Welcome!

Hello, CKCortez, 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 and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that the alacrity with which you both talk pages and articles, comes from editing Wikipedia with IP addresses. I have noticed that since you started editing Wikipedia all your edits to date have been about depleted uranium‎. In those edits you have reverted the depleted uranium page four times in just over 24 hours. Although not this is not considered to be a direct breach of Wikipedia policy called the "three-revert rule", please note the sentence "Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has this material been published in a peer-reviewed journal? Please respond on my talk page. CKCortez (talk) 10:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This material is a common knowledge among relativists around the world. I discussed this and the related issues with many relativists from many countries (John Baez, Lee Smolin, etc. and also with many from my university where I'm doing my PhD work in general realtivity). None of them had ever any other opinion so I assume it is available also in a peer-reviewed journal.

Since I don't share this opinion (since I discovered in 1985 that Einstein's universe predicts all the relevant observations and also their numerical values, confirmed by observations with accuracy to one standard deviation) I was never interested in invalidity of conervation of energy. I just thought that this idea should be popularized by Wikipedia if this is what the mainstream science considers to be the best approximation to the scientific truth. Jim (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]