User talk:DVdm

— Welcome to my talk page — Please leave new comments at the bottom and sign them with tildes (~~~~) at the end. I'll respond here. If I have left a message on your talk page, please respond there. I'll try to keep an eye on it. If you think I forgot to check don't hesitate to remind me here. "They never be working' when they oughta should." "Watch out where the Huskies go, and don't you eat that yellow snow." "Remember there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over." "Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny." "Everybody in this room is wearing a uniform, and don't kid yourself." vn-at least 355This user talk page has been vandalized at least 355 times. — Canard du jour — Higher beings from outer space may not want to tell us the secrets of life, because we're not ready. But maybe they'll change their tune after a little torture. — Jack Handey This user has been on Wikipedia for 19 years, 6 months and 3 days. This user has earned the 100,000 Edits Award.

Question regarding Draft Physics

In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Draft_Physics, is @Draft Physics's accusation that other Wikipedia editors (who are defending Newtonian mechanics and standard kinematics) are promoting their own personal theories well-founded? If not, is it not a form of libel? I'd like to know an answer and your thoughts on this matter. Thanks. Selbram (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Selbram: See my reply on your talk page. There's no need to do this in two places. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Division by zero

Hi DVdm, I took your advice to move the discussion of the "Calculus" paragraph to the talk page. Thank you, Ebony Jackson (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ebony Jackson: - DVdm (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

What is a 'reliable source' ?

What makes a source reliable, and another source unreliable, and given that I disproved your so called reliable sources which claim GR was experimentally verified, and shown all those experiments were completelly fucked up by idiots who have no clue about basic refraction physics, doesnt that show that they are completely unreliable ? Marvas85 (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

See wp:reliable sources.

You probably need to stick to your blog for this. WIkipedia is not a publisher of original research. And please mind your language. Edit summaries such as "FUCK YOU and your stupid bots/moderators that delete the proof that GR is WRONG" are utterly unacceptable here. - DVdm (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

So no criticism of any theory is accepted by wikipedia, despite using widely known science and formulas ? I did not invent v=c/n, nor f=v/lambda. I just applied them to the Pound and Rebka experiment, and got a blueshift/redshift from this formulas. Marvas85 (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Even on the wikipedia article on refraction it says that refraction changes the wavelength. So in Pound-Rebka experiment if they use helium and air guess what happens ? They change the wavelength from refraction. And also by the Compton scattering which redshifts the gammaray. And no, I did not invent Compton effect either. Look it up, its on your wikipedia page too. Marvas85 (talk) 09:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Marvas85: Assuming you are referring to this revert, resulting in this warning by user Johnjbarton, no, criticism of any theory by any editor is not accepted by Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not criticise. Wikipedia reports what is found in the literature, and which is sufficiently notable to be quoted by sufficiently many others. That is what encyclopedias are designed for. If some criticism of some theory is widely published in the established literature, then Wikipedia can mention that as a fact, not as criticism by a contributor. - DVdm (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

An edit I wish to make

@DVdm

This is a paragraph I wish to make to add to the Daboia Paelestinae page:

"The LD50 of this viper's venom is 0.34mg/kg. The mortality rate of people who were bitten is 0.5% to 2%. The venom includes at least four families of pharmacologically active compounds: (i) neurotoxins; (ii) hemorrhagins; (iii) angioneurin growth factors; and (iv) different types of integrin inhibitors."

I'm informing you ahead of time to make sure you don't jump the gun and try to block me without warning based on a mistaken assumption that this is original research. The issues that might confuse you are (a) that the LD50 is not mentioned in abstract of the first paper. However it appears in the body of the article in a graph. (b) The name of the snake used in the second article is not Daboia but one of the other scientific names of this snake (which appears in the synonyms tab of the Daboia Paelestinae page). While you might think that concluding that the paper talks about the same snake as the wikipedia entry is synthesis and therefore original research, in fact it isn't.

Please respond if you agree or not.

References

Vegan416 (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Read wp:SYNTHESIS and draw your own conclusion. - DVdm (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@DVdm

1. I read the relevant policy pages many times. I know well that NONE of what I did here is original research according to the policy pages. As regarding this particular case let me quote the following from "These are not original research" page: "Identifying synonymous terms, and collecting related information under a common heading is also part of writing an encyclopedia. Reliable sources do not always use consistent terminology, and it is sometimes necessary to determine when two sources are calling the same thing by different names. This does not require a third source to state this explicitly, as long as the conclusion is obvious from the context of the sources."
2. But I still feel I need to get your approval because the combined effect of the following facts: a. You seem to have an extreme interpretation of what is original research, much more strict than the policy pages. b. You have threatened to block me without warning if I'll make again what YOU think is original research. c. The incident of the Brooklyn papyrus show that you are not beyond jumping the gun.
3. Of course I don't know if you really have the power to block me without warning. I see that you have been editor for many years and have made an impressive number of edits, but I don't know if you have any administrative powers in wikipedia. Still, because it is better to be safe than sorry I'm afraid I'll have to continue to check edits with you beforehand, at least until you walkback on your threat.

Vegan416 (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman

My removal of content was repeatedly explained, and therefore I consider your revert with the assertion that it was not to be in bad faith. 2601:642:4600:D3B0:56C:3F16:53EF:5265 (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

After the first time that your edit was reverted ([1]), you should have gone to the talk page — see wp:BRD, wp:CONSENSUS and wp:NOCONSENSUS. Re-reverting it amounts to edit warring. It's good that you went there after the second revert ([2]). There you should find the explanation why the content belongs ([3]). - DVdm (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Spacetime and squared interval

About your message at User talk:2A01:CB10:85B:9D00:487D:6A2A:2128:BC24#April 2024.

On Spacetime, I read this after the paragraph where I made change:

The squared interval $\Delta s^{2}$ is a measure of separation between events A and B that are time separated and in addition space separated either because there are two separate objects undergoing events, or because a single object in space is moving inertially between its events.

So, why is $\Delta s^{2}$ not the squared spacetime interval?

On the French Wikipedia (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intervalle_d%27espace-temps), we read:

Le carré de l’intervalle d'espace-temps (translation: squared spacetime interval)

Moreover, on https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intervalle_d%27espace-temps#Expression_en_relativit%C3%A9_restreinte, we read:

Dans la géométrie de l'espace-temps de la fr:relativité restreinte, on écrit le « carré de l'intervalle d'espace-temps », noté $\Delta s^{2}$, entre deux événements A et B de coordonnées ($t_{\text{A}},x_{\text{A}},y_{\text{A}},z_{\text{A}}$) et ($t_{\text{B}},x_{\text{B}},y_{\text{B}},z_{\text{B}}$) dans un espace-temps à quatre dimensions (une de temps, soit t, et trois d'espace) sous la forme

$(\Delta s)^{2}=\,c^{2}(t_{\text{B}}-t_{\text{A}})^{2}-(x_{\text{B}}-x_{\text{A}})^{2}-(y_{\text{B}}-y_{\text{A}})^{2}-(z_{\text{B}}-z_{\text{A}})^{2}$

(Translation:) In spacetime geometry of special relativity, we write the squared spacetime interval, noted $\Delta s^{2}$...

You say: Note: check the cited source, where the interval is defined as a square.

Where is the cited source? If it's the ref 32 D'Inverno, Ray (1992). Introducing Einstein's Relativity. New York: Oxford University Press., I don't have access to it.

Moreover: still on Spacetime, we read:

In a different inertial frame, say with coordinates $(t',x',y',z')$, the spacetime interval $ds'$ can be written in a same form as above.

So the spacetime interval is $ds$ or $ds^{2}$?

I can understand different convention on different article on Wikipedia on different language. But not different convention on the SAME article.

In short:

• what is the name of $s$?
• what is the name of $ds$?
• what is the name of $ds^{2}$?

On French Wikipedia (fr:Intervalle_d'espace-temps#Métrique), $ds^{2}$ is named: le carré de l'intervalle infinitésimal d'espace-temps (translation: the square of the infinitesimal spacetime interval).

Thanks for your help. 2A01:CB10:85B:9D00:8561:9255:3884:112C (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to my talk page. See

References

"In this picture, the square of the interval between any two events $(t1,x1,y1,z1)$ and $(t2,x2,y2,z2)$ is defined by $s^{2}=(t1-t2)^{2}-(x1-x2)^{2}-(y1-y2)^{2}-(z1-z2)^{2}$ and it is this quantity which is invariant under a Lorentz transformation.Note that, formally, we always denote the ‘square’ of the interval by $s^{2}$, but the quantity $s$ is only defined if the right-hand side of (2.12) is nonnegative."

So, indeed the phrase "the square of the interval ... is defined by $s^{2}$ = ..." can be paraphrased to "the squared spacetime interval is defined as $(\Delta {s})^{2}$ ..."

I have undone my edit and put the citation with the link in place in the article ([4]) and struck my comment on your user talk page ([5]). You were correct. My apologies. - DVdm (talk) 10:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of disruptive editing by User:A.Viki Wiki7 at ANI

Good day, I have started a discussion at ANI on disruptive editing by a user you have interacted with, A.Viki Wiki7. If you'd like to take part, the discussion can be found here. Thanks! nf utvol (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Experiencing Wigner Rotation

Hello. I see you have participated in talk regarding the Wikipedia page on Wigner Rotation, (which looks to be well done, BTW.) I have been working for a few years on a simulation environment, and in it, you can easily undergo four equal-sized acceleration bursts in each of four orthogonal directions. The resulting rotation is clearly seen. Please visit http://RelativityLand.org, I have just made it publicly available. I am trying to publicize this work to physics educators, anything you can do to “spread the word” would be appreciated. Thanks. Randallbsmith (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Randallbsmith: You might have the wrong person in mind, as I have made no edits to Wigner rotation or Talk:Wigner rotation. Also note that Wikipedia is really not the place to “spread the word” about new developments . Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Vedic heliocentrism

some one had readded the statement about heliocentrism in Vedic scriptures in heliocentrism article the subsection of ancient India talks about is

Vedic era philosopher Yajnavalkya (c. 900–700 Century BCE) proposed elements of heliocentrism stating that the Sun was "the center of the spheres

can you see whether this reference provide is reliable and secondly the reference is based on the work Discovery that changed the world by a person named Rodney castleden who isn't even a historian nor a physicist nor his work isn't even an scientific journal Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Myuoh kaka roi: best to bring this up at the article talk page Talk:Heliocentrism. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks I had already added it in the talk page so that changes will occur and secondly I think most of the information of Vedic heliocentrism comes from this article Yajnavalkya's theory of heliocentrism which already has unreliable and questionable sources Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Sandbox error

Hello. I see you've just added two problematic html tags with errors on your sandbox page. <p/> and <p /> are selfclosing tags (a tracked syntax error), and should not be used. If you are testing something here for a short time, that's fine, otherwise I ask that you remove them and use something else,
like <p>text</p>, or text{{pb}} text. Thank you, and best wishes. Zinnober9 (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Zinnober9: Yes, I removed the problematic stuff . Ok like this? - DVdm (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks! Zinnober9 (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Quotation marks

Hi, where exactly is this written: When quoting a full sentence, the end of which coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark."? Regards Denisarona (talk) 11:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Denisarona: in MOS:LQ:

If the quotation is a single word or a sentence fragment, place the terminal punctuation outside the closing quotation mark. When quoting a full sentence, the end of which coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark.

• Miller wanted, he said, "to create something timeless".
• Miller said: "I wanted to create something timeless."

Cheers - DVdm (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

About the External links section of Twin Paradox article

Now that I've checked it out, I agree too.

I followed the line of reasoning without thinking too much, just trusting what was already there. Since I saw the URL as apparently dead, I looked for the most recent archived one I could access and added it (following the example I saw in the first item on the list in the same section). I think that, in this case, removing the entire line (fourth item on the list) may be viable and serve as a learning experience (in the editorial sense) for other colleagues too.

I'll leave it as it is, but my personal wish is to:

• remove the first (this item actually denies access to the resource and the archived version serves as a workaround to access it) and the fourth item on the list.

Regarding the second and third items, some resources are not accessible via Android, but work on larger devices with more 'robust' operating systems.

Thanks for reminding me how important it is to trust without failing to verify.

GKNishimoto (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@GKNishimoto: If I recall correctly, the first link was agreed upon by the contributors, perhaps as being written by a recognized authority. In any case, it survived by de-facto wp:consensus, so removing it might need proposing to do so on the article talk page. I personally think it is at least okay to leave it sitting there, since the old Usenet sci.physics.relativity group is no longer alive. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand. Once again, I thank you for your attention and guidance.

GKNishimoto (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

ΦII

. A55124231343Z (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@A55124231343Z: what do you mean? - DVdm (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The article contradicts the statement: no such theory exists: as is indicated here A55124231343Z (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Not a wp:reliable source for Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

if you will: what exact qualities of the source makes it unreliable? A55124231343Z (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This with this about-page clearly identifies as a private initiative, and thus is a counter-example of wp:reliable sources. - DVdm (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Whiskey GoGo zappa

Release date is June 21 2024. April was press release. 2600:1001:B026:A5CC:79DD:37A7:9D2C:F4D2 (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Standing corrected: [6]. Thanks.

Please consider signing up for a useraccount. Makes lifes much easier. - DVdm (talk) 08:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Missing citation for added text

Hello DVdm! You removed my edit to the Infinity article. It’s the same source as the forgoing text, the Morris Kline book. Here is what the (most) relevant part of the already cited section by Morris Kline says:

“The point O′ corresponds to the imagined meeting point at infinity of AB and CD, but because this point does not actually exist, O′ is called the principal vanishing point. It vanishes in the sense that it does not correspond to any actual point on AB or CD, whereas other points on A′B′ or CD′ do correspond to actual points on AB or CD, respectively.”

https://books.apple.com/us/book/mathematics-for-the-nonmathematician/id623642918

Does this clear up the matter sufficiently?

-Zxywvoids Zyxwvoids (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Zyxwvoids: Yes, I have a copy of the book, and indeed, this passage can be found at page 221, but the content that you added does not directly appear in the book. It is an interpretation of the source, We can paraphrase or quote some content from a source, but interpreting the text as you did is an example of wp:original research, which is not allowed, whether your interpretation is correct or not. Hope this helps!

By the way, I have replaced the cited source template with one that is easier to access. - DVdm (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

DVdm, I understand what you are saying. Thank you for the prompt reply and consideration! Zyxwvoids (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

No problem, keep up the good work! - DVdm (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Frank Zappa

I merely edited one sentence, removing a not especially relevant portion of the quote and substituting a better explanation for the choice of Frank Zappa for a memorial.72.173.82.128 (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

With this edit you removed sourced content together with the source pointer, and replaced it with an unsourced explanation. See wp:Verifiability. - DVdm (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)