User talk:Douglas Cotton

Venus

It cannot be substantiated with standard physics that the surface of Venus is kept hot by radiation from the colder carbon dioxide atmosphere. The small solid core of Uranus (55% the mass of Earth) has a surface temperature several times that of the Venus surface, and yet only about as much methane as Earth has water vapor. Uranus is nearly 30 times further from the Sun than Earth is, and thus receives little more than 0.1% of incident solar radiation.

In fact the surface temperature of Venus rises by about 5 degrees (from 732K to 737K) during the four-month-long day and so this requires an input of thermal energy, which cannot be coming by way of radiation from the colder atmosphere because, if it were, entropy would be decreasing.

Venus cools by 5 degrees at night, and so it could easily have cooled right down over the life of the planet if the Sun provided no insolation. So we can deduce that it is energy from the Sun which is gradually raising the temperature of the Venus surface during those four months of Earth time. But less than 20 watts per square meter of solar radiation gets through to the surface because carbon dioxide actually absorbs incident solar radiation.

If one tries to explain the 5 degree difference with Stefan-Boltzmann calculations for radiation, there is a difference of about 450 watts per square meter just between the two temperatures 732K and 737K, and so this is not supplied from the direct solar radiation which is only about one tenth of that which reaches Earth's surface.

Hence there is no scientific basis for assuming that direct radiation to the surface is the cause of the high surface temperatures on Venus, and thus there is no "runaway greenhouse effect."

Douglas Cotton (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Heat Transfer

You should not have the article on Heat Transfer saying something altogether different from what the article on the Second Law of Thermodynamics says. The end state of maximum attainable entropy is a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, not just a state of thermal equilibrium. The latter may not be a state of maximum entropy, unless you define thermal equilibrium as having no further net energy transfers across any boundary between objects and any boundary within objects. The Second Law says nothing at all about heat transfers being only from hot to cold. It talks about entropy never decreasing. All this is well established physics, in which I have had over 50 years' experience helping tertiary students understand such.

Douglas Cotton (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thermal conduction

For reason similar to those stated above (regarding Heat Transfer) the article on Thermal Conduction should be written in accord with the wording of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which describes entropy increasing towards the state of thermodynamic equilibrium and says nothing at all about thermal equilibrium or heat transferring only from hot to cold. The latter concept comes from the mid 19th century Clausius statement which only applies in a horizontal plane or in a non-gravitational system. That statement is not used by physicists in the 21st century.

Douglas Cotton (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second Law of Thermodynamics

The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to processes within isolated systems, not bodies, and it should specify that the concept of the total net change in entropy should only relate to either a single process or a sequence of dependent processes. If there are two or more independent processes, then each must result in no decrease in entropy. The two sides of a siphon represent dependent processes, but if you cut the hose at the top you have independent processes, and so the water no longer moves upwards on the shorter (input) side. There are many cases of one-way radiation (such as the Sun warming a black disc under the surface of water) and, in fact, any radiation should be treated as a one-way independent process.

The concept that temperature, pressure etc become spatially homogeneous only applies in the absence of an external force field or, if a gravitational force field is present, then only in a horizontal plane within that force field. In all other situations the force field gives rise to a situation in which molecules have non-homogeneous potential energy due to that force field. That potential energy must be taken into account in entropy computations.

The Second Law discusses thermodynamic equilibrium, which can exhibit gradients in density, for example, in a gravitational field. In fact, thermodynamic equilibrium is the same as hydrostatic equilibrium in this case (when all net energy transfers cease) because there can be only one state of maximum entropy.

As said above, we must consider not just molecular kinetic energy (that determines temperature) but also gravitational potential energy. When we do this, we understand from Kinetic Theory how a density gradient develops, and so too does a temperature gradient. If, for example, you had a long horizontal cylinder of gas with homogeneous density and temperature, and you then turned it to a vertical position, there would be more net downward movement of molecules than upward movement. So a density gradient develops, but also a temperature gradient because more molecules are gaining kinetic energy as they move to lower regions, whilst fewer are losing kinetic energy as they move upwards. Temperature depends only upon the mean kinetic energy of molecules, not the density. Pressure follows because it is proportional to the product of temperature and density. High pressure does not cause high temperature: rather it is the result of high temperature coupled with high density. Pressure does not maintain high temperatures either.

There is solid empirical evidence of a strong force field redistributing molecular kinetic energy (thus causing different temperatures) in a Ranque-Hilsch Vortex tube where forces of the order of over a million g are developed in a tube with radius about 6mm.

Douglas Cotton (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Greenhouse Effect

The radiative greenhouse effect conjecture is demolished by the Loschmidt gravito-thermal effect which is clearly evident in a Ranque-Hilsch Vortex tube for example, as well as in all planetary tropospheres. See also my item above on Venus.

It is wrong to assume Loschmidt's gravitationally induced thermal gradient does not evolve spontaneously in a gravitational field. It is the isentropic state of maximum entropy with no further unbalanced energy potentials. You cannot explain why the Venus surface temperature rises by 5 degrees spread over the course of its 4-month-long day with any radiative forcing conjecture or greenhouse philosophy. The Venus surface receives barely 10% of the direct Solar radiation that Earth's surface receives. It would need over 16200 W/m^2 if radiation were heating the surface. Then, during sunlit hours it would need an extra 450W/m^2 to raise the temperature from about 732K to 737K. On Earth, if isothermal conditions were supposedly existing without water vapor and other greenhouse gases, then the sensitivity to water vapor would be about 10 degrees per 1% atmospheric content. But there is no evidence that a region with 1% above it is 30 degrees colder than another region at similar altitude and latitude with 4% above it. The effective surface layer of Earth's oceans may be considered to be only 1cm thick, or even if 10cm thick it is still very transparent to insolation. But a black or grey body does not transmit radiation, and the surface layer absorbs less than 1% of that incident solar radiation. So the S-B calculations are totally incorrect and planetary surface temperatures cannot be calculated using such.

This is where the error crept in in 1985 [1] ...

"Coombes and Laue concluded that answer (1) is the correct one and answer (2) is wrong. They reached this conclusion after finding that statement (2a) is wrong, i.e., the average kinetic energy of all molecules does not decrease with the height even though the kinetic energy of each individual molecule does decrease with height.

These authors give at first a qualitative explanation of this fact by noting that since both the kinetic energy of the molecules and the number density of molecules decrease with height, the average molecular kinetic energy does not necessarily decrease with height."

This is absurd. They had the mean kinetic energy decreasing in each molecule, but then they divided again by the number. Try calculating a mean by dividing twice by the number of elements. A glaring error. The Loschmidt effect has NOT been debunked by this nonsense.

Nor has the Loschmidt (or gravito-thermal) effect been debunked by Verkley et al [2] because they made the mistake of working with enthalpy, rather than entropy, which is all that the Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to. An isothermal state would have unbalanced energy potentials in a vertical plane because it would have more mean gravitational potential energy per molecule at the top. Hence it is not the state of thermodynamic equilibrium with maximum entropy.

A good example of the gravito-thermal effect can be found in the nominal Uranus troposphere where the base is hotter than Earth's surface despite there being no significant direct solar radiation or internal energy source, or any surface. The thermal gradient in the Uranus troposphere works out to be very close indeed to the negative quotient of the acceleration due to gravity on that planet and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases in the troposphere.

[1] Velasco, S., Román, F.L., White, J.A. (1996). On a paradox concerning the temperature distribution of an ideal gas in a gravitational field, Eur. J. Phys., 17: 43–44.

[2] W.T.M.Verkley et al "On Maximum Entropy Profiles" http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(2004)061%3C0931%3AOMEP%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Douglas Cotton (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Megavitamin Therapy

Biased selection of studies

This article selects relatively few studies, and primarily those supporting its agenda. For example, consider this article and all the studies it refers to ... http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2008/apr2008_Newly-Discovered-Benefits-Of-Vitamin-C_01.htm?source=search&key=vitamin%20c Douglas Cotton (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Cotton (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User edits investigation

Hello Douglas, i recently saw your involvement with another user, which edits i currently investigate, do you have anything substantial to add about the edits of the user involved? Looking forward to your feedback, thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Prokaryotes#Gamed_edits Prokaryotes (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing of the other user, but I noticed substantial changes to the Second Law of Thermodynamics recently which were in error in saying, for example, that density and pressure even out, without clarifying whether or not this was in a horizontal plane or affected by a gravitational field in a vertical plane. So I corrected that new version.

Note also that I have just corrected a number of errors in Heat Transfer in order to bring it into line with the statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and to include, for example, conduction within a system, such as along a metal rod.

Added March 29, 2014 ....

I would like to add that I'm sorry that I inadvertently edited in Wikipedia without logging in. This was not intentional and I had nothing to hide.

There have been comments made in complaints regarding my use of other names like "Visiting Physicist" on climate blogs. Anonymous names are far from uncommon on climate blogs, where a large number of commenters retain anonymity using, for example, just the first letter of their surname, and I suppose I could have done so all along. However, I am currently able to post on nearly all climate blogs, including ones where I have been temporarily banned in the past. This is notably the case with PSI, DrRoySpencer, Judith Curry, JoNova and even Stoat and Lucia's Blackboard. More and more readers (and maybe blog owners) are starting to realize that I have been correct all along.

However, when I am discriminated against and comments deleted, such as by Skeptical Science, Anthony Watts (WUWT) Science of Doom and Jeff Condon (The Air Vent) for the obvious reason that I put up valid points for which they have no answer, then I sometimes feel justified in getting comments past the filters, whilst still using my name, even if with spaces between letters. These blog owners in particular clearly have an agenda and a pecuniary interest in maintaining the status quo. Their actions are not in the interests of science, and much of what they write is a travesty of physics.

I am one of very few in the world who have a background including extensive study of both climatology and the physics of radiative energy transfer and thermodynamics. My peer-reviewed paper "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" has never been successfully rebutted since it appeared on several climate websites in March 2012.

Be assured that anything I add or modify in Wikipedia has always been, and will always be based on sound physics backed up by empirical evidence.

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing on Wikipedia

Hello, a few points about your recent edits.
1.) Keep article discussions to the article talk page.
2.) If you edit content, provide references. If you need references for references, look it up in articles or google it. Please do not modify integral content (such as laws) without providing references, thanks. Prokaryotes (talk) 13:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Venus". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 13:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Venus

You just deleted an entire talk page discussion with everyone's comments. That's not okay, and one of the few talk page edits that can be considered WP:VANDALISM. I'm going to assume that was an honest mistake and that you didn't know the rules or realize that the discussion was still there. You can hit "show" on the right side of my collapsebox to see the discussion. However, I wouldn't advise continuing it. Wikipedia is not a forum and it's not for your own essays. If you find a source that says something that we missed, you're welcome to suggest it. You're not welcome to suggest your own interpretation of that source. And if you keep trying to use wikipedia as a discussion forum, you may find yourself banned, as it appears that you're here to push your own pet theories rather than build an encyclopedia. Sailsbystars (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hokay, so you just did that again. Not cool. Let me give you a hint. There's a "show changes" button at the bottom of the edit window (as well as "show preview"). If you see large bits of text disappearing from the talk page, that's not okay. Sailsbystars (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response

There is an official dispute opened in DR/N where text is limited and they recommend providing extra information on the article talk page, which is what I have done now in a new "COMPLAINT" item which I referred to in the DR/N page.

I deleted some text which I had written in the first Venus talk topic because I copied it to the new COMPLAINT item in order to clarify the complaint and focus on the issues that are wrong in the Venus article. However, I have left that duplicated text in the original item now. You may delete the text that is duplicated if you wish.

And no, my agenda here is purely to correct errors that I perceive (and can confirm with standard physics) in any Wikipedia article, thus helping to ensure that Wikipedia reflects correct science, notably in the field of radiative heat transfer and thermodynamics, wherein I may be one of the 0.1% who understand such.

Sure, I do indeed have an alternative and valid hypothesis that does explain all relevant observations, but of course I don't expect that to appear in Wikipedia perhaps for a few years, after it has appeared in notable publications, and been supported by ongoing evidence of slight global cooling until about the year 2029 such as I predict.

Douglas Cotton (talk) 03:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the corresponding article, and your hypotheses, regardless of merit, are not going to be included until they are published in a reliable source. Your lengthy essays on the talk pages are disruptive, as is your use of capitalization. Please stop with both. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my full response in the comment just above yours. I had added some text to that comment possibly while you were writing.

Some errors (such as in the Venus article) may well require a lengthy detailed explanation, so I make no excuse for such as there is a need for clarity and cogency. Douglas Cotton (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lengthy essay should not be necessary on an article talk page - just briefly summarize the edit you propose and provide the reliable, secondary sources that are the source of that information. If you need to reference the Second Law in a discussion about the surface temperature of Venus, then you are doing it wrong. VQuakr (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You write: "If you need to reference the Second Law in a discussion about the surface temperature of Venus you are doing it wrong." Why do you say that, when it is the process described in current statements of the second law of thermodynamics which is what is controlling the surface temperature of Venus? I have explained why in talk pages, but I guess you are one of the 99.9% who don't understand thermodynamics. When energy enters the Venus surface and raises its temperature it is doing so only because it is restoring the state of thermodynamic equilibrium which the Second Law is talking about. But don't worry about responding, as I know this is not your area of expertise. Just don't make assertive statements claiming I am doing it wrong, OK?

FYI: Douglas Cotton really does not know what he is talking about because his comparison between the rocky body of Venus and the rocky core of Uranus is fallacious. The solid body of Venus at a surface temperature of ca. 750K is enveloped in its atmosphere of mostly carbon dioxide versus the tiny, rocky core of Uranus which is covered by a thick mantle of water, ammonia, and methane ices under a thick atmosphere of mostly hydrogen, helium, and methane gases. As is the case with Jupiter, Uranus does not possess a well-defined solid surface. The high 5000K temperature of the solid, rocky Uranus core under its thick, insulating blanket of the icy mantle could easily be the result of heat from radioactive decay in concert with residual, primordial natal heat. I suggest Cotton read the "Internal Structure" section of the Uranus entry for meaning. Phaedrus7 (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Phaedrus7 (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Douglas Cotton, B.Sc.(physics), B.A.(economics), Dip.Bus.Admin

The detail pertaining to Uranus is a red herring. Even at the base of its nominal troposphere (altitude -300Km) it is 320K - hotter than Earth's surface, but nearly 30 times further from the Sun. No it could not "easily be the result of heat from radioactive decay in concert with residual, primordial natal heat" because there is no convincing evidence of significant net energy loss at top of Uranus atmosphere.

On the Venus talk page you may read why there is no greenhouse effect on Venus. I don't need to provide evidence that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is correct, nor the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. This is not research: it is just use of the laws of physics.

Wikipedia needs to show why they think my use of the laws of physics (which I have known and understood for about 50 years) is incorrect and/or my conclusions incorrect. If they continue to include claims that amount to a complete travesty of physics, and which are unsupported by anything other than assertive assumptions in 1980's literature, they need to face the consequences of widespread adverse publicity.

Douglas Cotton (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Change discretionary sanctions notification

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Climate change. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Douglas Cotton:

I have not made any more edits to articles in the last few days since I have become aware of the talk pages wherein there do not appear to be policies preventing discussion of incorrect physics therein. I will keep any such discussion to just using the laws of physics to point out errors in such things as the assertive assumptions (from the 1980's) that the surface of Venus is hot because of a greenhouse effect. My points on that are summarized here ... http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/03/open-thread-9/#comment-513142

Douglas Cotton (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undertaking: I will undertake to heed what it says in WP guidelines: "There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation" Douglas Cotton (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Areas of expertise

Wikipedia doesn't tell you how to conduct physics research. There is a presumption that physicists know how to do physics research better than encyclopedia writers. Could it be possible that it works the other way as well? That someone who has had considerable success in the field of physics but who has never created an encyclopedia just might have something to learn from the editors of the world's largest and most successful encyclopedia?

We have seen many examples of scientists who think that they are automatically experts in unrelated fields. Linus Pauling was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, but he was dead wrong about Megavitamin therapy. Peter Duesberg did some groundbreaking work on cancer, but he was dead wrong about AIDS. Even Isaac Newton got it wrong when he left his field of expertise: his alchemical research was considered to be distinctly second-rate by contemporary alchemists. Could it be that maybe, just maybe, Douglas Cotton isn't the expert in encyclopedia creation that he thinks he is and could learn a few things from those of us who have years of experience writing and maintaining an encyclopedia? I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Cotton's response: There are, of course, things that I have learnt from Wikipedia, but in anything I read I question whether it is in keeping with the laws of physics. So too should Wikipedia editors, even if they have to employ more specialists in various fields. Peer review processes and "reliable sources" are in fact no longer "proof" of anything, especialy if easily dismantled with the laws of physics already in WP. If I find statements in WP that are in blatant defiance of the laws of physics, then WP is in essence self-contradictory because, in general, it does at least get the laws of physics, such as the second law of thermodynamics correctly stated. So I, and perhaps other readers, lose confidence when we read unsupported statements such as those in vortex tube which I have discussed in detail in that talk page. Likewise, when I know that energy is not created in thermodynamic and radiative processes, I thus know that one cannot get more energy flux out of the base of the Venus atmosphere than the Sun put in at the top. Yet, if it were only radiation raising the Venus surface temperature by 5 degrees, that radiation would have to be about 14,000 to 16,000 watts per square meter. But the Russians did measurements on the surface and estimated that less than 20 watts per square meter was getting through. The Venus atmosphere is thus very opaque to incoming solar radiation. Why? Because on Venus our vegetation's friend carbon dioxide is absorbing over 95% of incident solar energy and sending it back to space before it can heat the surface. I could write similarly about all the reference to greenhouse effect garbage, but I'm not realistically expecting that to be reconsidered for several years. That's why I'm investing time and money in a huge publicity campaign to get the truth out.

Douglas Cotton (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote: You don't have evidence to prove Linus Pauling was "was dead wrong about Megavitamin therapy" and I state that on the basis that I have also done a tertiary course in nutrition and post-graduate university studies in natural medicine. I happen to take "mega" doses of many nutrients and I am personally aware of the benefits, but that's anecdotal of course. However, you might do well to read some of the research referred to on the Life Extension Foundation website lef.org. Regarding Pauling's advocacy of high vitamin C doses (such as I also take) you could start here .. http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2008/apr2008_Newly-Discovered-Benefits-Of-Vitamin-C_01.htm?source=search&key=vitamin%20c

Douglas Cotton (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, geez. BMK (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geez yes - bias in WP yet again, despite policy - see all the talk by others also on megavitamin therapy. Douglas Cotton (talk) 00:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, Wikipedia has an extremely strong bias - towards well-accepted mainstream science and away from unproven WP:FRINGE science -- which is why you're having so much trouble, since you're swimming upstream, and apparently will not accept some of our basic policies, such as the need to verify information through the use of reliable sources, and the proscription again original research. Sooner or later, if you keep up this behavior, you will be blocked from editing, probably (eventually) indefinitely, as you seem to have little to offer us that we're interested in having. I'd recommend that you start your own blog somewhere, or take your theories to any number of places which don't require the level of verifiability we do - you'll be happier, I'm sure. BMK (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we make it sooner? The original research policy has been linked in plain sight at least half a dozen times for DC. Yet the OR shows no sign of abating... Sailsbystars (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Douglas Cotton:

I have not made any more edits to articles in the last few days since I have become aware of the talk pages wherein there do not appear to be policies preventing discussion of incorrect physics therein. I will keep any such discussion to just using the laws of physics to point out errors in such things as the assertive assumptions (from the 1980's) that the surface of Venus is hot because of a greenhouse effect. My points on that are summarized here ...

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/04/global-warming-not-so-bad-at-all-really-says-nipcc-report-and-thousands-of-references/#comment-1418019

Douglas Cotton (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

try WP:NOTFORUM Sailsbystars (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"3.Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinion of experts)." That's OK. I'll keep to my "areas of expertise" such as the physics of radiative heat transfer and thermodynamics. See for example my peer-reviewed paper "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics." Or maybe I should get some of the physicists who agree I'm right to cite me as an expert. And it does say "resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages" So I will agree to heed what it says: "There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation"

Douglas Cotton (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've missed the point entirely (which hardly surprises me):

Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article ... Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines.

Expositions on your pet theories in your "area of expertise" fall under the category of "general discussion" and can be deleted on sight. Continuing to make those kinds of edits can be considered to be disruptive or tendentitous behavior, and can lead to being blocked from editing.

Whichever way you cut it, you are not going to be allowed to use Wikipedia as way to promote your theories. We really don't know or care if you are right or wrong, we only care if the scientific community thinks you are right and endorses your theories - that's the thing that you're not understanding. Only generally accepted mainstream science makes it into Wikipedia articles, and, so far, at least, your ideas do not qualify. We don't publish anything that's new, different, groundbreaking or revolutionary until the scientific community adopts it, period, full stop.

My advice is to quit while you're ahead, because the inevitable result of your continuing to edit in the manner you have been is going to be an indefinite block. That's not a threat -- I'm not an admin, I'm a rank-and-file who cannot block you -- but an observation based on my almost nine years of editing here. I've seen this same thing happen numerous times, and that's always the way things end up. (Were I an admin, I'd recognize the inevitable and block you right now, but most of our admins have a lot more patience than I do, fortunately for you.) BMK (talk) 03:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you miss my point. It is you who is assuming I am just advancing my theories. Maybe that did seem to happen indirectly in early comments, but not in recent days. The publication of unsound conjectures in WP, which I see as a travesty of physics, is not in the long-term interests of WP. So WP should not (quite unnecessarily in the Venus article) promote such things as a "runaway greenhouse effect" supposedly being the reason why Venus is so hot. Nor is it in the long-term interests of WP to promote false concepts such as "high pressure causes high temperatures" as in the vortex tube article and others. The ideal gas law does not say that, and cannot be used to prove it. Nothing in valid physics supports the notion: only in the world of climatology do we seem to hear it.

Believe it or not, I do want to improve WP, and so I firmly believe that incorrect physics should be eliminated, even when an explanation of the correct physics (such as for the vortex tube) may not yet appear in a suitable publication. Likewise, the lack of an "accepted" explanation for the Venus temperatures is not a reason for publishing one which so obviously violates physics and assumes that the atmosphere can somehow magnify the energy it receives and pump out more into the surface than reaches it in solar radiation at its top.

So what can be wrong in my "undertaking" above to endeavor to improve WP by pointing out in article talk pages that there are incorrect statements in an article, which very clearly are not in accord with the laws of physics which WP also publishes? Do you want WP to be self-contradictory?

Douglas Cotton (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Douglas Cotton. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]