User talk:Zowie
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(You can leave messages for me here, or check my archive for older stuff... zowie)
Contents |
[edit] gramophone record
No, my "losing" comment was offhand. I liked the blurred photo mostly because it was different. The comment is correct that what the article really needs is a photo of a bunch of different formats. - DavidWBrooks 20:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] list of optical topics, simple links
Hello. I just added a couple of items to the list of optical topics that appear to be articles you created. If you've created any others that should be there, could you add them.
Also, just in case you haven't noticed yet, you don't need to write [[toroid|toroidal]], as you did at Parker spiral, since [[toroid]]al makes the whole word, not just the part in brackets, appear as a clickable link, and links to the article whose name is in brackets. Simiarly [[Austria]]n, [[rabbi]]nical, [[dogma]]tic, [[evolution]]ary, [[hyphen]]ated, [[dog]]s, etc. The more complicated form can be used for things like [[history|histories]], [[science|scientific]], etc. Michael Hardy 17:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll put the list on my watchlist. Also, great tip on the suffixes... zowie 20:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Not even wrong
Hi - I notice you say you have removed all the links to not even wrong newspaper articles I placed as they appeared over several months? The AOL account is England. Can I ask why you vandalised the article? (I'm anon because I get more abuse from string theorists and their defenders if I disclose my name - for example the abuse you would probably dish out seeing that you've deleted links to information for a bogus reason of "self-promotion????", which I hope I won't have to do.) The content of the articles speaks for themselves. It is an information resource on the work being done to expose the bogus self-promotion by the community of string theorists which results in alternatives such as my work, being prevented from being allowed updates on the CERN Document Server and other places which are now controlled by arxiv. (Cern ext section has closed and the docs there can't be updated; cern only accepts ext docs via arxiv which censors scientific work without it being read or checked, in preference to string theory/mainstream speculation.)
Please note that the "not even wrong" wiki entry was deleted last year and the present version is a new one. When the original "not even wrong" wiki entry was deleted, some of he links to newspaper articles - for example the San Francisco Chronicle article of 2005. Many thanks if you do bother to make any sort of reply to this frank question concerning your unethical activities in removing links for a bogus reason. Best wishes, anon. 172.189.165.249 15:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Anonymous,
- Sorry for the confusion in not even wrong -- the stuff that I removed was not relevant to the current subject of the article, which is the concept "not even wrong" as it relates to the philosophy of science. The links that I removed were largely about string theory, which was why I initially (and wrongly) thought that Peter Woit had entered them. zowie 04:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please enter any replies about this at Talk:not even wrong... zowie 04:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] U-238
Yep, you're right in all you say. And a major place where U-238 is fissioned by outside neutrons for energy, is in nuke jackets. Some must happen in reactors, but my memory is that much more reactor power (like half) derives from Pu-239 bred in situ, and most of the rest of course is 235 fission. But feel free to re-write the paragraph again from ground zero, just as you did for me, keeping in the fact that U-238 is a fine bomb teriary (though I understand that modern thermonukes use jackets of enriched but not bomb grade U, so they get a boost from some U-235 fast fission also).SBHarris 19:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] nice article
hi! i saw your name on the discussion page "sun". you have added a very specific and informative content on the discusion page (talk:sun). why don't you edit the main article sun and add all this content there. well i have joined wikipedia recently only. would you be my friend? and yes please can you also provide me with some information about dimensions and space.
thankyou Sushant gupta 10:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)sushant gupta
[edit] hi!
may i know why the content i added in the article sun is not there.
thankyou Sushant gupta 15:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)sushant gupta
[edit] Piano tuning
I like the physical description you gave at Piano tuning for stretched octaves, but I don't think it belongs in the thuning article. I instead moved it into the Stretched octave article; I hope you don't mind. Other candidates might have been Inharmonicity, Piano acoustics, or Stretched tuning (some of these articles need a lot of work! you should take a look at them)... but Piano tuning does need that kind of description of such an uncontrollable factor: if piano tuners could change the length or thickness of a string as part of their tuning, this would be useful to know... this is why I think Stretched octave or Piano acoustics is a better place for it. - Rainwarrior 18:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] hi
hi! i am sushant gupta. one week ago only i watched on discovery channel that a person (he was a scientist) was saying that we are bounded to the earth not because of gravitional pull but it is because space is pushing us downwards. is it so. has it anything to do with dimensions. well i was thinking that isn't the speed of light more when it is absorbed by the black hole. and the light which we recieve from the stars are not million years ago i think the light which we recieve is of present, as according einstien whenever any object travels with speed of light the time gets standstill and it was accepted. yes but that star would be from anyother universe.
thankyou Sushant gupta 15:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)sushant gupta
Hi, Sushant,
I'm not exactly sure what you are asking -- but, yes, the point of general relativity is that there is no difference between a gravitational field and the pseudoforce of acceleration. Mass performs two separate roles: it is a sort of "gravitational charge" that controls how hard gravity pulls on something, and it is also an "inertial charge" that serves as a conversion factor between force and acceleration. There is no a priori reason why those two things might be the same -- for example, your mass and your electric charge are different things: they are independent of each other.
Einstein's greatest triumph is that he explained (with the theory of general relativity) why your "inertial charge" (in Newton's law, F = m A) and your "gravitational charge" (in the formula F = G m1 m2 / r^2 ) always have the same value. He explained it in terms of geometry, but a good up-front explanation is that mass (like the Earth) is always sucking up the space around -- space itself stretchhes and moves inwards toward every little bit of mass, and you have to accelerate outwards through space in order not to move with it.
Light always travels at the same speed, regardless of what created it. One reason is that light is a wave, and therefore its speed depends on the space through which it is traveling and not on what created it. (For example, sound travels at the same speed no matter whether it is created by a loudspeaker or a hand clapping.)zowie 16:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] please do answer
hi this is sushant. remember me??? can you clarify my doubt??? question
the light which we recieve from the stars are not million years ago i think the light which we recieve is of present, as according einstien whenever any object travels with speed of light the time gets standstill and it was accepted. yes but that star would be from anyother universe. is the time in one universe zero. can you please tell how can we represent time on graph. not the time which we see in our watches but the fourth dimension(time). please do leave the message on my talk page and not on your talk page.
thankyou Sushant gupta 13:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)sushant gupta
- The light itself has not aged, but time has elapsed! This is possible because time runs at different rates for different observers! Since we know that the light has traveled a certain distance, we know how long ago -- in our frame of reference -- the light was emitted. But somebody in a fast-moving spaceship passing by the Earth would derive a different distance to the star, and a different elapsed time since the light was emitted. For more detail, you can read the article on special relativity, or check out the web in general for some good explanations. My personal favorite author on relatiity is John Baez; enter his name into Google to get to his web site. zowie 21:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] hi
hi! remember me.
well i was thinking that, a body which is in motion needs force to be applied on it. newtons first law state that if a body is in rest it continues to be in rest and if the body is in motion it continues to be in motion until external force is applied. can an object be in uniform motion on an frictionless surface untill any force is applied???
thanks Sushant gupta 10:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
kindly tell me on my talk page when you answer.
[edit] RfArb
User:Iantresman has started a request for arbitration you may wish to comment on WP:RfArb#Pseudoscience__vs_Pseudoskepticism. --ScienceApologist 12:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A little clarity goes a long ways!
Zowie, if you have time to help out a newbie in a quandary, I'd be most grateful. I've been browsing the Sun discussion page & I like the tone of your remarks, thus my decision to direct my request to you.
My basic question (which I've also asked on the Sun discussion page) concerns the meaning of the statement that the Sun's velocity is "20 km/s relative to average velocity of other stars in stellar neighborhood."
And the reason I want to understand that concept is to verify the accuracy of the way it's being used on the Runaway star page, on whose discussion page I've also posted a question / comment.
Not yet having the confidence to post my quandary elswhere, I've outlined it on my user page. Any help you can give will be much appreciated! Laurie Fox 13:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
