Jump to content

User talk:Tcisco

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ECKnibbs (talk | contribs) at 04:27, 6 July 2007 (→‎Re: Crucifixion eclipse). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Ohaire UFO

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


  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tcisco&oldid=142823465"