User talk:SiriusB

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, SiriusB! My name is Ryan, aka Acetic Acid. I noticed that you were new and haven't received any messages yet. I just wanted to see how you were doing. Wikipedia can be a little intimidating at first, since it uses different formatting than other sites that use HTML and CSS. In the long run, though, you'll find that the WikiSyntax is a lot easier and faster than those other ways. Here are a few links to get you started:

There are a lot of policies and guides to read, but I highly recommend reading over those first. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Please be sure to sign your name on Talk using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, along with a link to your user page. This way, others know when you left a message and how to find you. It's easier than having to type out your name, right? :)

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. We can use all the help we can get! Have a nice day. Sincerely, Ryan 12:41, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, I have been at German Wikipedia for about one year, thus I m not completely new here ;-)--SiriusB 07:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Good edit![edit]

I can completely agree with your alteration in this diff.[1] Thank you for identifying and expressing the issue better than I could. Vassyana (talk) 08:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the images based on BLAST and WE data[edit]

Keep 'em coming! 212.188.109.22 (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Color[edit]

SiriusB, if you're not able to understand color from what's in WP, then you probably should get some good books, and work it out. After that, maybe you'll be in a position to improve the articles, to make them more clear to novices like yourself. You seem unable to take input from those of us who are experts in color, so it's probably best not to make a lot of more noise on the article talk pages. Maybe we're just too deep into it to explain it clearly. But do come back if you find something in sources that can improve the article. Dicklyon (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you didn't even explain how to feed the out-of-range RGB values into the gamma formula, but instead answered by repeating what has caused the question. This not the way one keeps people working in WP (I am indeed thinking about leaving, but this mostly due to increasing problems in the German pages about "irrelevant articles"). In my opionion, WP has its best days behind, and if people appear to be unwilling to explain basics and to solve frequent misunderstandings (that individual RGB values may exceed unity is far beyond anything that is "self-explanatory"), but rather try to repel people outside the ivory tower, then this simply adds nails to WP's coffin. By the way, an increasing number of my colleagues has made similar experiences.--SiriusB (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Alpha Centauri Graph[edit]

Hi SiriusB

thanks for improving the graph...

I have made another improvement (hopefully you will see it as a better version) and uploaded it here: AlphaCentauri apparent and real orbit of B relative to A.png

It is more accurate (marks should quite precisely represent positions in starts of years), also tries to be nicer with a gradient fill... Hopefully I am right assuming B component is the nearer one when in periaster and not vice versa (!) Also it highlightes some of the important dates referred in the Alpha Centauri article (apparently nearest in Jan/Feb 2016; Periastron in January 2035 - btw. an important date in lives of the extraterrestrial species, if any ;))

Btw. I found out that maximum apparent distance announced to 2056 must be a mistake. According to data published on Wikipedia and not conflicting with all the other observed data, It will definitely happen around Jan 2060...

If you think it is better now, please replace it. Thanks.

Regards, Eltwarg (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Eltwarg!
Your version looks good! You are assuming correctly that B will be nearer to the Sun than A around periastron. Currently, 2011/2012, A is closer to us. This can be clearly derived from the paper I citet. In the Celestia software the radial positions are, or at least were when I last looked at it, wrong, i.e. flipped signs. I have even submitted a bug report (bug 3382905), however, development seems to be extremely slow. BTW may I ask which software you used for this? I used Gnuplot; I first tried an SVG, but this failed with black background, so I chose PNG instead.--SiriusB (talk) 08:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi SiriusB
The software is called MS Excel :-D
Input of the sheet consists of:
- orbit time period,
- last periapsis time (time offset),
- time step (for marks - here 1 year)
- orbit major semiaxis length,
- orbit excentricity,
- inclination angle,
- angle of ascending node,
- angle (aka argument) of periapsis,
... the 7 parameters generate XYZ coordinates of the real orbit, this rotated by angle of periapsis, this rotated by inclination, this rotated by angle of ascending node... all relative to plane of the sky. These are shown in classical XY graph.
The gradient is added in Gimp.
... and I believe I have put it on WikiCommons - the page asked me to do so and I just followed the instructions...
The calculated data based on values published on the Alpha Centauri page show maximum ephemeridis radius in 2060 (aslo seen from the picture - yours too, where you just need to count dots)
Ah, now I see that the big event of periapsis happens in 2030 "their time" - not in 2035...
However, I believe all the dates should always be related to the "event apparency" - "they" would have a different calendar anyway :-D
Regards Eltwarg (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.