User talk:Shawncorey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Time travel. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Yamara ✉ 02:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed text that was in error.

If you had read the discussion page, you would know why.

And I'll keep removing it until it it correct.--Mr. Shawn H. Corey (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as the one you made to Time travel.
Any further vandalism will result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. No, you won't keep editing it, if you maintain this attitude.

Please see: The Three Revert Rule. Please especially note the section about efforts to game the system.

This is my second and last revert of your blanking a section of Time travel. Further reverts on your part will simply be reported, and you will be blocked from editing.

Cheers,

Yamara ✉ 20:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC) Yamara ✉ 20:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. I will not be intimidated by you connections. I will continue to fight for the truth, because you decided to make it a fight; not a discussion about physics.--Mr. Shawn H. Corey (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
You are simply incorrect about the physics--please address the points I made on Talk:Time travel#Time travel, or space-time travel?. In any case, if you disagree that relativity rejects the notion that there is any single truth about what point in space at a later time is at the "same position" as a point in space at an earlier time, you need to find a reliable source for this claim (you won't be able to, because it's not true--any physicist can tell you that relativity rejects the notion of absolute space). Hypnosifl (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I will repeat myself, again, for those who can't read: THERE ARE ACCELERATIONS INVOLVED, YOU CANNOT USE SPECIAL RELATIVITY! YOU MUST USE GENERAL RELATIVITY!
I shall delete any reference that involks special relativity. Those that have general relativity, I shall consider. BUT, TO DATE, THERE ARE NONE!
As I already mentioned on the talk page (did you read it?), SR can perfectly well deal with accelerations in flat spacetime where gravity is negligible. And even in the case where gravity is non-negligible and we need to use GR, it is still true in GR that there is no such thing as absolute space, in fact diffeomorphism invariance (also known as general covariance) means that all coordinate systems are equally good. Also note that the reference in the article is about general relativity--it is Robert Geroch's General Relativity from A to B. Hypnosifl (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Acceleration is never "non-negligible". Too bad you limit yourself to your imagination.--Mr. Shawn H. Corey (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about acceleration being negligible, I was talking about gravity (i.e. spacetime curvature) being negligible. Acceleration doesn't create spacetime curvature in itself, and SR can certainly deal with arbitrarily large accelerations in uncurved spacetime! In any case, I then pointed out that even if gravity is not negligible and you have to use GR, GR incorporates the principle of diffeomorphism invariance which means you can use pretty much any coordinate system and the laws of physics will be unchanged (as I suggested on the talk page, look at this article for details). So, a coordinate system where your position at some later time is the same as your position at an earlier time is no better or worse than any other coordinate system, and it's meaningless to ask whether you "really" moved or "really" stayed at the same position. Absolute space is rejected just as soundly by general relativity as it is by special relativity. Hypnosifl (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
In other words, you did read my comments. I said, "THE FIRST ACCELERATION IS ANGULAR ACCELERATION." Your words are fluff. Do not use special relativity where there are accelerations, use general relativity.
You don't seem to be reading my comments--did you miss where I said "SR can certainly deal with arbitrarily large accelerations in uncurved spacetime"? If you don't believe me that SR is perfectly capable of dealing with accelerations, read this section of the Usenet Physics FAQ, which says in the opening paragraph: It is a common misconception that Special Relativity cannot handle accelerating objects or accelerating reference frames. It is claimed that general relativity is required because special relativity only applies to inertial frames. This is not true. Special relativity treats accelerating frames differently from inertial frames but can still deal with them. Accelerating objects can be dealt with without even calling upon accelerating frames. 03:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NPA

Comments like this are highly inappropriate. Do not make personal attacks like that again. Thank you.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I shall reply to personal attacks with personal attacks. If you don't like it, send me an email where you took up my case.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Time travel. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Special-T (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You are gaming the system by repeatedly reverting three times within 24 hours. If you revert again, I will block you. I am watchlisting the article to make sure this happens. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
You will block me because you want to censor me. I repeat: "SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS NOT IMPORTANT; GENERAL RELATIVITY IS!" Your censorship is irrelavant!
Dude, I don't even understand relativity; I'm no physicist. What I do understand is that edit warring is unacceptable at Wikipedia. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
What I understand is that your website no longer exists.

I am right. Why didn't anyone say so?