Talk:2113: Physics Suppression - Revision history

108.162.229.118: Fixed some spelling mistakes.

2021-01-14T17:46:39Z

Fixed some spelling mistakes.

162.158.91.59 at 10:33, 22 February 2019

2019-02-22T10:33:35Z

Dgbrt: Please sign your comments.

2019-02-20T19:41:12Z

Please sign your comments.

162.158.92.160 at 16:12, 20 February 2019

2019-02-20T16:12:01Z

108.162.241.214: /* IP editor deleting all content */

2019-02-20T14:20:27Z

‎IP editor deleting all content

Cgrimes85 at 14:11, 20 February 2019

2019-02-20T14:11:42Z

Cgrimes85 at 14:11, 20 February 2019

2019-02-20T14:11:25Z

162.158.90.36 at 12:38, 20 February 2019

2019-02-20T12:38:21Z

162.158.92.160: /* IP editor deleting all content */

2019-02-20T10:47:02Z

‎IP editor deleting all content

162.158.89.223 at 10:08, 20 February 2019

2019-02-20T10:08:41Z

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 That's how mafia works. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.111|172.69.134.111]] 16:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 :But White Hat didn't mention anything about a Mafia...? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.153|162.158.74.153]] 14:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
-::No, but to suppress people publishing their results, a body like the mafia would be needed, is what Megan jokes about. And then takes an example (and one more in title text) about annoying results that did not get suppressed. Her example turned out to win a noble prize, the title text was later shown to be an error. But a mafia might have stopped both sets of results to have not been published. Basically proving that you can not suppress such results wether relevant or not. If White Hat's model is not taken serious it is probably because he has no data to back it up. Wild claims demands extraordinary well documentation. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
+::No, but to suppress people publishing their results, a body like the mafia would be needed, is what Megan jokes about. And then takes an example (and one more in title text) about annoying results that did not get suppressed. Her example turned out to win a Nobel Prize, the title text was later shown to be an error. But a mafia might have stopped both sets of results to have not been published. Basically proving that you can not suppress such results whether relevant or not. If White Hat's model is not taken seriously it is probably because he has no data to back it up. Wild claims demands extraordinary well documentation. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
-:::A "mafia" isn't the only candiate. "Inquistions" have also worked well for suppression, but (AFAIK) have less of a history of intramural violence. I think the image of a cabal of cloaked physics monks torturing dark energy heretics into recantation would have been striking enough, but RMMV (Randall's Mileage May Vary). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.23|172.69.70.23]] 17:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
+:::A "mafia" isn't the only candidate. "Inquisitions" have also worked well for suppression, but (AFAIK) have less of a history of intramural violence. I think the image of a cabal of cloaked physics monks torturing dark energy heretics into recantation would have been striking enough, but RMMV (Randall's Mileage May Vary). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.23|172.69.70.23]] 17:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 ::::if you need to spell out your initialism in full, you may not realize they're intended as shorthand.

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 :Dark energy IS the conspiracy! Quantum Inertia is being suppressed by [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/436874/does-quantized-inertia-theory-violate-conservation-of-momentum Physics Exchange]! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.59|162.158.91.59]] 08:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 : TBH, It's not like the existence of "Dark Energy" is proven or anything. It's current function in the equations is "there's something generating gravity here that looks like there should be matter we can see, but we can't see it." It might just be a completely unknown physics thing that we just haven't accounted for in the models. While there might be some sort of matter that we truly can only detect through it's gravitational field, I'm not gonna be surprised if some day it's proven that the current dark matter theory is bullshit. (Note: Which does not in any way invalidate the Nobel Prize - there are measurements, and these show that there's stuff out there we don't know about. Therefore.... more research needed.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.160|162.158.92.160]] 16:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 While it could be true that White Hat is ignored because of the lack of supporting data, Albert Einstein was in a similar situation when coming up with his Theory of Relativity. [[User:Mad max|Mad max]] ([[User talk:Mad max|talk]]) 06:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:41, 20 February 2019
Line 40:		Line 40:
	::: lol, if this all ends up converging into an xkcd comic that just reads "Soon the truth will be revealed", I may jizz my pants [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.214\|108.162.241.214]] 14:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)		::: lol, if this all ends up converging into an xkcd comic that just reads "Soon the truth will be revealed", I may jizz my pants [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.214\|108.162.241.214]] 14:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

−	:'''Technical Note:''' please take into consideration that IP addresses published by the wiki engine for not-logged-in persons are not the addresses of particular editors' computers, but of [[wikipedia:Cloudflare\|Cloudflare]] servers, which act as proxies to protect this website from some forms of attack, '''not''' including editing vandalism. Therefore similarity of the addresses could not be construed as evidence that the same person is performing edits. We need to defend in the usual way, reversing edits. Hopefully there are fewer vandals than benevolent contributors.	+	:'''Technical Note:''' please take into consideration that IP addresses published by the wiki engine for not-logged-in persons are not the addresses of particular editors' computers, but of [[wikipedia:Cloudflare\|Cloudflare]] servers, which act as proxies to protect this website from some forms of attack, '''not''' including editing vandalism. Therefore similarity of the addresses could not be construed as evidence that the same person is performing edits. We need to defend in the usual way, reversing edits. Hopefully there are fewer vandals than benevolent contributors. {{unsigned ip\|162.158.92.160}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:12, 20 February 2019
Line 21:		Line 21:

	:Dark energy IS the conspiracy! Quantum Inertia is being suppressed by [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/436874/does-quantized-inertia-theory-violate-conservation-of-momentum Physics Exchange]! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.59\|162.158.91.59]] 08:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)		:Dark energy IS the conspiracy! Quantum Inertia is being suppressed by [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/436874/does-quantized-inertia-theory-violate-conservation-of-momentum Physics Exchange]! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.59\|162.158.91.59]] 08:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
		+	: TBH, It's not like the existence of "Dark Energy" is proven or anything. It's current function in the equations is "there's something generating gravity here that looks like there should be matter we can see, but we can't see it." It might just be a completely unknown physics thing that we just haven't accounted for in the models. While there might be some sort of matter that we truly can only detect through it's gravitational field, I'm not gonna be surprised if some day it's proven that the current dark matter theory is bullshit. (Note: Which does not in any way invalidate the Nobel Prize - there are measurements, and these show that there's stuff out there we don't know about. Therefore.... more research needed.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.160\|162.158.92.160]] 16:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

	While it could be true that White Hat is ignored because of the lack of supporting data, Albert Einstein was in a similar situation when coming up with his Theory of Relativity. [[User:Mad max\|Mad max]] ([[User talk:Mad max\|talk]]) 06:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)		While it could be true that White Hat is ignored because of the lack of supporting data, Albert Einstein was in a similar situation when coming up with his Theory of Relativity. [[User:Mad max\|Mad max]] ([[User talk:Mad max\|talk]]) 06:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:20, 20 February 2019
Line 36:		Line 36:

	::Pet Conspiracy Theory - that individual is Randall, adding some meta lulz. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.150\|162.158.90.150]] 09:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)		::Pet Conspiracy Theory - that individual is Randall, adding some meta lulz. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.150\|162.158.90.150]] 09:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	::: lol, if this all ends up converging into an xkcd comic that just reads "Soon the truth will be revealed", I may jizz my pants [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.214\|108.162.241.214]] 14:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

	:'''Technical Note:''' please take into consideration that IP addresses published by the wiki engine for not-logged-in persons are not the addresses of particular editors' computers, but of [[wikipedia:Cloudflare\|Cloudflare]] servers, which act as proxies to protect this website from some forms of attack, '''not''' including editing vandalism. Therefore similarity of the addresses could not be construed as evidence that the same person is performing edits. We need to defend in the usual way, reversing edits. Hopefully there are fewer vandals than benevolent contributors.		:'''Technical Note:''' please take into consideration that IP addresses published by the wiki engine for not-logged-in persons are not the addresses of particular editors' computers, but of [[wikipedia:Cloudflare\|Cloudflare]] servers, which act as proxies to protect this website from some forms of attack, '''not''' including editing vandalism. Therefore similarity of the addresses could not be construed as evidence that the same person is performing edits. We need to defend in the usual way, reversing edits. Hopefully there are fewer vandals than benevolent contributors.

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 :::::::@Netehrin5 @Cgrimes85: I am the author of Feb 19 12:28 comment. First of all, it is my choice to either post "anonymously" or create an account, which is meaningless anyway as I could create many under any nick I choose. (IP address is somewhat random, blame today's ISPs, shortage of address space and complicated structure of today's Internet. In fact, 162.158.* belongs to [[wikipedia:Cloudflare|Cloudflare]] which means the originator of the content could be virtually anybody. Do some research before drawing conclusions.) Please stop insinuating that a particular edit of discussion space is related to some other edit of page space when you don't and can't have any proof, and specifically that the texts and purposes of edits are obviously unrelated. But to the point: Randall is trying to posit that suppressing valid science is next to impossible today, but it does not mean it had not been tried in the past with mixed success and &ndash; sadly &ndash; tragic fates of the involved. I have just provided one quite well-known and relatively recent example, there are many more. The reason I've posted it (in somewhat sarcastic form) in the ''discussion'' space is that in my opinion it just did not deserve being included in the main text &mdash; that's what discussion space is for! -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.223|162.158.89.223]] 10:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
-:::::::I apologize for lumping you in with the two IP editors (including the vandal) below, which I do still believe to be the same person for the reasons I mentioned above. I was more replying to the comment asking where "SOON THE TRUTH..." had come from, as I was guessing the editor hadn't seen the vandalism. [[User:Cgrimes85|Cgrimes85]] ([[User talk:Cgrimes85|talk]]) 14:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
+::::::::I apologize for lumping you in with the two IP editors (including the vandal) below, which I do still believe to be the same person for the reasons I mentioned above. I was more replying to the comment asking where "SOON THE TRUTH..." had come from, as I was guessing the editor hadn't seen the vandalism. [[User:Cgrimes85|Cgrimes85]] ([[User talk:Cgrimes85|talk]]) 14:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 Dark energy isn't a direct consequence of the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant could potentially have been 0 or even negative. There's nothing that currently implies that it should be a positive number. That's exactly why it is annoying. If general relativity dictated it, people would just praise this as another result showing relativity is true. But since it doesn't, it needs an explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.6|172.68.65.6]] 21:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 ::::::The page was vandalized twice with the whole of the text replaced with "SOON THE TRUTH WILL BE REVEALED" (see below, and view edit history). Another IP editor replied to the comment below and seemed to imply it was them making the edits, even though the addresses don't match. So, it seems plausible that multiple IP users are actually the same (the two mentioned below, and the one mentioned above), since the tone and content of their comments are pretty similar. I believe this is what is being referred to.[[User:Cgrimes85|Cgrimes85]] ([[User talk:Cgrimes85|talk]]) 21:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
-:::::::@Netehrin5 @Cgrimes85: I am the author of Feb 19 12:28 comment. First of all, it is my choice to either post "anonymously" or create an account, which is meaningless anyway as I could create many under any nick I choose. (IP address is somewhat random, blame today's ISPs, shortage of address space and complicated structure of today's Internet. In fact, 162.158.* belongs to [[wikipedia:Cloudflare|Cloudflare]] which means the originator of the content could be virtually anybody. Do some research before drawing conclusions.) Please stop insinuating that a particular edit of discussion space is related to some other edit of page space when you don't and can't have any proof, and specifically that the texts and purposes of edits are obviously unrelated. But to the point: Randall is trying to posit that suppressing valid science is next to impossible today, but it does not mean it had not been tried in the past with mixed success and &ndash; sadly &ndash; tragic fates of the involved. I have just provided one quite well-known end relatively recent example, there are many more. The reason I've posted it (in somewhat sarcastic form) in the ''discussion'' space is that in my opinion it just did not deserve being included in the main text &mdash; that's what discussion space is for! -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.223|162.158.89.223]] 10:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
+:::::::@Netehrin5 @Cgrimes85: I am the author of Feb 19 12:28 comment. First of all, it is my choice to either post "anonymously" or create an account, which is meaningless anyway as I could create many under any nick I choose. (IP address is somewhat random, blame today's ISPs, shortage of address space and complicated structure of today's Internet. In fact, 162.158.* belongs to [[wikipedia:Cloudflare|Cloudflare]] which means the originator of the content could be virtually anybody. Do some research before drawing conclusions.) Please stop insinuating that a particular edit of discussion space is related to some other edit of page space when you don't and can't have any proof, and specifically that the texts and purposes of edits are obviously unrelated. But to the point: Randall is trying to posit that suppressing valid science is next to impossible today, but it does not mean it had not been tried in the past with mixed success and &ndash; sadly &ndash; tragic fates of the involved. I have just provided one quite well-known and relatively recent example, there are many more. The reason I've posted it (in somewhat sarcastic form) in the ''discussion'' space is that in my opinion it just did not deserve being included in the main text &mdash; that's what discussion space is for! -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.223|162.158.89.223]] 10:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 Dark energy isn't a direct consequence of the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant could potentially have been 0 or even negative. There's nothing that currently implies that it should be a positive number. That's exactly why it is annoying. If general relativity dictated it, people would just praise this as another result showing relativity is true. But since it doesn't, it needs an explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.6|172.68.65.6]] 21:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:47, 20 February 2019
Line 34:		Line 34:

	::Pet Conspiracy Theory - that individual is Randall, adding some meta lulz. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.150\|162.158.90.150]] 09:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)		::Pet Conspiracy Theory - that individual is Randall, adding some meta lulz. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.150\|162.158.90.150]] 09:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	:'''Technical Note:''' please take into consideration that IP addresses published by the wiki engine for not-logged-in persons are not the addresses of particular editors' computers, but of [[wikipedia:Cloudflare\|Cloudflare]] servers, which act as proxies to protect this website from some forms of attack, '''not''' including editing vandalism. Therefore similarity of the addresses could not be construed as evidence that the same person is performing edits. We need to defend in the usual way, reversing edits. Hopefully there are fewer vandals than benevolent contributors.

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:08, 20 February 2019
Line 13:		Line 13:

	::::::The page was vandalized twice with the whole of the text replaced with "SOON THE TRUTH WILL BE REVEALED" (see below, and view edit history). Another IP editor replied to the comment below and seemed to imply it was them making the edits, even though the addresses don't match. So, it seems plausible that multiple IP users are actually the same (the two mentioned below, and the one mentioned above), since the tone and content of their comments are pretty similar. I believe this is what is being referred to.[[User:Cgrimes85\|Cgrimes85]] ([[User talk:Cgrimes85\|talk]]) 21:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)		::::::The page was vandalized twice with the whole of the text replaced with "SOON THE TRUTH WILL BE REVEALED" (see below, and view edit history). Another IP editor replied to the comment below and seemed to imply it was them making the edits, even though the addresses don't match. So, it seems plausible that multiple IP users are actually the same (the two mentioned below, and the one mentioned above), since the tone and content of their comments are pretty similar. I believe this is what is being referred to.[[User:Cgrimes85\|Cgrimes85]] ([[User talk:Cgrimes85\|talk]]) 21:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	:::::::@Netehrin5 @Cgrimes85: I am the author of Feb 19 12:28 comment. First of all, it is my choice to either post "anonymously" or create an account, which is meaningless anyway as I could create many under any nick I choose. (IP address is somewhat random, blame today's ISPs, shortage of address space and complicated structure of today's Internet. In fact, 162.158.* belongs to [[wikipedia:Cloudflare\|Cloudflare]] which means the originator of the content could be virtually anybody. Do some research before drawing conclusions.) Please stop insinuating that a particular edit of discussion space is related to some other edit of page space when you don't and can't have any proof, and specifically that the texts and purposes of edits are obviously unrelated. But to the point: Randall is trying to posit that suppressing valid science is next to impossible today, but it does not mean it had not been tried in the past with mixed success and – sadly – tragic fates of the involved. I have just provided one quite well-known end relatively recent example, there are many more. The reason I've posted it (in somewhat sarcastic form) in the discussion space is that in my opinion it just did not deserve being included in the main text — that's what discussion space is for! -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.223\|162.158.89.223]] 10:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

	Dark energy isn't a direct consequence of the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant could potentially have been 0 or even negative. There's nothing that currently implies that it should be a positive number. That's exactly why it is annoying. If general relativity dictated it, people would just praise this as another result showing relativity is true. But since it doesn't, it needs an explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.6\|172.68.65.6]] 21:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)		Dark energy isn't a direct consequence of the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant could potentially have been 0 or even negative. There's nothing that currently implies that it should be a positive number. That's exactly why it is annoying. If general relativity dictated it, people would just praise this as another result showing relativity is true. But since it doesn't, it needs an explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.6\|172.68.65.6]] 21:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)