User talk:73.118.175.67

May 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages (including user talk pages) such as Talk:Black hole are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. They are not for general discussion about the article topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Black holes fake. It's easy to prove. The enthusiasts keep picking out blurry photo or using artist rendering when the the Hubble and James Web telescope is available.

73.118.175.67 (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC) Tae Hyun Song

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -Alabama- (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

False accusation of vandalism. I added section pointed out need for clearer photo (Improve Article). 73.118.175.67 (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I challenge this accusation of vandalism. Quote text where there is vandalism. 73.118.175.67 (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk pages aren't a good place for general discussion of a topic, but briefly: black holes are black; they are not easy to image which is why there aren't a bunch of pictures of them from Hubble. The nearest stellar mass black holes we know about are still thousands of light years away, and for astronomical objects BH's are dark and TINY. So, no direct images. What we have is a radio image of a super massive black hole that is MILLIONS of light years away. It's bright because it is actively absorbing matter, which glows before it enters the event horizon. Incidentally, e=mc^2 is well understood. In SI units of kg, m, and s, the e is in Joules and the units are consistent, but it works with any other consistent set of units. 1 Joule = 1 kg*(m/s)^2, and a kg of matter has an energy of about 9x10^16 J. VQuakr (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

E=mc^2 It can't be proven. You need a propulsion system that can accelerate to light speed. No units of measurement was ever mentioned until it was examined (recently) to see if it could be proven. And all it ended was being a large number with no real units of measurement. I can tell you have no aptitude for science, since all you did spout your belief without getting around proving it. Science is about being able prove it, not being fanatic about belief. It's not a religion.

73.118.175.67 (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC) Tae Hyun Song

Hubble telescope has been around for decades. There has been plenty of opportunities to take pictures of a black hole. The blurred picture was taken from stock images, which is why it's out focus.

73.118.175.67 (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC) Tae Hyun Song

You claimed E=mc^2 is well understood. Try using E=mc^2 in a practical application. It has absolutely none. 73.118.175.67 (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

PET is an example. Electrons and positrons annihilate to form pairs of gamma rays at exactly 511 keV, the mass equivalent of an electron. VQuakr (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

You can claim that, but you can't prove it. I can go another step, you claimed it joules and then came with 511 keV without doing calculations to prove the connection. 73.118.175.67 (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC) 73.118.175.67 (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Tae Hyun Song

Electronvolt. If you don't understand unit conversion, maybe pick up a book rather than showcasing your ignorance. Best of luck, bye. VQuakr (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

See you didn't prove it. You're a faker. I already looked into. All you did was invoke units but no math to make the connections between them. Matter is not energy. Another proof speed of light was 'believed' to be 230,000 miles/s while Einstein was around. So he would never have been able to make an accurate calculation. 73.118.175.67 (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

A summary of some policies and guidelines you clearly missed

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary.
• "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.

And most importantly:

• We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

In fact, this last point is so important here that administrators have discretionary sanctions in that area:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Ian.thomson (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Verify black hole article is based on a blurry photo. True or False?

Verify better photo is needed. True or False?

Verify blurry photo does not constitute a reliable source. True or False? 73.118.175.67 (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Read what I wrote (above the blue box) to see why we do not care, can not care, and will not care. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Because of your disruptive editing and violation of the core content policy, No original research, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Black hole and Talk: Black hole. If you engage in disruptive editing elsewhere, you will be blocked site wide. Please read the Guide to appealing blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

You made a false claim. I didn't edit anything. I only added a section saying need for clear photo (Improve Article) in the Talk Section. You can double check.

Disruption claim is false. I am reporting false claims. 73.118.175.67 (talk) 01:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I challenge the claim. If anyone disagrees with them, they are called "disruptive" and then persecuted by others for little or no reason.

“Closest black hole” system found to contain no black hole. https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso2204/

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

73.118.175.67 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The claims are false. Disruptive Editing was invoked, but I only added a section pointing out they needed a better photo (Article Improvement). They were using blurry photo of a purported black hole. I did not edit anything on the article and only my own section for grammar and spelling correction.

Invoking of Disruptive Editing for pointing out black hole maybe fake. No clear photo, and blurred image (which in the minds of black hole fanatics looks like a black hole to them) taken from stock photo, which is why it's always blurry. 73.118.175.67 (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your unblock request convinces me that you need to be blocked from the black hole article and its talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 07:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

No claims (by moderators) were substantiated, but unblock was denied.  That is unfair and against the rules.   73.118.175.67 (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC) Tae Hyun Song.

According to PhilKnight, his reasoning, "Your unblock request convinces me you need to be blocked..."

My Proofs:

Black hole article uses a blurry photo.  True, can be verified.
Blurry photo does not constitute reliable source.  Against Wikipedia Rules.
"Animated Simulation" also does not constitute a reliable source.
E=mc^2 is sophistry (fake).  This can be proven by having proponent try to use it a practical application.  It has none.  I already looked into.

I'm going to be as blunt as possible: Wikipedia does not give a shit what you think.

We will not give a shit unless and until you get your ideas published in a professionally-published mainstream academic source, such as an scientific journal.

Until then, WP:FRINGE applies. If you continue to go on about it, WP:TEND also applies. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

More Proof:

Ian.thomson use of profanity and unprofessional attitude. He states Wikipedia does not care... about the rules (paraphrase). You claim to present Wikipedia.

I will cite use of blurry pictures in the black hole article, does not constitute reliable source.

Mainstream Academic Source. “Closest black hole” system found to contain no black hole. European Southern Observatory.

https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso2204/

Black holes are actually WP:FRINGE and Psuedo Science. They alway use blurry pictures for closeups as a clear picture show it is not a black hole. In blurry picture none of the objects can identified.

Mainstream news media doesn't know enough about the topic to know the difference and not reliable source.

73.118.175.67 (talk) 04:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC) Tae Hyun Song

If you want to establish your idea as valid, you need to gather evidence for a hypothesis that explains what phenomena is being observed by professional astrophyics if said phenomena are not black holes (because something is causing all experimental observation to lead every astrophysicist to the conclusion that a black hole is the most parsimonious explanation). Then you need to devise and conduct controlled and repeatable experiments to distinguish the phenomena you've discovered from black holes. That's how all science works, as anyone with a decent education should know. To do otherwise is epistemological megalomania. And yes, the pro-black hole crowd (i.e. literally all of academia) has already done this, it's your fault if you weren't in on the conversation.

Then you would report the methods and results of your experiments to mainstream Academic journals, which anyone who lasted more than a year in university knows is not the same thing as news media. To do otherwise does not make one the next Galileo but instead a case study in the Dunning–Kruger effect. And no, Wikipedia is not an academic journal, so stop wasting your time here.

Then again, these things require reading well enough to know that I did not say Wikipedia does not care about the rules, I said Wikipedia does not care until you follow the rules. WP:FRINGE is the rule that specifically excludes your idea until you go through the two above steps (experiment and report).

All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. If you don't understand what that means, you need to find something else to do. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

What do you have proof black hole exist? 2 blurry pictures, where NONE of objects can be identified.

Mainstream Academic Source. “Closest black hole” system found to contain no black hole. European Southern Observatory.

https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso2204/

Black holes are actually WP:FRINGE and Psuedo Science. There is no real proof they exists.

If you really had an aptitude for science all it should take is... light is energy, energy has no mass for gravity to affect light. 73.118.175.67 (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Once again, we are not an academic journal. You need to direct your "discovery" to an academic journal.

The source you cite does not say that black holes don't exist, it says that one suspected black hole wasn't. Your source does not support your claim. Again, go bother an academic journal. Until then, mainstream academia says black holes are a thing. Misquoting a source does not change that, just as misquoting me does not change policy. (You seem to have a problem with misquoting sources...)

Light travels through spacetime, which is warped by gravity (source). Ian.thomson (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Black holes literally has a cult following. It's fringe theories and psuedo science. If you try to get them to prove it, all they have 2 blurry pictures. One discredited and the other... it's been removed from mainstream news channels. They're literally black hole cultist. 73.118.175.67 (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

---