Welcome!

Hello, Softvision, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Hi, concerning your edits on Twin paradox and Triplets Paradox, please have a very careful look at WP:NOR. DVdm (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reconciled - article deleted. Softvision (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I interpreted your statement on the talk page of this article as a good faith deletion request, and have therefore tagged the article for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G7. I hope you will continue to contribute positively to Wikipedia in the future. decltype (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm this. My intention is positive. Softvision (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article moved here : User:Softvision/Triplets Paradox

Discussion is welcome.

Softvision (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section on Talk:Twin paradox linking to your Triplet Paradox. Please do not advertise your original research. Paradoctor (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:Time dilation for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked. I have moved the offending section from the talk page below. Your original research is not suitable for inclusion. End of story. I notice your are doing the same to other talk pages.Tim Shuba (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frequency of the photon is property of the photon. Frequency of the photon is deterministic manifestation of the photon state - energy E=hv, momentum p=hv/c. The frequency of the photon is time dependent. If time is dilated, frequency goes down. If time is absolutely dilated, v=c, frequency is zero, energy is zero, momentum is zero, from the reference frame of observer. Perception of the photon will therefore have no frequency information. This is contradiction with reality. If time is not absolutely dilated, v<c, generic frequency of the photon, must be much higher than the observed (percepted) frequency, therefore energy and momentum too. If time dilation is valid and frequency of the photon is not time dilated, frequency of the photon could not be property of the photon. If color is not property of the photon, what is photon ? Frequency must be conserved in the state of the photon, in one or other form, for the time sufficient to enable spectroscopic detection of distant atomic spectra. Detection of distant atomic spectra requires nonzero manifestation of the photon frequency. I think it is not difficult to understand the contradictions in photon and time dilation concepts. If physical time dilation is not effect of reality (= is just effect of theory), frequency contradictions disapear, Doppler effects will stay. If photon is electromagnetic wave, from the reference frame of the photon, the layout of the electromagnetic field around the center of the photon position is static in the sense of frequency. This does not mean that the time in the reference frame of the photon is absolutely dilated. This represent the propagation of the electromagnetic wave in space and time. Space and time are not affected. Perception of electromagnetic wave is relative, not the space time. If you move in reference frame of the electromagnetic wave, the frequency of the wave is zero, but the electromagnetic potential is nonzero. If the electromagnetic field is not confined to the region of the photon, intensity of the electromagnetic field decays with space distance (wich is in the case of the speed of light equivalent to the time distance). That means the field in the reference frame of the photon decays, but the frequency did not manifest (the wave length will manifest as the gradient of the field). If electromagnetic field is deterministicaly confined to the region of the photon, the state of the photon in the reference frame of the photon is static. The evolution of the state of the photon is therefore static in the reference frame of the photon and dynamic in the reference frame of perception (observer). Exactly matching long distance spectroscopy. Just opposite as the Theory of relativity predicts. Softvision (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is this essay all about? It is based on information found in reliable sources? Why is it top-posted on this page? It doesn't look like anything that has a place in the article, or which will spark discussion that will lead to article impovement. It appears to be utter garbage. Tim Shuba (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion submission is top-posted, because it seriously relates to this article validity. Physics is the science of reality. So it must be consistent with reality. Inconsistence with reality seriously indicates invalidity of the theory. If there is inconsistence of the theory with reality, there are several ways to start the improvement of the theory. In any case, the contradictions of the theory must be recognized, formulated, defined, published and finaly solved. If there is contradiction in widely accepted theory, contradiction of the theory cannot be cited from the reliable source (it is not difficult to understand why). Therefore this is serious discussion submission, formulation of contradiction, and not the essay. This submission is open and friendly indication to the physicists that understand necessity of the consistence of theories. And who will perceive this carefully, maybe more. Softvision (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the frequency of the photon in the reference frame of the photon ? What is the frequency of the photon in the reference frame of observer ? Is concept of the photon frequency distinct in context of the relativistic physical time dilation ? Frequency is events per time. Time dilation means less events per time observed in relatively moving system than in relatively not moving system. Time dilation in Relativity theory means physical time dilation, not only observational time dilation (Doppler effect). See Twins paradox. I was trying to notice this contradiction few months ago, but reaction was negative. I am wondering why physicists cannot undestand this. Please consider this seriously. I have made several computer simulations that indicate that there is a problem. Physical deceleration of the system processes does not mean physical time dilation (the physicaly slower time (t) flow). Softvision (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Dicklyon (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. OK. Thank you. Softvision (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to Talk:Large Hadron Collider, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Talk:Large Hadron Collider , but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Talk:Large Hadron Collider. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.

Softvision, you don't understand Wikipedia (no original research) nor - more importantly - special relativity. BenRG already explained very clearly to you that 14 TeV is the total energy of the two protons in the center of mass frame (which for the LHC coincides with the laboratory frame), whereas 104000 TeV is the energy of one proton in the reference frame where the other proton is at rest. They are two very different things, but the relevant figure here is 14 TeV, because it gives the upper bound on the mass of the particles that could be created in the collision (as a matter of fact, the particles will be created in the collisions between the quarks and gluons that constitute each proton, so they will typically have a total energy much lower than 14 TeV). And after all, don't you think that if there was such a big problem in either special relativity or the design of the LHC somebody would have already noticed? Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did to Talk:Michelson–Morley experiment, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Talk:Length contraction, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]