplaced Pages (see WP:VAND). Reverting vandalism is very worthwhile, but it must be done carefully. Please read WP:VAND#How not to respond to vandalism. Finally, even if the edits were vandalism, WP:CIVIL requires us to not comment on the possible motivations of other editors. In your position, I would have just clicked "undo" and added "unexplained" to the edit summary (or perhaps, "revert to consensus state"). Johnuniq (talk) 09:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- I want to also point out that the user I reverted did start a discussion section where they elucidated further on their reasons for the edit prior to making it. The reason is stated as: "This entire article is pure crap, but the dog breed picture has to go." --Neptunerover (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
If it truly is never useful, as you said to me, then perhaps you could leave a similar message for the veteran editor who I incorrectly labeled as a vandal. One pertaining to the edit summary he was perfectly willing to leave for me, even though he shortly reverted it as an overreaction. Still, his edit summary does all the things that you just pointed out to me as being the wrong thing to do (and he's like an administrator of apparently high rank, so if anyone should be scolded...) --Neptunerover (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- User IP69 and I have pleasantly interacted several times and if I ever felt that some benefit may arise I would gladly provide my advice. However, there are certain difficulties. The major issue is that while the comments made by IP69 were strong, they were (initially) directed at the article and not at any editor. While we may hope that people would always be nice, there is no requirement for that, and Misplaced Pages culture generally appreciates plain speaking (in the example we are discussing, the speaking was too plain and unhelpful in my opinion, but it was not a CIVIL problem). After IP69's edit was reverted as vandalism, IP69 reacted somewhat strongly (I have read the deleted comments on this talk page), but there was no attack. IP69's edit summary on this talk page was strong (and the word "maliciously" is clearly incorrect and is a breach of CIVIL), but if you spend some time reading the drama sections of Misplaced Pages you will see that as a reaction it's mild (particularly since it was redacted).
- Thanks for discussing all this very calmly. The culture here is quite different from many corners of the Internet, and it takes a lot of time to get used to it (there is still lots of stuff I don't know about). Please don't be concerned about the tiny issue we have been discussing. The point I really wanted to make is that while we often see "vandalism" used in edit summaries, it really is not helpful. I have made a couple of blunders by accidentally reverting the wrong edit, and I'm very glad that I had learned from someone to not use that label. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Bible Proven!
Recent studies by scientists into the interchangeability of matter and energy have shown that the Bible at least begins accurately with the statement "Let there be light." Exactly who said there should be light after deciding the need for light and then enforced their will to begin the light, scientists are still unsure, although one scientist was paraphrased by another less-scientifically prone individual as saying that, "it's hard to imagine anyone way back then saying anything, since everything was so darn small." --Neptunerover (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Stars
Warning: Extremely difficult to fully comprehend concepts to follow--Neptunerover (talk) 12:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Within the space-time continuum, two stars that are observed to be separate in space can just as easily be considered to be separated in time. This way they can be seen as two stars occupying the same space, separated by time. This separation however does not indicate one being in the past while one is in the future, for they are both there at the same time; their times are just separate. The section of time each one inhabits is separate from that of the other, although still within the same overall time of our universe. The inference is that time is not the solid that it appears to our senses to be. Time not only has length, but also width, which our awareness generally does not perceive due to the time thread limitations of perception (see the live/dead cat dilemma thought up by Erwin Schrödinger).
The speed of light is where one space dimension collapses, transforming into another time dimension. Time does not slow to a stop at the speed of light, but rather it expands into a higher dimension of time not separated in space. Considering this, in retrospect it can be thought of as almost silly (although completely understandable as with geocentric thinking) for someone to describe light as taking years to get from point A to point B.
The dimensions used in mapping the space-time continuum are interchangeable, i.e., three space dimensions and one time could just as easily be represented by two space & two time, or one space and three time. This explains "FTL" transmissions as being possible because they only have two space dimensions to contend with, or just one, depending upon how you look at it.
In order to visualize this, consider the dimensions we have to work with and their geometrically representative relation to one another. A point has no dimension. A single dimension is a line, two a sheet, three a ball. If we have three space dimensions and one time, we have a ball next to a line. The line of the single time dimension has an addition however, which is usually represented as an arrow. In science however, this arrow is not usually referred to as another dimension of time, but rather just something in the nature of time. Next consider what would happen if we adjusted the dimension ratio between our ball and line. If we reduce the ball by one dimension while increasing the line by one, what do we get? Two sheets. And two sheets fit together perfectly, since, geometrically speaking, they are basically one.
- "Hey but wait; what about the Arrow?"
- Well, what do you think? Gravity.
The arrow of time is what begins our first dimension, making a line out of the dimensionless starting point. The arrow of time points in one direction, while the arrow of gravity points in the opposite. Why these arrows exist in the manner that they do is not arbitrary, but rather both are the result of the first dimensional shift, for consider the implications of a point becoming a line: First off,...
So the progression of time is the progress of a point becoming a line, and the force of gravity is the response of the void, which encased the point and encases the line now as it develops, resisting that progression.
When adding together two dimensions with two dimensions, we get two dimensions, but what would this look like? The very short version is this: A cone. Just why I say this however will be expanded upon at another point. (so stay tuned)
The curtain of night was seen by the ancients in two dimensions, with their distance away being related to the distance of the horizon during the day. It was with the discovery of lensing devises that people realized another way of looking at them. Although from a relative standpoint this discovery did nothing affecting the validity of the previous view, it has been considered by many to be an improvement in understanding, based on the perception of it being a discovery of the reality behind a facade. In real reality though, what it did is exchange one narrow way of looking at something for the opposite.
This idea of there being a graviton, much less the need for one, is so ludicrous that I cannot even comment on it. (see above)
Albert need not have worried, actually, since the universe in fact throws all the dice, not just one pair, and so the house always wins.
Section notes:
- Please keep in mind that this is a user talk page, and while it is found on the encyclopedia, it is not part of the encyclopedia and not to be used as a reference from the encyclopedia. These are just comments made by an anonymous user of the encyclopedia who noticed how certain topics seemed related and is attempting to express the way.