User talk:Dgroseth

Welcome[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Moon. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Here are some other hints and tips:

I would recommend that you get a username. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username. (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.)
When using talk pages, please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username (or IP address) and the date.

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or type {{helpme}} on this talk page and a user will help you as soon as possible. I will answer your questions as far as I can. Again, welcome, and I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. LouriePieterse (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The situation at Tycho Brahe[edit]

Hi Dgroseth,

You asked at Talk:Tycho Brahe "is asking someone a crude question or making a vulgar remark possibly considered a personal attack?" It usually is considered to be, and it certainly violates the Wikipedia's principle of civility.

You wisely didn't want to go into ancient history, but for some historical background you might want to look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Logicus and his Block log. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logicus to Dgroseth: But who, if anybody, has asked a crude question or made a vulgar remark ? Dgroseth ?

Please note McCluskey frequently slings around accusations and insinuations of such as incivility, disruption and original research against Logicus that he is wholly unable to substantiate in Wiki policy.

If you take up McCluskey’s reading advice, you might also be advised to see my response to McCluskey’s joint RfC posted on my User Talk page on 10 July 2008, which was as follows. And note that, as I recall, my specific edit on the Kepler article that McCluskey wanted to revert which occasioned this RfC was sustained in my favour. My beneficent advice to you is don’t take any advice from the likes of McCluskey, whom Logicus has frequently exposed as practicing OR in failed verifications.

[edit] RfC Logicus: A Request for Comment on your editing on Kepler and Scientific Revolution has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Logicus. Please give your perspective on the events described in the Response section of the RfC. I hope we can resolve this to arrive at a productive atmosphere in the History of science articles. --SteveMcCluskey 14:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

After more than 17 months, McCluskey and Ragesoss have very notably failed to find any formal support whatever for their undocumented and unproven patently mistaken RfC charges of Disruptive Editing and of Original Research against Logicus in his editing of the two articles Kepler and Scientific Revolution. Logicus has intentionally not commented on their accusations to date. This was at least in order not to deter any potential support for their charges. And so, a fortiori, their failure to find any support for their allegations by now surely implies that at least nobody else has seen any justice nor proven truth in them sufficient to publicly support them, even without Logicus demonstrating their falsity and injustice in detail. To the very contrary of what McCluskey and Ragesoss allege, the documentably evident fact is that Logicus is a significantly Productive Wikipedia Editor whose many productive editorial contributions to Wikipedia articles include having provided almost half of the current bibliography of the Kepler article cited in which this specific RfC altercation arose, in addition to contributing many hitherto accepted edits or amendments in it concerned with correcting the historical factual misrepresentations of Kepler advanced by other editors and their illogical conclusions, especially Ragesoss and McCluskey. Similarly Logicus has made many productive contributions to the Scientific Revolution article cited in the allegations. More generally beyond these two articles, contrary to the opinion of McCluskey and Ragesoss, User:Iustinus, the rather more appreciative Editor of the Latin Wikipedia - Latin notably being renowned as a very logical language - has wholly unprompted said of Logicus's editing in his comments immediately above: "I'm glad to see you got a real account: I don't always agree with you, but you have been an invaluable contributor." Most certainly Logicus has never engaged in any Disruptive Editing as Wikipedia defined, nor in Original Research as Wikipedia defined to the best of his knowledge, and to date, in spite of their cavalier accusations, McCluskey and Ragesoss have notably failed to demonstrate a single example of either practice, in spite of their voluminous but probatively inconsequential exegesis on these supposed sins of Logicus in their opinion in their most unfortunate RfC submission. By way of further comment on a likely explanation of how these mistaken charges arise, Logicus notes that the mistaken charge of Original Research has only been made against him by editors such as McCluskey and Administrator Ragesoss possibly because they seem evidently insufficiently familiar with the pertinent literature of subjects on which they seem to regard themselves as experts, or at least as more knowledgeable than Logicus. This unfamiliarity seems to consist either of not having read it at all in many cases, or of having misread it without sufficient logical attention or competence to infer logically valid summary interpretations of it, rather than their logically invalid interpretations, conclusions and summaries of it, which thereby constitute OR, whether intentional or not. Many examples can be given of this error on the part of McCluskey, Ragesoss and others, however unintended. Thus it seems they tend to mistake for original research either Logicus's representations of other points of view to be found in the literature they are either unfamiliar with or possibly do not wish to report because they clash with their biassed point of view, or else mistake Logicus's simple corrections of other editors' logically invalid interpretations or expressions of what literature they have read for original research. As Logicus sees it, obstinate refusal to stand corrected in the face of Logicus's restorations of unjustified reverts of his corrections then leads to such editors getting themselves worked up into a paddy and making untenable wild accusations of Original Research and Disruptive Editing against what is in fact potentially corrective Productive Editing for improving Wikipedia. However, in the last instance Logicus recognises the rules of Wikipedia seem to be radically confused and confusing from a logical point of view, whereby in addition to the fact that like all of us Logicus is far from infallible, it may be that he could be reasonably construed as having committed original research somewhere amongst his many contributions. But so far as he is aware, nobody has ever demonstrated he has to date. In this context, for an example of Logicus's rebuttal of an unsubstantiated assertion of such, see Logicus's contribution of 10 July 2008 to User talk:Deor for his rebuttal of User:Deor's allegation of such in respect of Logicus's proposed discussion of impetus dynamics in the Celestial spheres article, entitled "Logicus refutes Deor's accusations of irrelevancy and Original Research in 'Celestial spheres' ". --Logicus (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I was not as interested in ancient history as I was in a crude remark you made a few days before my post on Tycho. I haven't thoroughly studied the Kepler fight, I skimmed through some stuff somewhere. Thus I now know you are likely older. I can't say I have behaved perfectly either. I asked you to look here because I wanted to discretely show you the next item. I think you might find it useful in your other work. Feel free to comment on the next item. Meanwhile, I'll try to constructively disagree. --Dgroseth (talk) 05:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you claim it was me that made a crude remark. But I am not aware of having made any crude remark. So wot wos it ?

If you wish to contribute constructively to my 'Faster-than-light' discussion @ Talk:Faster-than-light, then please just do so instead of writing to me. --Logicus (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rotation and GTR[edit]

The truth is yes GTR allows for the use of all kinds of crazy coordinate systems, including rotating coordinate systems for what would have otherwise been nearly flat space (no strong gravity, etc.). The net result is you wind up with a metric that requires material objects and information at the distance of Alpha Centauri to be moving sideways between 9999 and 10001 times the speed of light. I see others using it deceptively. Hope it helps. --Dgroseth (talk) 05:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So material objects beyond the distance of Neptune (in the equatorial plane) can't stop in a reference frame rotating with the earth. Can any of the modern geocentrists who invoke GTR explain why?

It should also be noted that neither the Schwarzschild metric nor the Kerr metric allows a material object to go inside the event horizon halfway and either stay or leave without moving faster than the speed of light, according to GTR. Can any of the modern geocentrists who invoke GTR explain why? Can they explain how the two are related or are they just throwing around GTR in a meaningless, untestable and deceptive way? --Dgroseth (talk) 05:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]