User talk:Sebastian barnes

Uncertainty

uncertainty Where there is great uncertainty should an encyclopedia mention this in due proportion ,tho difficult to quantify, by it s very nature, it is sometimes possible to indicate the amount of uncertainty on a given subject Knowledge is emergent especially regarding comparativly new conditions The myth of the objectivity of science,where much data is produced in unnaturally perfect conditions ,has been debunked by the quantum approach and the principle of uncertainty wherein it is allowed that the observer effects the observed thus rendering the experiment subjective.This myth has given the power of authority to specialists and experts who while correct in their data collection tend to make assumptions that carry the weight of the provable correctness of their data, .this approach leads to errorSebastian barnes (talk)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Sebastian barnes. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by heather walls (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Your DRN request

Your Dispute Resolution Noticeboard listing has been deleted because there was no dispute, as you said. While you can ask for help at Editor Assistance, you've already asked at the Teahouse and at the Science Reference Desk and at the article talk page. That's the right approach. I'd suggest just following the suggestions which have been made at the article talk page and then giving it time to happen. If that doesn't work, then try Editor Assistance. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Okey dokey[reply]

Please fill out our brief Teahouse guest survey

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages sometime in the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 00:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to wikiFeed

Hello Sebastian barnes,

I'm part of a team that is researching ways to help Wikipedia editors find interesting content to contribute to Wikipedia. More specifically, we are investigating whether content from news sources can be used to enhance Wikipedia editing. We have created a tool, called wikiFeed, that allows you to specify Twitter and/or RSS feeds from news sources that are interesting to you. wikiFeed then helps you make connections between those feeds and Wikipedia articles. We believe that using this tool may be a lot of fun, and may help you come up with some ideas on how to contribute to Wikipedia in ways that interest you. Please participate! To do so, complete this survey and follow this link to our website. Once you're there, click the "create an account" link to get started.

For more information about wikiFeed, visit our project page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask via my talk page, or by email at wikifeedcc@gmail.com. We appreciate your time and hope you enjoy playing with wikiFeed!

Thanks! MarchionessGrey (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

nuclear power the future?...fact and theory

Wikipedia is being used as an authentication of the nuclear industries plans re (new) or now Next Generation the showcasing of theorical designsNext_Generation_Nuclear_Plant in an encyclopedia seems wrong way to build a strong foundation based on facts. can we please stick to the factsSebastian barnes (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

objectivity faluire

The widenning gulf between the objective and subjective viewpoints is a source of error that should not be ignored. As time passes and our systems become more sophisticated a greater dependence on hard facts ,produced in more and more tightly controlled conditions, is creating a data mountain that is unassailable. Just as the controlled conditions in the lab have less and less relevence to real world conditions so the likelyhood of toxic results increases. As this risk increases at an expotencial rate soon it becomes inevitable that alljumblymamba (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC) the results will be toxic. As we can already see with every new molecule having detrimental effects on the real world as well as the intended profit making effects.jumblymamba (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

new perspectives

coventionally we live in a 3 dimensional reality (who told you that?) but of course we are all aware of time so that's a definite 4th.

Dimension five,  i would generalize as vibration,frequency or motion, energy vibrates at different frequencies and manifests as solid ,
as sound ,as light, heat  etc.

the sixth is at present perhapes called "the vacuam" cos we really don't have a clue well maybe someone has In order to get your head round the concept of a unified six dimensional reality imagine our planet ,a globe showing a hundred thousand years of changes in a single moment , and showing energy fields fluctuating, floating in space ..(the vacumn. now conider that in order to glimpse this unified six dimentional reality you have in effect put your self outside it Voila you have visited a seventh dimension ..!!!! and so it goes.. infinete possibilities take care friends step lightly , go electric STAY FREEjumblymamba (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]