User talk:JohnGHartnett
Welcome!
|
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I want to insert some text into my page to correct what is written there. I tried but someone deleted it.
- Where you want to add text, let me know that page. CutestPenguin discuss 08:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I want to edit the paragraph under the subtitle 'Critisms' on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hartnett_(physicist)
with the following.
John Hartnett has been criticized by a member of his own creationist ranks, to which he has now submitted two rebuttals. When first challenged about his unconventional use of a fifth spacetime dimension to “solve” the problem of dark matter, Hartnett responded that he was “under no illusion” and that “…positing a new dimension…may be just as bad [as positing dark matter], since it is also a theoretical construct that may be found to be unsubstantiated.” When confronted about the apparent impossibility of a light-speed communication between the earth and his model’s 8 million light-year radius after a mere four creation days, Hartnett responded, “…I unfortunately cannot understand what [my critic] is saying. I feel he is taking it all too seriously.”[16]
However, when that critic was not satisfied with his response, published in the Journal of Creation Letters to the Editor, the same critic posted a further criticism of his model. John Hartnett responded to that on his own blog site saying “On the website ‘Genesis Science Research’ (www.Setterfield.org) an article is written by Mr Randy Speir that is apparently a challenge to my cosmology. Normally I don’t respond to frivolous claims as I think this is but it does remain out there, unchallenged, and so here is my response,…” Hartnett answers the specific allegation (the second listed above) with “He fundamentally does not understand the model. There is nothing special about the 8 million light-year initial radius for the creation of matter. When the universe expands the whole universe expands, including the initial region that contained the galaxies created before the expansion began. Only the region containing our solar system does not expand.
His whole claim here is wrong. The acceleration of the expansion acted like a step function to give cosmic clocks 10 trillion times more time in the cosmos than Earth clocks. Now imagine a source sending a light signal towards Earth just before the expansion started. That signal would have 10 trillion times more time available to it to get to Earth than it would have if there was no acceleration of the expansion. At a distance of 8 million light-years it would take 8 million years to get to Earth in a static universe, but it would take only about 30 minutes in the universe my model describes. Both time periods are measured by Earth clocks.” [new reference number]
{new reference} Hartnett, John G., Response to “Challenge to the Hartnett model” with hyperlinked title: http://johnhartnett.org/2014/01/29/response-to-challenge-to-the-hartnett-model/
- Your edit might be declined in the case of WP:COI in this situation instead of adding contents yourself you can ask any editor to deal with this. Another thing is, the above mentioned content should only be added in the main article if it have reliable references and does not have WP:copyvio. CutestPenguin discuss 10:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Explanation for edit
[edit]In regards to my reversal of your edit [1] I am sorry that I clicked without providing an edit summary.
There were multiple reasons:
1) The content was not cited to a reliably published source
2) As a self published source the site is only acceptable for content that is not unduly self serving. The content published on the Hartnett site was added was very self-serving for Hartnett
3) as an ultra WP:FRINGE claim, we do not provide 3 full paragraphs defending the fringe claim compared to half a sentence explaining the mainstream view
4) the rebuttals had not received coverage in third party reliable sources
and all of the above compounded by
4) the edit being made by someone who has an apparent conflict of interest.
I hope that helps explain why the content is not appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- And as an additional note, i think there is a lot of room for improvement in the article, beginning with the conversion of the inappropriate "criticisms" section, which I also meant to do at the time and have done now. ( I think this may have been a case of "cat walking across the keyboard with too many tabs open" and I lost track of where I was). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)