User talk:Intangir

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi =)

Please leave a message after the tone. Intangir 00:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Messages

Contents

[edit] Lifespan

OK, Thanks. You know what? I'm taking two classes. The Gerontology book defined "lifespan" as "maximum life span." The psychology book defined "lifespan" as the life course of a single individual from birth to death. Hence, depending on the field, the meaning can be different. Thus, I agree a disambiguation would be best.

Also, I was a bit lazy...if someone else wants to add more, there is data out there for various animals, often reported in books and in Guinness. The real key is that people need to understand that the life span of mammals especially is limited by genetics. We see the oldest dog die at 29 years, 5 months, and several other dogs reached 29 but didn't break the record. The deaths of the oldest dogs are distributed far more steeply than most people realize. This is in fact true for any mammal....the oldest mouse was 4, for example.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 05:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quicksort edits

When I first saw that someone had made major changes to highly visible sections of the aged and contentious quicksort article, I was terribly worried that they would be a disaster needing cleaning up. To the contrary, your changes condensed and rearranged reams of babble into a much more readable article. I am nothing short of amazed, and pray that you will stay to give many more articles your magic touch. Deco 06:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! That article had plenty of interesting info, but I just couldn't stand how it was organized. Unfortunatly, it takes me forever to write anything... I spent 2.5 hours revising that! Intangir 03:11, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Return of the Untagged Image project

You were kind enough to contribute to the Wikipedia:Untagged images project; I beg to draw your attention to part 2 of the project - there are about 12,000 more images in need of tagging. Any assistance you could provide would be most welcome. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk)

[edit] Abstract clean

Thanks for cleaning up my article hombre, many cheers.

- Black Velvet - 8:29PM (UTC), 3 Sep 2005

Whoa! Thanks for leaving the message. I was just going around disambiguating will. I didn't notice that abstract had somehow avoided becoming a disambiguation article. I've now made it so, and moved what was there to Abstract (law). - Intangir 18:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Compensating variation

The problem I have with this is that the definitions of the two terms are exclusive: compensating variation says that price differences are explained by some differences in the product in question, wheras a wage gap assumes an inequality and pay for the same labor. The motherhood example you provide is a good example of compensating variation, but doesn't seem to be a good example of what is described at wage gap, because if she is working less hours, or is unwilling to move, then clearly it doesn't appear that she is doing the same labor at all. "Wage gap" would seem to refer exactly to situations where there is a difference in wages that compensating variation doesn't explain, that is the difference in wages is arbitrary. Perhaps this could be clarified in the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gravitational interaction of antimatter

Good job! I was looking forward to this article! deeptrivia (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Intangir 09:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Hang on, in fact you wrote some nonsense which you need to clarify or remove. Please see the talk page. TIA---CH 23:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I notice that you've also linked to this article from a large number of other articles that discuss antimatter. I'd suggest holding off on this until Gravitational interaction of antimatter has been vetted as factually accurate. --Christopher Thomas 06:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Too late =) -- Intangir 06:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arrow of time/second law etc.

Hi Itangir,

Your argument was basically that the second law implies an asymmetry under time reversion, and that that is incompatible with the first law of thermodynamics, because conservation of energy requires invariance under time translations. First of all, note that Noether's theorem applies to continuous symmetries. But you would probably argue that an increasing entropy means that you don't have invariance under time translations.

The argument is not correct, because the reason that entropy increases is due to initial conditions not due to an intrinsic time asymmetry in the fundamental laws of physics. The microscopic laws of physics can be exactly time reversible (and also invariant under time translations) while the entropy can still increase. The entropy could in principle also decrease if you start with a specially prepaired system (e.g. by reversing all velocities of the particles of the system).

Similarly, the laws of physics are invariant under rotations, which implies via Noether's theorem that angular momentum is conserved. But that doesn't mean that only rotationally invariant states are allowed in Nature. It only means that two states that can be obtained from each other by rotation will have the same physical properties. If you do an experiment inside a building which is completely isolated from the environment then rotating the entire building and repeating the experiment must yield the same results.

Count Iblis 13:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks -- Intangir 18:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SED

Thanks! A few pointers about the biblio - it is reasonably complete for peer-reviewed post-1985 papers by Puthoff, Rueda and Haisch and friends (Ibison, Danley, Cole)... (but there are lots of conference proceedings etc and things like NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics workshops I did not include in anticipation of the negative reaction here ;) On the other hand the coverage of earlier work is extremely incomplete, there are a lot of interesting papers by Boyer and Marshall if you're interested in the history of the field. Also, there is quite a lot of good work by Cetto & de la Pena, and also by the "Italian school" of Cavalleri, Recami, Salesi, etc, which is almost completely absent. I suspect there is a similar "Russian school" ;) I'm not sure if it makes more sense to read these in forward or reverse chronological order, since some of the earlier work has been superceded (e.g. Puthoff's first try at SED gravity force by means of vacuum polarization). Good luck. ObsidianOrder 02:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cold Fusion RfC

Hello,

There's currently a controversy at Cold fusion that I would appreciate it if you could look at. The article is about to fail a Featrued Article Removal Candidate vote. There are at least 3 fairly different versions in play: one based on the original Featured Article dating back to 2004-08-20 and tossing out all edits between now and then [1] ("FA version"), one which was the current version up until that [2] ("current version"), and a proposed new draft written originally by Edmund Storms (a retired Los Alamos scientist) and edited by me [3] ("Storms version"). At the moment the article is being rather agressively edited by a few people who support the version from a year ago, and if this stands, a lot of good material will be lost. Frankly, I can't entirely support any of the versions; the article just needs more work and more different perspectives. Hence this invitation. I hope you can help.

I'm posting this to you because I've seen you on various physics-related pages, and/or because you've worked on the Cold fusion page before. Thank you for your time.

ObsidianOrder 06:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rate Theory (In audition)

Hello, I read your article on Rate theory. It is well written and a nice beginning treatment of the subject of rate versus place coding in the auditory system. I am new to editing the Wikipedia so bear with me if my criticisms are out of place. First, I came to your article from the link in Vestibulocochlear nerve, which is short, yet badly in need of revising. I was planning to revise Vestibulocochlear nerve, and at the same time to remove the link to Rate theory, perhaps linking instead from the longer articles on the Ear, Auditory system, and Hearing.

Next, I wonder about the naming of the article. The contributions of spike timing (rate) and neural connectivity (place) to coding in neurons is important in every sensory system. Could this article be renamed to "Rate theory (hearing)"? Similarly, Place theory should be Place theory (hearing), or perhaps Tonotopic representation. (Note, however, that tonotopic frequency is NOT the same as pitch.) I am not sure how to do this in Wiki, but unless you have some objection I will figure it out.

Finally, I would like to address the content of the article. It's not clear to me where in the auditory system you are discussing rate versus place coding. Furthermore, pitch perception is complex. It is likely that there are different types of codes for pitch in different parts of the auditory pathway. See for example Bendor and Wang (2005). "The neuronal representation of pitch in primate auditory cortex." _Nature_ 436, 1161-1165. ([4], [5])

Another issue is that the linked article describing pitch perception used old cochlear implant hardware that was limited to <1000 Hz stimulation. 1000 Hz is roughly the maximum firing rate of auditory neurons. Contemporary implants can stimulate roughly 10x faster. A more interesting experiment would be to use a high carrier frequency (e.g. 5000 Hz), amplitude-modulated at varying frequencies. This is so simple that it must have been done. There are 196 hits in a Pubmed[6] search for "cochlear implant" and pitch. Unfortunately I don't have time to skim through that right now, but later on this week...

A fascinating subject. I'll probably stick to creating more basic content at first. Let me know what you think of the proposed changes.

Neurogeek 19:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the complement :) I don't really know much of anything about this subject, what I know was occasioned by reading Beament's "How We Hear Music", which is much more concerned with music than with the biological mechanism of how we hear it. I wrote the article in order to encourage others to develop it more so that I could learn more about this. I think your name suggestion is a great idea, infact I'll go do that now :) As for where in the auditory pathway, I think the idea is that the hair cells are signalling in time with their vibrations. I'll add this info to the article.
-Sorry it's taken so long for me to respond, I was taking an unannounced sabbatical from here. Intangir 22:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess

You might like to join us at Physics/wip where a total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess. At present we're discussing the lead paragraphs for the new version, and how Physics should be defined. I've posted here because you are on the Physics Project participant list. --MichaelMaggs 08:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Tyrant.png)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Tyrant.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Jusjih 11:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)