User talk:Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog

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


Hello, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

To keep up to date with interesting news and developments, you may also wish to subscribe to The Signpost, our illustrated monthly newspaper, and have it delivered directly to your talk page.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Ceoil (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


This. - DVdm (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow. You are a genius, or you are extremely intelligent.[edit]

So I was looking through your recent edits, and I realized, "wow, this guy is smart!" I hope we can be friends! Brian Everlasting (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, but I'm not really that smart. I'm a good writer and a semi-reasonable artist with a certain talent for explaining things well, and the story I had to tell in my article was a compelling one! Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
You're also very modest Face-smile.svg. - DVdm (talk) 11:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Einstein's thought experiments for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Einstein's thought experiments is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Einstein's thought experiments until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Undoing is fine with me ...[edit]

..., but I want to report that

  • I read in my youth about Einstein, who envisioned a "Dachdecker" (=roofer?, who else) as falling off a roof, and this roofer meditating about his perception of gravity. So I do not see where you spot the "embellishment", and assuming that Einstein envisioned this scenario several times makes a plural reasonable, imho.
  • I consider it to be a philosophical question, whether it is possible at all, and especially for paradigmata, to explain "insights". I am along the lines that they are just capable to demonstrate "consequences" of the insights.
  • As a non-native speaker, I fail to understand why "suggesting to envision riding something" were "ungrammatical".
  • Of course, bracketing with semicola the diverse forms to one long sentence is a matter of taste.

I would enjoy some linguistic enlightenment and apologize for my curiosity. Purgy (talk) 09:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

  • I had checked Isaacson back into the library on Sunday, but I've just put in a new hold request so I can scan the relevant pages discussing how later writers embellished Einstein's documented writings on the falling person thought experiment. Expect a Google Drive link in a few days.
  • My reading of Einstein's presentation was that he wanted his readers to be able to understand why relativity of simultaneity must be true, rather than just what it is. The word "consequences" implies that he was merely explaining the what of relativity of simultaneity.
  • Wrong verb form. "In his youth, he suggested to envision riding beams of light" should instead use the gerund form of "envision", i.e. "In his youth, he suggested envisioning riding beams of light." However, even though the second sentence would be grammatically correct, it strikes me as awkward.
  • Online grammar checkers are available:
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 10:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Re your possible proposed changes to Abraham Lincoln (mentioned on Talk:George Washington)[edit]

You should open up a section for discussion about this on the article's talkpage before you institute any wholesale changes to the present Good Article. Shearonink (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abraham Lincoln, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Salem, Illinois (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


I see what your trying to do. We do this in separate pages like Introduction to genetics ....but

  • Content added needs to be sourced to references you have seen as per stick to the sources....not to Wikipedia text as it may be wrong and not reflect the given source..... as Wikipedia itself is not reliable as per WP:CIRCULAR "Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly." Plus you need to WP:PROVEIT "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source"
  • Best use prose format as per WP:USEPROSE. "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context".
--Moxy (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Using bulleted format serves to make the summary section visually distinct from the main text. Otherwise it can be confusing to a reader whether he/she is reading a summary or the main article. This might seem easy to tell if you are reading this on a desktop, but my main concern has been the thousands of readers viewing this on their phones with extreme tunnel vision So yes, I understand that for main text, prose is preferred. But this has to balanced against other concerns. Cell phone ownership exceeds tablet ownership by a 3:2 ratio, so my very rough guess is that cell phone readership is roughly comparable to desktop readership for this article.
Your concerns about misuse of Wikipedia as a reliable source, which of course it is not, definitely have validity. But WP:CIRCULAR primarily addresses the situation of Wikipedia articles using other Wikipedia articles as sources. While writing the summary section, I suppressed my wish to add my own thoughts as much as possible. I am fairly well-read on Lincoln, and there were some sections of the Main text of Abraham Lincoln that I disagreed with, but I tried as much as possible to reflect the main text without interjecting any of my own thoughts and interpretations. To do so would have required me to add references to support my challenges to the main text, following MOS:LEADCITE.
Shouldn't this discussion actually go in the article talk? I was going to respond after I had a bit more input. I didn't want to immediately jump upon every comment.
Thanks for your reasoned thoughts! Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 08:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Would be best to bring this up at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) because the majority of other editors will not want you to summarize what already here without actually reading the sources. Interpretations of interpretations generally are not accurate.--Moxy (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Secondary sources for the Transverse Doppler Effect diagram[edit]

Dear Wikipedia editor,

According to

: ”The first step to resolving any dispute is to talk to those who disagree with you.” I would like to make another attempt on the talk page to resolve the dispute and to persuade other Wikipedia editors to accept my diagram, so in accordance with verifiable please allow me to include some secondary sources, that you maybe are not aware of.

(Kevin S. Brown, Mathpages,

Now suppose that, relative to the receiver’s rest frame, the incoming pulses of the signal are arriving perpendicular to the receiver’s motion. This implies that is perpendicular to , so we have . It follows that , and so Inserting this into equation (2) gives


Thus if the signal propagates at the speed of light in vacuum, so C = c, the frequency shift in this condition is simply


whereas classically it would be the square of this. On the other hand, for the condition when the light signal is perpendicular to the receiver’s path in terms of the emitter’s rest frame, we have cos(C,v) = 0, so in this case equation (2) gives .

which is the reciprocal of the previous result. Thus the received signal in the “transverse” condition is either red-shifted or blue-shifted, depending on whether the transverseness is evaluated with respect to the receiver’s or the emitter’s rest frame.

Please note, that transverseness is not evaluated solely in receiver’s rest frame. However, the existing diagram is not in accordance neither with existing the text nor with primary and secondary sources and misleads readers. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images makes clear, that “Images must be significant and relevant in the topic’s context, not primarily decorative”

Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman in his famous Feynman lectures provides relativistic Doppler shift formula analysis in the observer’s or in the source’s rest frame:

Mr, Feynman conducts analysis in the reference frame of a "stationary" source, assigning time dilation to moving observer, and emphasizes that: Here we have to worry again about the difference in clock rate for the two observers.

We have made this analysis from the point of view of a man at rest; we would like to know how it would look to the man who is moving. Here we have to worry again about the difference in clock rate for the two observers, and this time that means that we have to divide by . So if is the wave number, the number of radians per meter in the direction of motion, and is the frequency, then the observed frequency for a moving man is:


For the case of light, we know that . So, in this particular problem, the equation would read


This formula is completely identical to these in A. Einstein and K. Brown articles, only omitting angle between observer’s velocity vector and the connecting line “source-observer”.

I also believe that expressions in the text as: “The source observes the receiver as being illuminated by light of frequency f', but also observes the receiver as having a time-dilated clock. In frame S, the receiver is therefore illuminated by blueshifted light of frequency

appear to violate wp:No original research since if the source illuminates the receiver by light of frequency f' it cannot in the meantime illuminate it by frequency :”. The word “observers” is inappropriate, because it implies that there is “purported transmission of information from one person to another without using any known human sensory channels or physical interaction”.

There is no convincing evidence that telepathy exists” Measurement of frequency may depend on physical processes in the moving observer, i.e. dilation of the observer’s clock.

We can adjust figure according to our mutual consensus, but I do not understand if you wish to leave existing figure with only moving sources or to adjust some elements? Could you please to make it clear?

Looking forward to your valuable opinion, Albert Gartinger (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear Editor, do you wish to seek any compromise? Which features of my diagram must be corrected? Do you agree to adjust your existing diagram and to draw moving observer in the case a or do you wish to keep this observer "at rest"? What about adding another "human" shape close to the source? However, I believe that it the source and measuring devices can be "lifeless". Do you wish to demonstrate, that only "lifeless" sources can travel relatively to "lifeless" observers? Albert Gartinger (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC) Dear Wikipedia Editor, I believe you will be very pleased with my dynamic animation, where the "observer" is at rest, but mirror is moving. Albert Gartinger (talk) 11:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, would you like to remove words "Moving source" and "Moving observer"? Will it help? Let's just draw that in the case a the source is stationary and observer is moving. Good? 12:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Albert Gartinger (talk)

Re Doppler effect[edit]

I feel honored for being asked about my opinion on your rewrite, but I do not really feel apt to this task. I am neither sufficiently versed with STR, nor am I conversant with physicists lingo (especially with non-native English!), to dare entering full blown discussions about these topics on the TP there. My interest is just that I would like to build up for myself an access to these counter-intuitive matters, that is paved in small, strongly coherent steps, and not -as usually in most contexts- walled by heavy sounding statements, created by the masters of generating intuition, already years ago, but still echoing from history, even when misleading. You certainly have met my pet peeve, the moving observer.

It is paradigmatic for my incapability that I already tripped over the top pic. I am convinced that those in the know get their knowledge perfectly confirmed, but those struggling with the relativistic simultaneity (like me), have a hard time to reconstruct all the necessary prerequisites to interpret a pic that pertains to info spread across some unspecified temporal interval in some spatial section. Similarly, in the paragraph Relativistic longitudinal Doppler effect a setting is established as "receiver and the source are moving away from each other with a relative velocity v". I cannot help but to interpret this as referring to an observer, observing two objects, moving with exactly opposite velocities of this norm v, and any other observer, comoving with either source or receiver, would observe the respective other object as moving with a speed I do not bother to calculate, but does not seem to be v. Obviously, I am on the wrong track, not following the intended direction.

I am not shy to express any small reservations, but please see me as standing back with excuse for the general matter. Respectfully, Purgy (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Relativistic longitudinal Doppler effect and Doppler effect on intensity are two sections which only about 20% represent my words, and Ives and Stilwell-type measurements is about 50% my words (50% almost directly copied from the Commons description of the figure). All of the other sections are currently 100% my wording.
The value of asking for others' opinions is precisely to determine where a description may be misleading or incomplete. As a general rule, it is not possible for a person to be a definitive judge of his own writing.
Now to me, it appears obvious that "receiver and the source are moving away from each other with a relative velocity v" means a scenario where receiver and source each judge that the other is moving away from him/her with a speed of v, but obviously this did not come across to you that way.
So I need to re-evaluate this section. It had appeared "good enough" to me, which is why I made minimal changes to the original wording. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 06:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Please try this section again. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Re Aberration of light[edit]

As for Doppler effect, I cowardly shy away from any statement regarding this physicist's problem, and again, just express feeling honored for being asked. However, it is my impression that the reasoning in this edit, referring to the relative speed of earth and sun, allows for both signs, and if one inserts the negative of a negative quantity, ... I do not really believe that the edits you refer to, are well founded, but I also feel not apt to dogmatically decide on things I am rather alien to. My efforts focus on elementary things, where I perceive vagueness and ambiguities, which I believe to understand, and from which I am not shooed away. Purgy (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

OK. I'll give it a day, and if nobody answers, I'll make the changes. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

EPR intro vandal[edit]

You might consider posting something to WP:AIV since there seem to be multiple IPs involved. --Spasemunki (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

First time I've ever reported a vandal, and I am reading up on what you are supposed to do. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Einstein's thought experiments[edit]

Hello, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Einstein's thought experiments".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Interstellarity T 🌟 15:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The article Einstein's thought experiments was moved to main space over a year ago. I believe that I had left the draft version up because I wanted to illustrate a rendering glitch (which appeared only on mobile browsers) to Wikimedia support. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)