User talk:Caue.cm.rego

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

——————————————— MY TALK PAGE ———————————————

page time: 20:17, June 9, 2008 (UTC) <--(need to fix this layout and design)

Contents 1 History 2 5th state 2.1 5 elements 3 RE: space time 4 Octomatics 5 Your G-Mail portal 6 Oscar Schmidt 7 Doki doki 8 hi

[edit] History

/2005 /2006

[edit] 5th state

re your question about a 5th state of matter, have you considered superfluidity? (although {{Phase_of_matter}} lists a full 13 phases, maybe you should be looking for 8 extra elements). dab (ᛏ) 15:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 5 elements

Intersting, you're the first one to comment on that. I wonder where you read my question...

I've considered even superconductivity. Truth is, I've never realised there is a study about 13 phases, but now I've read about it, it seems to me that, as most things on science, people are losing focus on the point. The states of matter are directly related to the primordial elements, as any empirical test can point (even while not proving).

Quoting the superfluid article:

The superfluid component has zero viscosity, zero entropy, and infinite thermal conductivity.

and

An example is helium-4, the most abundant isotope of helium, which becomes superfluid at temperatures below 2.17 K (−270.98 °C)

Together with definition of Kelvin, that's a paradox. How can any matter have infinite thermal conductivity or zero entropy or zero viscosity considering that it is at any temperature different from Zero Kelvin? I mean, as long as it's not absolute zero, it should, theorically, still have at least some entropy at very least. Which would lead to some viscosity, finishing up with some thermal resistance.

That's just a matter of observation. At 2 K there's no instrument that can precise what happens, because everything becomse too unstable for Silicium or any Metal to understand and reflect what happens, specially with such a simple atom as Helium is. It's just like trying to see an electron by using photons.

The 5th element is aether, one of its many names. My question is what would be the 5th state of matter, corelated to that. Not what science tries to understand by phases of matter, there could be many more than 13.

I must say, maybe superfluid could be the 5th, in theory. But those studies on it wouldn't be able to reveal it. And, if it is, I think it could happen in any temperature, just like superconductivity must being proven to be theorically possible even at 300K, although it's unknown how to do it in practice.

--caue 22:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken; I was never strong in solid state physics, and have lost sight of the field completely now, but superfluidity is a phase transition above 0 K, and it cannot be explained classically, just like superconductivity above 0 K would prima facie be considered impossible. Now, the three phases observable in daily life are obviously connected with the idea of the elements earth(solid)-water(liquid)-air(gas), this doesn't need to be explained. Equating fire with plasma is a different matter; the four elements were never used to explain the more obscure phases of matter, rather, 'fire' appears to represent some principle of energy or action, say, chemical potential energy stored in matter (note that the four elements are used to explain both chemical and physical effects, there is no distinction between the two fields in antiquity). The four elements do not have the scope to describe phenomena outside direct human experience (say, macroscopic, 100K to 2000K or so); they were used, of course, to abstract a priori predictions about the shape of the cosmos etc., but those predictions were beyond verifiability. Aether was introduced as the fifth element by Aristotle on theoretical grounds, as it were standing for anything that is not either of the four classical elements. But maybe we could ask on RD/S in what way the definition of Kelvin is in direct contradction to the states of superfluidity or superconductivity. dab (ᛏ) 11:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

And you haven't answered my one question on where you read my question. :P

If you try to read what I've already wrote carefully, you'd see I'm doing nothing but agree with almost everything you just said. I have only added that superfluidity would be wrong in theory because if it's observed above 0K, then it would never correspond to that statement that I've quoted, because of prior basic theories such as zero absolute. I understand it's new physics, and nobody knows too much about it, including myself. But I do know a lot about logic. As much as I could be wrong, I also have a chance to be right.

By the way, fire is equated to plasma, just read plasma article, and more about science world wide. And superconductivity does occur in "high temperatures" such as 60K since the 80s, and it has been used in neo physics such as the maglev train. I do not know origins of Aether but who can tell for sure if Aristotle introduce it as a fill up, or if he introduced it as an element that would, for other reasons, ends up on filling up due to its characteristics?

--caue 05:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw your page here. Hm, I couldn't find any reference to "fire" at plasma. Logically, you will note that there is the claim that at absolute zero, the entropy of a perfect crystal will vanish. This is not in direct contradiction to the claoim that in some substances, entropy will vanish at finite temparatures (superconductivity, -fluidity), so, no, I don't think there is a direct logical fallacy here. dab (ᛏ) 09:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It isn't too hard, it's both in the beginning (Common plasmas) and the ending (a picture of a candle) of the physics part of plasma: Plasma (physics)#Common_plasmas. I don't know what you mean about the entropy of a perfect crystal. "Perfect" has many meanings, and there is no such "perfection" in our physical universe that we can observe. So there is no perfect crystal, just a crystal that might be considered perfect within a few restrictions, such as an relative isolated small universe as the crystal itself. A crystal becomes imperfect once it's immerse within the universe as we know it, and all laws that applies to it.

I think you're talking about the second thing after what I consider to come before it, a different focus on the same subject. It's like we're talking about constructing a building, and you say on how big it can be, looking to the air and weather conditions, and I just want to know about the soil and what bricks we gonna use, first.

There's a difference between a theoretical law (usually mathematics ones) and a practical law (nowadays, physics). If physics laws starts with a theoretical math statement, a formulae, and then adds exceptions (rules) to become practical, physical, I mean, to adapt the formulae to our observations, then when you say "some substances", that's already a rule, and therefore, the law becomes imperfect, practical. I was not talking about physics, I was only talking about the first theoretical part, that's what interests me most in that question of my. I think if it starts wrong, exceptions are needed to fill up the bad starting.

--caue 09:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, adding to the crystal, thing, here's a quote from the same article, and I'm going there to fix the article right now:

Pure substances can (ideally) form perfect crystals as T → 0. Planck's strong form of the third law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a perfect crystal vanishes at absolute zero. However, if the lowest energy state is degenerate (more than one microstate), this cannot be true.

It didn't make any sense to me the sentence of "perfect crystal", this makes way more sense. A matter that would reach absolute zero, in my concept, does not lose entropy. It's the other way around, it's infinite entropy completely isolated and unreleased, thus, impossible to accomplish in practice since even if it is done, the matter would become apart from this universe, disappear probably. If it is done too fast, it could potentially drag the whole universe together, in a critical mass event.

--caue 09:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

no, no, I meant, I found no reference to an association of the plasma phase with the classical element "fire", I saw the candle picture. dab (ᛏ) 09:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok, that's easy. plasma (physics) <-> fire <-> classical element fire. You can even see it on the fire article itself, a 2 steps association and many references to that. --caue 09:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

yes, I get the idea, I was just saying that I didn't see explicit reference to it. Now I have found it on classical element,

Some occultists have noted{{fact}} that in modern science the general rule is that most visible matter can be classified as either a solid (Earth), liquid (Water), gas (Air), or plasma (Fire). By extension, more exotic phases of matter (such as Bose-einstein condensate) are sometimes seen as representative forms of a fifth element (Aether).

unfortunately, with no reference as to who these "occultists" may be. dab (ᛏ) 13:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: space time

Hi, thanks for the comment. My addtion was based on a few assumptions pertaining to special relativity (general relativity is over my head). The only factor I'm considering are the relativistic effects of the sublight speed return trip where time will pass slower for Mikako then for Nobobu. (Warning, math follows).

First off, there's an ambiguity on the effects of FTL travel. Basically the special relativistic laws governing time dilation break down once you reach the speed of light, so I really have no idea what the FTL jumps would do as far as changes in Mikako's reference frame. So the easiest thing to do would be to assume that the FTL jumps are instantanious and do not change the passage of time in Mikako's frame relative to Noboru's frame (IIRC, that's what the novel assumes as well). The main factor affecting the passage of time would be the sublight speed return to Earth following the final battle. Now that the ships are returning to Earth at sublight speeds, time dilation will apply, and the passage of time in Mikako's moving reference frame will be slower then that of Noboru's on Earth. This will persist until the spacecraft arrive back at Earth and Mikako and Noboru's reference frames are "resynchronized". Also, since the signals transmitted from the spacecraft back to Earth will propagate at the speed of light (c) and given that Mikako's final transmission position was 8 LY away (IIRC), Noboru would have recieved the message 8 years following that final battle. And since Mikako is returning to Earth at sublight speeds, the total return trip duration will be longer then 8 years (when viewed in Noboru's frame, but less in Mikako's frame).

Sorry if all that was a bit confusing, here's a crude timeline which will hopefully make things clearer:

• End of final battle, Mikako transmits last message, spacecraft begin sublight return
  • Noboru's frame: ti = 0
  • Mikako's frame: ti' = 0 (elapsed time)

• Message reaches Earth
  • Noboru's frame: t1 = 8 years
  • Mikako's frame: t1' = t1 / γ (where γ > 1)

• Mikako arrives at Earth
  • Noboru's frame: tf = (8LY) / v
  • Mikako's frame: tf' = tf / γ

In case you're wondering, , where v is the velocity of Mikako's spacecraft (whew! That turned out to be more then I expected). -Loren 23:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm an enthusiastic of mathematics (it was always my favourite subject in school), I love logic, empirical evidences (with proper care) and I still couldn't like less of calculus together with most advanced math. I'm going to graduate in Statistics anytime in the future and I intend to understand better and get back to those complex structures of maths, but meanwhile I still think it's just too much writing for too litle meaning. With that said, I don't know if you can believe me when I say I kinda understand what you tried to say. What I don't understand is why you told me all that, because I believee it was already in the context of what I've wrote.

Anyway, I appreciate all the effort and time you've put to try to explain me your point, and I've liked a lot your professional review on the hoshi no koe ontop of what I've wrote, and on what was already there previously. It looks much better. But you basically translated just the top half of the paragraph. I'd still like to see the rest translated, hehe. I'll try to do it myself, but I'm talking about this part:

After all, she over traveled 8 light-years in less than 1 second at first, it should be possible the way back. Either that, or her traveling back could age her into the same age as Noboru. Since they were synchronized in 9 years distance, to get back together, it's only logical that distance need to disappear. A distance both in time and space.

I hope you take another look, as I'll try to explain better what I've tried to say in there. Thanks again. :)

--Caue (T | C) 23:48, Thursday March 23, 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to put in here what I was almost adding to the article...

Considering time-space as a whole, the distance applied in time doesn't exist without taking space in consideration. Imagine the scenario where the time would go back, and imagine Earth's translation over the Sun. You'd have to imagine not only Earth, but every matter also going back to the space where it was at the proper epoch, which is different in time, just as time is different in each space.

In a universe where there is such a warp where space can be supressed on time (the warp instant teleportation), it is logical to think that a travel back on that circunstances would be a movement back out of a teleportation result. Without understanding how the warp works, a prediction on how old she would be on the way back could be really inaccurate. Considering the time dilation effect, and the effects the first time warp could have done, the travel back could take any given time, and could even be independent from the space traveled, just like the first time did. If the first travel released any kind of gravitacional effect such as observed on time dilation upon the respective mass bodies involved, it could influence them to synchronize her time with his to a point on getting her back to the same distance she was at first.

Trying to understand how the universe is about 170 billion light-years in size while it's considered the big bang to be just about 17 billion years old might help to understand that space and time are not only related, but they can act in really different ways. It's evident that if the universe started expanding in one maximum speed, considered to be light speed, 17 bi years later it could only be at most 34 light-years long (radius and diameter of a sphere). Either the universe isn't exactly spherical, or the space bends with time in a way that light would travel in different space-time than matter in other states, and it would not necessarily be faster than light, it would just take a shortcut, even while being slower. This could be closely related to a fourth dimension vizualization, but thinking on it as time.

--Caue (T | C) 00:27, Friday March 24, 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. Yes, space and time are linked and some have postulated that FTL travel might result in movement "backwards" in time. In general though I'd prefer not to speculate about that possibility in the article because:

1. It's an article about an anime, not time travel. If we include too much detail we're going to end up going off topic.
2. In general, we should only include information that we are farmiliar with and can verify. I'm familiar with special relativity and time dilation at near relativistic speeds (the Twin paradox), a phenomina which has been verified in many experiments. As the laws of physics as I know them break down after you hit the speed of light, I'd prefer not to speculate (here) on what happens after that and leave it to the theorists.
3. The novel version only considers time dilation from sublight travel back to Earth. Again, this is an article about the anime, not a physics article.

I agree that this is indeed an interesting subject, however I think that we should limit ourselves to issues directly related to the anime in that article. Time dilation is relevant in the article only insofar as it relates to the storyline. Any further speculation/thoughts on the subject would be better suited for inclusion or discussion on time travel or FTL. -Loren 04:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

cool, perfect point. i hope you did those adjustments on the article after i've messed up again, if not i'll do it now. i agree, i often get carry away in going too far, that's kind natural for me, and not good for most articles. :D

i still gona use most of our conversation to add to my /science hoping i'm not taking too much resources out of wikimedia foundation on my userspace. :P

--Caue (T | C) 12:10, Saturday March 25, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Octomatics

In case you haven't noticed, Octomatics has been proposed for deletion. NickelShoe (Talk) 22:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the warning. I was kinda expecting something like that already. I couldn't figure myself if it was an article that deserved to stay, so I gave it a shot. --Caue (T | C) 23:04, Thursday 2006-03-23 (UTC)

[edit] Your G-Mail portal

Hey, I think you need to fix your G-mail portal because, if you click on "Gmail" it takes you to the Star Wars portal... I assume that was your template and you forgot to fix it all the way. Right now all your new Gmail articles link to the Star Wars portal at the top.  ;-) Bobak 16:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, first off, it's not "my" Gmail portal, heh. I'm already surprised all stuff I've done is not contested nor reverted just yet. But yeah, I got the template from Star Wars, which was probably not the first of the kind. Thanks for the warning, someone changed it already, tho. You could have done it yourself. You just needed to go to Template:Gmail and act just like any other article, or how you just did to leave me a message. --Caue (T | C) 12:49, Saturday 2006-04-1 (UTC)

Cool, I'll keep that in mind. It's baby steps with learning all of this ;-) --- Bobak 20:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oscar Schmidt

Sorry, but you wrote "Jordan would destroy Oscar in 1 on 1." ???

Nuts!

machocarioca

Well, he would. Oscar could easily be on any american dream team, and score good... But Jordan could be on any position in any of those teams, and still score almost as good. Oscar did one thing best: shooting. And that is the most important. That alone win games. But... Jordan did all things best. He was best overall and he was so good at that he could even be best on each thing, including scoring. Maybe 1 on 1 just shooting, Oscar would win. But that's it.

--Caue (T | C) 23:44, Wednesday 2006-06-14 (UTC)

23:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doki doki

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Doki doki, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Dekimasuよ! 05:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying. As you may expect from my edit summaries, I don't really care if it gets deleted. At least I've tried. What really bothers me, tho, is why people even care to go and delete any kind of verifiable information from wikipedia. I see the usefulness of deleting articles that wouldn't give any data or reference, but even that I rather improve than delete, if possible. I won't add more to the article, because I wouldn't know what. I do know of few other articles I've started just as small, or have been part of its start, and people would come in and add stuff. I could that bet most articles start small. And I won't fight against deletion because I've been in that spot before, and I'm tired of it. Plus, you ask me to give reason for keeping it and I haven't seen a good one for deletion to start with. If it doesn't fit here, because fits another sister project, than your time would probably be better used by moving it there, and maybe adding a redirect from here, since this is the main project. If I were you, i.e. someone who wants to help cleaning wikipedia (deletion is just one part of cleaning), I'd focus more on your own suggestions (help improving the article, etc) than looking for small articles that may or may not become a more "relevant" article. If wikipedia can keep on growing, I think that, in like 10 years, nothing will get (completely) deleted. --Caue (T | C) 02:20, Thursday 2007-03-29 (UTC)

I've left a(n insufficient) reply to your comments on my talk page. Thanks for your interest in discussion. Dekimasuよ! 05:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hi

Hi. I found you in categories of users who can contribute in English and Portuguese. I myself am a native speaker of English, but I'm well on my way to learning Portuguese. Just check out my user page and talk page, and join in any of the discussions. To keep updated, you can even put a watch on my user page, which will automatically watch my talk page. :-) learnportuguese (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)