User talk:Bschaeffer~enwiki

Binding energy of the nuclei
I see nothing about the binding energy of the nuclei. Does it mean that the shell model is unable to calculate it? The Weizsaecker formula is empirical, its constants are obtained from the experimental binding energies, not from fundamental physical constants. It seems thus that there exists no other model able to predict the binding energy of the nuclei from first principles and universal constants except mine, as shown in my Glasgow presentation(http://storage.canalblog.com/59/81/292736/64343067.pdf) and in my paper http://www.springerlink.com/content/h673n477n243vu46/. Bernard Schaeffer (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Original research, own work
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Mass–energy equivalence, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You were quoting your own work. Please provide reliable wp:secondary sources. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with primary sources? If reliable, certainly they are not OR.--82.137.10.85 (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Anon, 82.137.10.85, if you are user Bschaeffer, then please note that editing in logged off mode is not allowed.
 * Secondary sources establish wp:notability. If the content is notable, then secondary sources should be easy to find. In none can be found, then adding the content would likely put wp:undue weight on it. - DVdm (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not Bschaeffer. The concept of notability applies (only) to persons and organizations, the rest is by default. There is no express need to find a secondary source, primary ones are citable.--82.137.11.15 (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That is correct: the concept of wp:notability applies to persons and organizations. I should have said: secondary sources establish whether the addition is wp:DUE. My apologies. - DVdm (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Electromagnetism
Hi, I reverted you edits at electromagnetism for two reasons. Firstly, they criticised the standard model with undue weight (see WP:UNDUE) and secondly they were very badly written. I see that you have run into difficulties with such issues before, so if you truly feel that you are able to contribute to an encyclopedia built on consensus, do feel free to opena discussion on the article talk page at Talk:Electromagnetism. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The standard model is unable to provide the binding energy of even a simple nucleus such as heavy hydogen 2H or alpha particle 4He. It is science fiction. The strong force exists only in the mind of the nuclear physicists. It is only a theoretical model that will disappear as the "plum pudding" thanks to Rutherford, whose theory is electrostatic, not a mysterious "strong force".

Etiene Bieler
Hello, Bschaeffer! I've noticed you have mentioned Etienne Bieler in your 2011 article in the Journal of Fusion Energy in connection to the identification of nuclear force and its dependence on fourth power of the distance. I see that his wikiarticle says his contribution has started the development of the retrospectively so-called strong interaction.--5.15.185.120 (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

How do you see in this context this article which presents the possibility of gravitation acting on nuclear level instead of the strong interaction which is a soap bubble concept? Bieler's contribution can be viewed in connection to extension of the law of gravitation with additional terms, extension started by Newton himself.--5.15.185.120 (talk) 12:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Atomic model
Also, in the context of the previous section, how do you view the validity of this atomic model?--5.15.185.120 (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Bschaeffer. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Bschaeffer~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 22:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)