User talk:Fire Vortex
September 2010[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Metric expansion of space, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Metric expansion of space. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Please stop changing the lead by replacing a perfectly good piece of material - if you wish to add your own somewhat unconventional material, please add it elsewhere in the article and provide a reliable citation for it - see WP:RS -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Metric expansion of space, you may be blocked from editing. Add it elsewhere in the article - do not remove perfectly good content from the lead -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- The key point here is that the sentence "It is an intrinsic expansion—that is, it is defined by the relative separation of parts of the universe and not by motion "outward" into preexisting space. (In other words, the universe is not expanding "into" anything outside of itself)." is perfectly fine, and you should not be removing it - if you wish to add new material of your own, add it separately rather than replacing good existing material with it, and once you have done that we can review any citations that you provide on their own merit. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)
- OK. -- Fire Vortex (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hi. I have also now checked the reference you provided, and there are a number of problems with it...
- It is not pertinent to the topic of the metric expansion of space (or if it is, only tangentially).
- It is clearly discussing something that is novel and controversial, and which is nowhere near sufficiently widely accepted to go in the lead of this article.
- It doesn't actually support your statement anyway.
- -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- My statement is based on the generally accepted notion that the negative pressure of dark energy is the suction exerted by the centre of the universe's gravitational field--see Google Books. I just said that "expansion" is an obvious misnomer. What are you actually objecting against? -- Fire Vortex (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hi. I have also now checked the reference you provided, and there are a number of problems with it...
- You seem to have misunderstood the meaning of the term "negative pressure" in articles such as dark energy. The negative pressure of dark energy is a repulsive force that contributes to and accelerates the expansion of the space-time metric. It is certainly not a "suction" in any useful sense of the word. It is described as "negative" because in the Einstein field equations it takes the opposite sign to the mass-energy tensor i.e. it acts in the opposite way to the gravitational attraction that arises from "ordinary" energy and mass. And a random search of Google Books does not constitute a reliable source for your views. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Some of the books expressly stating that the negative pressure of dark energy is suction are proceedings of the Royal Society. Equations are tautological--they equate, but do not prove anything pertaining to quality. Fire Vortex (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- You really need to read those passage more carefully. The ones that talk about dark energy - like this one and this one - explain that it results in a repulsive force, not a suction. The ones that use "negative pressure" to mean "suction" are not talking about dark energy. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Some of the books expressly stating that the negative pressure of dark energy is suction are proceedings of the Royal Society. Equations are tautological--they equate, but do not prove anything pertaining to quality. Fire Vortex (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- You seem to have misunderstood the meaning of the term "negative pressure" in articles such as dark energy. The negative pressure of dark energy is a repulsive force that contributes to and accelerates the expansion of the space-time metric. It is certainly not a "suction" in any useful sense of the word. It is described as "negative" because in the Einstein field equations it takes the opposite sign to the mass-energy tensor i.e. it acts in the opposite way to the gravitational attraction that arises from "ordinary" energy and mass. And a random search of Google Books does not constitute a reliable source for your views. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)