User talk:Terra Novus/Archives/2010/November


 * Sounds fair..I am going to decrease my editing for now until I can consistently edit constructively..-- Novus Orator 05:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Activity
I am going to try editing holistically, with my contributions spread out so I don't fall back into contentiously being a single topic editor..-- Novus Orator 06:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have changed my mind and I am going to edit Heim theory while still being careful to not edit contentiously...-- Novus Orator 14:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Revisionism
Terra Novus, I noticed your comments to the anonymous who is discussing the faster than light issue. I'd be interested to hear your views on a matter regarding modern revisionism in physics. Let's begin with Einstein's special theory of relativity. That theory is currently accepted in mainstream physics, and so it is natural that it will have to be recorded in wikipedia. When somebody doesn't believe in that theory, the best plan is for them leave relativity articles alone. However, the matter seems to be more complicated than that. There are alot of areas in classical physics which do not impinge directly on the theory of relativity, but which nevertheless seem to have been re-written in recent years in a language designed to make them more 'relativity friendly'. By that I mean that there has been a shift in emphasis from a physical approach to a more mathematical approach in which everything is just about 'how you look at it'. There seems to be an ideological clash emerging between 'absolutism' and 'relativism' even beyond the topic of physics. Since wikipedia operates on the basis of consensus, and since most of the physics editors here are relativists, then most of the articles tend to be written, based on (very) modern sources which promote the relativistic mindset. The problem arises when that group mindset then actively begins to screen out perfectly legitimate aspects of classical physics which don't sit quite right with the relativistic mindset. These aspects are usually sourced, yet at the same time, the sources are becoming harder and harder to find. I checked the science library last year and discovered that most physics textbooks on the shelves are less than ten years old. I could draw attention to specific issues where blatant alterations have been made as between older editions and newer editions of the same textbook within the last 30 years. And one example relates to a matter which I am discussing right now. That is the fact that centrifugal force is used in planetary orbital analysis without the need to use a rotating frame of reference. There are sources to show this, yet they are becoming few and far between. And because the modern belief seems to be that centrifugal force is merely a fictitious force as observed from a rotating frame of reference, the polar coordinate concept of centrifugal force is strenuously resisted, sources or no sources. The fictitious approach using rotating frames of reference sits much more comfortably with relativity because it implies that all these inertial forces are merely an artifact of how we view it. But the reality is that centrifugal force really does push outwards when something is in a state of absolute rotation. The rotating frames of reference approach tends to play this 'actual outward push' down somewhat. David Tombe (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, interesting point. I think that relativity is an incomplete theory (e.g. there is more to discover beyond it) and since it is currently accepted as the norm, there is a bias against both the old (classical physics) and the new (Heim theory, Kaluza–Klein theory etc.) in current articles. I would be interested in helping you develop a work group/WikiProject that covers emerging physics theories..-- Novus Orator  05:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Terra Novus, It might be better to simply monitor the existing physics noticeboards and enquiry desks to observe what kinds of questions people are asking. It's better to keep all the physics activity concentrated in the main venues. A project such as you have suggested could be easily missed or sidelined. David Tombe (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

YEC project
I would be very willing to join this project, if it can be confirmed that editors will be held to standard Wiki policies such as WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:WEIGHT. The last project in which I was involved did not enforce these policies, and ended up being a waste of time as a result.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll join.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Unscientific, not unthinkable
There's a difference. And the next time you decide to push a creationist viewpoint, I'd appreciate it if you just came out and said so, rather than lead me down the path like that. I don't like being played for a mug.  Serendi pod ous  13:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Spaceflight portals
Hello! As an member editor of one or more of the Spaceflight, Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight or Space colonisation WikiProjects, I'd like to draw to your attention a proposal I have made with regards to the future of the spaceflight-related portals, which can be found at Portal talk:Spaceflight. I'd very much appreciate any suggestions or feedback you'd be able to offer! Many thanks,

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 08:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to particpate in the December 2010 Wikification Drive
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 19:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC).