User talk:Tcisco

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi Tcisco,

And welcome to Wikipedia. I'm skipping most of the usual welcoming stuff, if you feel in need to ask some beginner's question don't hesitate.

Of course I'm writing because your expansions in Anti-gravity. I'm rather uncomfortable with that article, but perhaps we reach some understanding about its future.

Generally speaking, I like the extensions regarding the "wild" phase of antigravity research in the +- 50s. Sometimes I feel uncomfortable for not being able to check the sources, but that's not your fault.

But I'd like to have no UFO relarted details there. I'm sure there's a lot of pages realting to the UFO-phenomenom in Wikipedia.

Then I'm somewhat allergic against proofs which aren't. If the possibility of anti-gravity would have been proven, somebody would have got a Nobel prize by now and we would all would drive flying cars.

Pjacobi 15:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't mind Pjacob, Tcisco - the joke is, that in March 2006 proof of anti-gravity was presented in the peer review literature by Martin Tajmar. His artificial gravity is the first step to a vertical force and should be rubber-stamped this year in Berkeley and elsewhere. Well done for all your edits on the Burkhard Heim page. The many details of his activities in the 1950s and of how well known he was are very well presented. --hughey 17:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on my talk pages. Excellent that you were able to dig out those references. I had found it tricky getting anything on the web in that direction. You must have searched some specialised archives. Excellent.--hughey 10:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow! I read the saga of how you obtained those references on my talk page. It has been a work of true sleuthing indeed. It is wonderful that you and your family have been so thorough. Your finding of the articles by Weyl in the Transportation Library seemed to involve a form of synchronicity. All those interested in the history and future of Heim and this theory will be grateful to you for this investigation. No doubt the details will feature in a biography of him at some point. --hughey 08:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Ohaire UFO

Wow! I didn't even know this! Very interesting (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  • wow... man you sure have done your research! (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 10:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


  • have you seen the wikibook books on anti gravity? You know, given how much it seems you know about the topic, why not write some books on wikibooks? I do believe they would be a huge hit! (:O) Especially since they would be free, the anti gravity community would love it (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • have you heard of this [1] ... if its true its an amazing free energy and alien contact story (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate categories

You put Anti-gravity into several categories which are reserved for PEOPLE. Do not do this again. JRSpriggs 08:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gravity Research Foundation

Great addition, that external link to Babson's book! Wonderful stuff.

I'd like to quote a couple bits of it in the article itself - not too much, but he expounds more on his thinking about the project. But first I figured I'd see if you planned, or wanted, to do it. - DavidWBrooks 19:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to add the quotes. My goal was to provide additional rationale for the creation of the Foundation. Resentment for his sister's death was not the sole determinant. Tcisco 19:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crucifixion eclipse

Thanks for your note. Although my astronomy experience is more on the galactic scale there is no research on sun spots that would ever explain a solar blackout. Dimming yes - but on a scale that humans would not notice. As someone who has seen a total solar eclipse I know the difference that even 1% of visible sun can make. The change to totality is dramatic and sudden - like flipping a switch - and the solar corona is visible as if someone had turned the backlights on. Solar eclipses also cannot last 3 hours (max just over 7 minutes but usually much sorter). So whatever these records are they are not observations of solar activity of any kind. If you are going to use research of this nature you will need to back it up with pukka astronomy/physics journal publications. I would love to see them if you can find the refs. Sophia 20:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What papers detail solar blackouts? Basic stellar structure shows there would be a catastropic collapse of the sun if the photon pressure ever ceased (gravity would win). This is not a matter of open mindedly evaluating data, it's myths versus astrophysics. Don't try to rationalise this - you have a god who can do miracles so leave it at that. Graves opened, the dead woke up and Jesus walked on water - people accept these as true on faith. Why do you need to explain what happened at the crucifixion scientifically? Sophia 16:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
If you accept miracles then all things are possible and there is no reasoned discussion to be had. As for making sense astrophysically - look at the sunspot article. Sunspots are "blindingly brilliant" so even a total solar sunspot would still give enough light that we would hardly notice. At 95% totality for a solar eclipse it just looks like a dull overcast day, it is not in dark and you cannot see the stars. Also magnetic fields do not cause earthquakes - plate tectonics do. A magnetic field strong enough to affect the small amount of magnetism in the earth's crust would tear the core apart - hiding in a cave won't do you any good. Physics is a complex interconnected, interdependent web of phonomena that all follow a few basic "laws". It is the most awe inspiring, humbling and enlightening subject there is and I would encourage your studies but please be open minded about them - don't just try to massage the laws of physics to fit a "vision" from 2000 years ago. Currently you are picking and choosing between phonomena with no concept of how they interconnect and therefore the resulting "jigsaw" does not make sense. Sophia 07:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Crucifixion eclipse

Dear Tcisco,

As explained on Talk, I removed two sections from the article for two separate reasons:

1. "Time reckoning conventions" contains material of only passing relevance to the rest of the article. In initial position, it is also potentially confusing; readers haven't even encountered the biblical accounts and so don't know why they need to be reading about how Romans measured time. A few sentences from this section should probably be incorporated into the "Biblical descriptions" section, to explain the references to the "sixth hour" and the "ninth hour."

2. The "Bouw sunspots" section involves the synthesis of sources to advance an original position, and as such constitutes original research. All of the material on sunspots can only be related to the article via the citation of an offhand comment, made (as you admit) without argument, in an online article by Bouw. In the first place, it is not clear to me that Bouw's article meets Wikipedia reliable source requirements. In the second place, even if it did, his casual suggestion would not justify the inclusion of all the material in the "sunspots" section. The inclusion of this section can only be justified if you can cite reliable sources that associate every piece of information and idea that it contains with the Crucifixion eclipse. Otherwise, it should be removed

ECKnibbs 04:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Time reckoning conventions verify the fact that mankind, for centuries before the invention of mechanical clocks, could distinguish between a few minutes and a few hours. Details about ancient battles have stemmed from good faith in the authors' ability to provide an accurate description. The documents cited by F. R. Stephenson's work are consistent with those of the crucifixion eclipse. Arguments that such accounts are delusional or symbolic are interesting, but should not be used to obscure established facts. Time reckoning ability of the ancients is a fact. One that should not be taken lightly. If a writer of such accounts has a reputation for integrity, time reckoning should be incorporated with the problem of explaining the phenomena. Tcisco 13:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


The article by Professor Gerardus D. Bouw appeared in The Biblical Astronomer, a journal that supports geocentricity. Such a publication may or may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for reliable resources. I am not aware of a list by Wikipedia of unreliable journals. Bouw offered a collection of possible explanations in the "Summary and Conclusion" section of the article. They were presented to explain the physical interpretation of historical documents about the crucifixion darkness. The last one in the set was the sun becoming one huge sunspot. My inclusion of material following his seemingly preposterous suggestion was offered to illustrate its ramifications. Recent research has isolated strong correlations between the position of the Earth relative to a group of sunspots and seismic activity. Biologists have found correlations between animal behavior and geomagnetic fluctuations. Those facts illustrate the ramifications of Bouw's suggestion and could be used to evince other explanations. In Christian eschatology, rogue stars and bodies of dark matter have been offered as explanations for the prediction of solar darkening appearing in the Book of Revelation. Those perturbations may disburbe the photosphere in a manner to cause the magnetic effects. I did not include those citations because they did not specifically address the crucifixion darkness. Tcisco 14:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I have already responded to your post about "time reckoning conventions" at Talk:Crucifixion eclipse. As for the "Bouw sunspots": whether or not Bouw's article may constitute a reliable source is beside the point. As per WP:Reliable sources, extraordinary claims like Bouw's require extraordinary sources. The "skeptical" suggestion of one scholar, made as you say "without argument", does not meet the reliable source criterion, and cannot be included in the article. Even if Bouw was a reliable source on sunspots, much of the sunspot section would still have to go, unless we can cite reliable sources that relate every piece of information in this section with the "Crucifixion eclipse." Otherwise it constitutes synthesis of published material serving to advance a position (as outlined in WP:Original research, and as such does not belong in the article.
ECKnibbs 16:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I used the phrase "without argument" to indicate he had not provided any material to specifically support the suggestion that the sun had been completely covered by a sunspot. His suggestion was made in the summary and conclusion section of his paper. It was one of a couple of alternative physical explanations. His article was a review of the solar darkening accounts from historical documents. Tcisco 19:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti Gravity

Hi. I don't really know the ZPF but I understand that it is either a part of quantum field theory or some extension thereof. If it is a part of quantum field theory then it is also a part of the standard model which is already mentioned. If it is an extension, then it is not more important than string theory but in fact much less notable, and therefore there is no notable reason to mention it and not mention others. Moreover, being an extension of quantum field theory, it doesn't add much to say that it doesn't permit negative mass, because that's the same as in quantum field theory. It's like saying that in ZPF there is a symmetry under the Lorentz group that's obvious and it's the same in all modern physics.Dan Gluck 19:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The zero point field (ZPF) had been proposed before the inception of the standard model and string theory. If ZPF is an extension of either, it is by inclusion - it is an application of quantum field theory. ZPF research supported by the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program was not couched in terms of the standard model and string theory. The numerous peer reviewed articles, theses, and funded research merit citing it as a specific field instead of lumping it under a broader category. Tcisco 04:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


Please feel free to delete this warning. I just want to make sure you see it. I understand your position; but an edit war is not the way to fix it. I am going to give the same warning to Michaelbusch. You are going to have to come add explain your perspective in the talk page. Don't try to carry on a debate in edit comments; that is not what they are for. I have made a start to try and sort out what changes are being proposed in the talk page. If the edit warring continues, then a block is likely to be applied; just for the sake of getting things to calm down. Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United States gravity control propulsion initiative

Updated DYK query On 27 October 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article United States gravity control propulsion initiative, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transient Lunar Phenomena

Hi, I've been researching TLP for a few months now for a major science fair in Ireland, and wish to thank you for your work on the article, and ask if you could provide any advice - how long have you been working on the subject or is it just an interest?. Thanks Pulsar (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

An excellent source to have is the catalog by Winifred Sawtell Cameron (1978, July). Lunar Transient Phenomena Catalog (NSSDC/WDC-A-R&S 78-03). Greenbelt, MD: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. It was free when I had requested a copy a few years ago. My work in this area was for my dissertation on Revelation 6:12-17, completed in 2005. The section entitled "Christian Eschatological Applications" of my article[[2]] summarizes how I associate red, wide area lunar luminescence with certain scriptures. Tcisco (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re:Crucifixion eclipse

The stone is the Calvary (Golgotha), now in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. I approximate it to be about 4m in height. Info about it should easily be found with Google, if not already in WP. About the crack I think reliable info is not very much. Our guide for the Church, an Eastern Orthodox priest, said there is a device in it to measure possible modifications of its dimension. The pic is taken at the base of the rock, in the Chapel of Adam (named because it's said that Adam's skull is buried there, where Christ was Crucified). Above the Chapel of Adam, at the superior level, there is an Eastern Orthodox (=Greek Orthodox) chapel who's altar is over the spot where the cross is said to be raised. On the right, on the same superior level, there is a Roman Catholic chapel. All this (the Chapel of Adam, the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic chapels on Golgotha, and Golgotha itself) are on the right of the entrance in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, corresponding to the space between the entrance and the Stone of Anointing (who is the first thing visible, in front, when entering the Church).

I have other pics of the stone, but I haven't observed the need for them in any of the articles. adriatikus | talk 15:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The device can be seen through the window behind the altar of the Chapel of Adam, like in my pic. It's on the superior part of the visible length of the crack. adriatikus | talk 15:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charismatic Wikipedians

I've proposed to rename the user category Category:Charismatic Wikipedians. Since you are listed a member, you may be interested in participating in the discussion.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)