User talk:D.H

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please click here to leave me a message. Thanks.
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Prose Timeline

Hi. A few things about history of special relativity:

  1. Don't insult people in the edit summary, it makes you look like a jerk, and even if you apologize for it later, you can't revert the edit summary.
  2. Please see WP:Proseline as you seem to be unaware that those sections of the article are not formatted properly for WP. There should not be gigantic sections of bulleted text, especially when they are arranged in a "in 1905 this happened" followed by "from 1907-1908 this person did this" manner. The text needs to be reworded into a fully prose set of paragraphs, or removed and replaced by a more concise timeline proper.
  3. The article is in really bad shape, and in serious need of a rewrite. I would do it myself, but I don't have the time or technical expertise to do so. I came upon the article in the midst of a discussion and found it to be of little use.
  4. The Criticism section is completely lacking in sources and is also very POV. Unfortunately, this is compounded by the fact that the section (like much of the article) is written in a very unprofessional tone. "Besides" being one of the most obvious offenders.

Please replace the rewrite, cleanup, and proseline tags or I will do so for you. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


So you're claiming ownership over the content of the article as a justification for not changing the style? The style of the article matters, admittedly not as much as the content, but it isn't something you can just ignore because you don't like it. The criticism section doesn't need to be shortened, it just needs to be sourced and made to sound more professional. The same for the proseline sections I'm talking about. There is no reason to have the article look like that other than "I wrote it and that's the way it's going to stay." Just because the article is about science doesn't mean we have to completely forgoe proper writing. I would do the changes myself, but I have neither the time or the expertise to do so. Since you and I obviously disagree, let's let the broader community decide about the tags, and whether they are "absurd." -- Grant.Alpaugh 09:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not quarreling with you. I just want to improve an article that needs to be improved. As for your suggestion that I ask someone else to help improve the article, I just asked you to, and, failing that, I've placed the tags so that others might be able to help as well. Please don't take it as a personal attack. The content that you have added is great and well sourced, the style is just a bit off, perhaps due to the fact that you're not a native speaker, which is totally fine. I in no way wanted to diminish or criticize your efforts, just improve them. When I have more time I will attempt a more thorough reformatting of the article. Have a good one. -- Grant.Alpaugh 10:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
They're different tags and apply to the whole article. The article is in need of a cleanup and large sections need to be rewritten. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
There are thousands of articles that have cleanup tags at the top of the article. This one is no different. I fear that you are taking this personally because you have contributed so much to the article. Please don't remove tags that are legitimate. They call attention to the needs of the article as a whole and should remain at the top of the article. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the fact that you are contesting the inclusion of cleanup tags shows that you are taking this personally because of the ammount of content you've provided to the article. I would advise you to take a look at WP:OWN and make sure you're not taking this too seriously. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue IV - May 2008

A new May 2008 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is hot off the virtual presses. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another Licorne visitation

It seems that we'll have to live with this guy jumping in every few months and trying to push his POV. I see that you've taken good care of his content changes. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

continuing conversation on my talkpage.... --Alvestrand (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dynamo theory

The page "Dynamo theory" called for edit, which was needed and I complied. I provided a precise and correct edit, providing a NPOV of the current state of the science. Vsmith removed my edit alleging "self-promotional". How can it be claimed self promotional to state factually with reference to publications in world-class scientific journals? DAEdgerled Ph.D. replaced the edits I had made and left the reason on the discussion page. Then you removed that replacement alleging "self-promotional. How can you clain that? Again the replacement is factual and neutral with reference to publications in world-class scientific journals, and none of the work is made by the poster. Science is about truth, not deception under any guise. Removing that information, in my view, seriously violates the concept of neutrallity. Is there any wording that you found less than neutral? I would like to find some satisfactory way to resolve this matter at this level so I would be interested in and appreciate your answers to the above questions.

Incidentally, re Hilgenberg below, it is my understanding that Otto changed his name to Ott around the time of WWII so that it would seem less German. There is one resource that should not be overlooked. Hilgenberg dedicated his famous 1933 book to his little daughter, Helge. I currently correspond with this delightful and knowledgable lady.Marvin Herndon (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dynamo theory II

I disagree with your rationale for reverting the edits to “Dynamo theory” for the following reasons: Although I originally posted the edits, some other editor removed them, and they were reposted by someone else, who left a message on the discussion page. What you removed was that re-posting by someone else, not me. Irrespective, the posts should stand and there should be no question of notability. I am the originator of the fundamental concept of a nuclear georeactor as the energy source for the geomagnetic field, the theoretical basis of which is published in the following world-class, peer-reviewed scientific journals:Herndon, J. M. (1993) Feasibility of a nuclear fission reactor at the center of the Earth as the energy source for the geomagnetic field. J. Geomag. Geoelectr. 45, 423-437.Herndon, J. M. (1994) Planetary and protostellar nuclear fission: Implications for planetary change, stellar ignition and dark matter. Proc. R. Soc. Lond A455, 453-461.Herndon, J. M. (1996) Sub-structure of the inner core of the earth. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 93, 646-648.Hollenbach, D. F. and Herndon, J. M. (2001) Deep-earth reactor: nuclear fission, helium, and the geomagnetic field. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 11085-11090.Herndon, J. M. (2003) Nuclear georeactor origin of oceanic basalt 3He/4He, evidence, and implications. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 100, 3047-3050.Herndon, J. M. (2007) Nuclear georeactor generation of the earth's geomagnetic field. Curr. Sci. 93, 1485-1457.Herndon, J. M. (2007) Magnetic Field Generation in Planets and Satellites by Natural Nuclear Fission Reactors. Curr. Sci. in press. http://arXiv.org/abs/0707.4161

The georeactor concept has received to my knowledge never been refuted in the open scientific literature and, moreover, has been extensively vetted, for example, in the following articles: Rao, K. R. (2002) Nuclear reactor at the core of the Earth! - A solution to the riddles of relative abundances of helium isotopes and geomagnetic field variability. Curr. Sci. 82(2), 126-127. Seifritz, W. (2003) Some comments on Herndon's nuclear georeactor. Kerntechnik 68(4), 193-196.Domogatsky, G. V., Kopeikin, V. I., Mikaelyan, L. A., and Sinev, V. V. (2005) Neutrino geophysics at Baksan I: Possible detection of georeactor antineutrinos. Physics of Atomic Nuclei 68(1), 62-72.

Moreover, the idea of a nuclear georeactor at the center of the Earth as an energy source for the geomagnetic field is now widely known throughout the world as a consequence of radio and television broadcasts and newspaper and magazine articles. Until about two years ago, I did what everybody else in the geophysics community had done since 1939; namely, assume that the Earth’s core has been engaged in convection for at least three and one-half billion years serving as the operant fluid for the dynamo action thought to be responsible for generating the geomagnetic field. And this is what the article “Dynamo theory” said before my edit. After all, for decades the fluid core was the only fluid thought to exist deep within the Earth. But, I recently realized, that was a mistaken assumption which is clearly understandable from the properties of matter. Long-term stable convection, as required for dynamo action in the fluid core, would require maintaining an adverse temperature gradient in the core. In other words, for billions of years the temperature at the base of the core would have to be higher than at the top of the core. For that to be would require efficient heat removal from the top of the core. But the core is surrounded by thousands of km of insulating silicate rock and the thermal properties involved all favor trapping heat in the core and equalizing any temperature gradient in the core, bringing to a halt any convection in the core; without convection there can be no dynamo action.

The nuclear georeactor is expected to have a fluid sub-shell surrounding the actinide sub-core obviating all of the inconsistencies based upon the thermal properties of matter involved. The fluid is heated at the base and at the top, surrounded by a heat sink which is itself surrounded by a heat sink, provides an efficient heat removal mechanism for maintaining an adverse temperature gradient. The georeactor has all this plus a plethora of charged particles and ionizing radiation for creation of a seed-field. The geoscience community has been mistaken about the operant fluid for dynamo action for more than six decades. I published the discovery of the mistake and the concept of georeactor operant fluid for dynamo action in 2007. Removal of my edits for the reasons you stated would be fundamentally wrong as it would now intentionally mislead the wiki-readership.

Many millions of dollars have been spent, and many careers built, on making models of convection-based dynamo action in the Earth’s fluid core; models that are underpinned by false assumptions. You may be reasonably certain that those involved are going to be slow to admit the error. So, as a consequence of self-interest, discussion in the scientific literature may be years in the future. There is no point in continuing to mis-lead (this time intentionally) wiki-readership by removing my edits. There is one over-riding Wikipedia rule that applies here: “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it”. Please replace the edit that you removed.Marvin Herndon (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate your effort to arrive at some compromise by adding material to the "Georeactor" article, the issues I have pointed out above for "Dynamo theory" still stand. I believe that it is fundamentally wrong, and unthruthful, and now, deliberately untruthful, to mislead the world community by discussing the generation of the geomagnetic field by dynamo action in the Earth's fluid core without discussion what is wrong with the concept of convection in that part of the Earth and without discussing the different concept I have published. It it also violates NPOV. While the concept of dynamo theory is quite complicated, the reasons against long-term stable convection in the Earth's core are not. Read the paper yourself. http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/aug102007/394.pdf If you think it is in any way incorrect, you should attempt to refute the paper in open scientific literature, ideally in the journal of publication. Otherwise, the work should be acknowledged. And my edits to this article should stand. Moreover, the edits I originally made improved the article substantially.Marvin Herndon (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to consider a subject being "widely discussed" in the scientific literature a necessary condition for inclusion in Wikipedia. Such a presumption assumes that the scientific community is objectiuve and truthful. Regrettably, that is not the case. Before World war II, there was little government funding for science. Afrer WWII, in the early 1950s, the U. S. Congress established the National Science Foundation (NSF) to support science. Almost immediately, invented and implemented the concept of anonymous peer review. That must have seemed like an administrative stroke of genius, as it was adopted almost universally by subsequent granting agencies and nearly all science publishers. No one, it seems, stopped to consider the lessons of history where secrecy has been used, whether in the Spanish inquisition or in totalitarian regimes. The result is always the same: Secrecy inevitably leads to massive corruption and casts fear in the community causing people not to want to be noticed. This same thing has happened in science, particularly in America. fifty years of secrecy has led to the formation of criminal cartels of scientists who get rid of their competitors through secret reviews. Individual scientists are hesitant to even mention new ideas that contradict the work of othere, for fear of losing financial support and being unable to get their papers published. It is a process thats essentially results in lying to the scientific community and cheating the taxpayers who support them. I have discussed and documented this in my book "Maverick's Earth and Universe". In such an environment, your desire for a subject to be "widely discussed" will simply not occur for work such as mine which challenges so-called consensus view; that is an unreasonable expectition within the secrecy-based post-WWII scientific community. What is more appropriate is to ask whether a concept has been refuted in the open scientific literature. In more than three decades, my work has not been refuted in the open scientific literature.Marvin Herndon (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)