User talk:Olddangerfield777

Travis Walton

67.191.157.112 (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC) I've tried to change this twice but have been met with disapprove both times with no real explanation (scientific) except that is not the "policy" of wikipedia to accept "3rd party observations" without other scientific/academic research... I feel this is unreasonable as the case has already been proven that individual time differences are relative to the conditions of the observer.. which is exactly what the ketone production segment of the Travis Walton article is talking about. Please disprove how I am wrong scientifically because frankily I believe that science and theory are on my side.. I understand that wikipedia wants to take a hyper critical/skeptical view on unorthodox matters but I think I am right on this. As for the "reliable sources" part, I did in fact provide an internal link to both on the twin paradox and einstein's theory of gravitional time dilation on both occassions in which I tried to edit the article. I have nothing to gain by doing so but I believe it is my social and moral responsibility to let the public know that the theory of time dilation could in fact but a legitimate and plausible explanation for the absence of ketone's in Walton's body. Moresoever I think this is exactly the kind of bureaucratic nonsensical "stick to the rules at all costs" mentality that is hurting academic establishments everywhere. What do you want me to do? Do a dissertation on Travis Walton and gravitational time dilation, publish it in a peer-reviewed journal, wait a couple of years of there to be enough reviews on it and then post it again? I'm sorry I would take the word of some random person on the street way before I start blindly using the washingtonpost as a source =/ <-- posted by user:olddangerfield777

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for working to improve the site with your edit to Travis Walton, as we really appreciate your participation. However, the edit had to be reverted, because Wikipedia cannot accept unsourced personal observations or arguments to articles, as this violates the site's policies of Verifiability, No Original Research/WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia requires that all material added to articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable sources explicitly cited in the text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. Where arguments on both sides of a controversial topic are concerned, the source must made the argument or assertion in question. We may relate the argument, but we cannot make it ourselves. If you have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Olddangerfield777. I'd be more than happy to assist you insofar as using Talk Pages, and the other matters you mentioned in your message.

First, new talk page discussions should go at the bottom of the talk page. If your message is not part of an already-ongoing discussion (in which case, you can simiply place it at the bottom of that section), you can create a new section by writing creating a new heading consisting of a title enclosed by two equal signs on each side, much as with the "Travis Walton" heading above, and placing your message directly beneath that. Make sure you do not remove content already on the other person's talk page, as you did on mine, though. I assume this was an error on your part, so don't worry about it; I restored the deleted material, and placed your message at the bottom of my talk page. Remember also to sign your talk page posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them, which will sign and time stamp them.

As far as the issue of sourcing and original research relating to the Travis Walton article, however, I'm a bit unclear as to certain aspects of your message. Your message starts off with "67.191.157.112", and you say after that message "Pretty much my rebuttal...", which I took to mean that this was someone else's message that you were quoting, but when I looked at your talk page, the same message is there, and it says "posted by user:olddangerfield777" at the end of it, so I'm a bit unclear as to whether that message is yours or someone else's. Can you clarify who is saying what to whom? Is 67.191.157.112 you, or someone else? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Olddangerfield777 (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Yea i'm sorry about that, I really don't know if 67.191.157.112 is my IP or not but I definitely did not type the "Pretty much my rebuttal..." part..

My general argument was that I believe my case for the fact that einstein's theory of gravitational time dilation would in fact affect biological processes that go on in an individual's body (which has been verified by repeated experimentation using two observers, one traveling at 300+ mph in the air and one sitting sedentary on the ground), such as the body's perception of time, which in turn would explain the level of ketone production in Travis Walton's body after the 5 days which any observer on earth would have perceived, compared to the amount of time that Travis Walton theoretically would have perceived if he was aboard some type of vehicle traveling at close to light speed.

My other complaint is just that I don't necessarily agree with the editing policy of wikipedia, and find it a little absurb that a major internal link such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation, which have multiple external links at the bottom of that page is not considered to be as reliable a source as an external source from a .com news provider or even a major news outlet such as the Washingtonpost.

If it is within your jurisdiction and power to edit the article back to my original edit, stating that gravitational time dilation could in fact be an explanation for the level of ketone production in Walton's body than I implore that you do based on the ethical principle of academic integrity and for the sake that other people who may stumble upon the page will have all the necessary information to make his or her mind up about the Travis Walton incident.