User talk:Christopher Thomas/Archive03

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Tesseract

I like your tesseract unfolding image. :) Leon math 23:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been considering making a better one, but so far I've been lazy. Glad you found it useful. --Christopher Thomas 04:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Join us in the "Terminator" Article discussion page...please...

If you are still a member of Wikipedia, please join user:TomTheHand and myself in a discussion of which terms should apply to the Cyberdyne Systems Model 101 Infiltration Unit in its various forms.

To be as neutral as possible, I will relate the views of TomTheHand as well as my own, as accurately as posible:

Tom believes that the term "Android" should apply to all of the incarnations of the Model 101, from Endoskeleton all the way up to the gestalts of flesh-and-blood and the combat chassis played by Arnold in the movies. He furthermore believes that the term "cyborg" does not apply to any of the Terminator's forms.

Thanos777 -myself -thinks that the Terminator is worthy of multiple appelations depending on which configuration (read: Type/Series) the Model 101 is configured as.

That is to say, I believe that the "Base" Model 101, just the endoskeleton with no cosmetic enhancements, is best defined as either a Humanoid Robot, Anthropomorphic Robot, or simply a Robot.

When the Model 101 is outfitted as a Type/Series 600, the endoskeleton covered by rubber skin, I believe that the Terminator is then most correctly classified as an "android."

And finally, when the Model 101 is equipped as a Type/Series 800/850, the endoskeleton with the living flesh-and-blood covering, I believe that the most correct term for the creatre is "cyborg."

Again, I respectfully ask you to come back to the "Terminator" Article and lend your input; those of us who are there in the Article's discussion page are engaging in a lot of back-and-forth regarding the different terms and the disagreements as to when they should be used.

Hope to "see" you there soon!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thanos777 (talk • contribs).

Ok, but my views are in no way authoritative. --Christopher Thomas 05:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered contributing to the Heat Death article?

That article needs the attention of an expert. A big issue is that the article does not reference dark matter or dark energy, which would influence heat death. Something about how the open vs. closed universe theories impacts heat death would be a valuable contribution. Would you consider helping w/ this? Thanks. Comosabi 22:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it, but the best place to ask is probably at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. Cosmology isn't my field of expertise.--Christopher Thomas 04:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freak show

Looking for the Lorentzian Relativity, I've found that one would be able to assemble an impressing freak show in doing this article seriously. Cahill of process physics fame is involved and Friedwardt Winterberg. I've managed not to know that one so far, but he's a real show: besides some fringe theories also a connection to the LaRouche and to Nazi war criminal are on record -- or at least in his Wikipedia article. --Pjacobi 21:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add William Lane Craig to this list. --Pjacobi 22:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have the good fortune not to be familiar with most of these topics/people. I'm going to keep it that way, to avoid being forced to take another Wikibreak. Thank you again for your diligent work patrolling this sort of thing. --Christopher Thomas 22:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a welcome diversion from dealing with Velikovsky-cruft on German Wikipedia ;-) --Pjacobi 23:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you in love with me?

You keep following me around like a girl that's in love with me. You're kinda creepy dude. Don't you have a life outside of the internet? It's my talk, leave it alone. Malamockq 01:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your page is one of several hundred on my watchlist. Vandalism on any of these pages gets reverted. The use of watchlists is described at Help:Watching pages. --Christopher Thomas 01:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you comb through each and every hundred of those just to bother me and waste my time? Revert vandalism on article pages, and contribute to wikipedia. I think that's more productive than reverting my talk page. Malamockq 01:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rest assured, the vast majority of my time is spent dealing with articles and people other than you. --Christopher Thomas 01:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BFC Page

Chris, I've contacted the archivist... we have plenty of references on the way... Try to save the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tux256ac (talk • contribs) on 04:48, 5 April 2007.

References added, more on the way... Could you remove the crazy big warning?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tux256ac (talk • contribs) on 05:52, 5 April 2007.

Aaah! Chris! Someone didn't bother to read that the AfD was contested and went ahead deleting the page!! How can we restore it?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.233.33.142 (talk • contribs) on 07:05, 6 April 2007.

I told you, go through the process described at WP:DRV. Also, please sign and datestamp your posts, by putting ~~~~ at the end of your statements (this is automatically turned into a signature). --Christopher Thomas 15:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Malamockq's talk page

Oh Sorry I had no Idea about that. I never seem to know when these things happen....... DBZROCKS 13:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marx on Theory of everything

Hi. I'm afraid our mutual "friend" Giovanni33 is being quite stubborn. I have reverted his edits as much as I can, but he will revert again. If you feel strongly then you can easily revert yourself once more (he won't be able to revert after me again for the next 24 hours).

Take care. John Smith's 18:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it is probably futile to discuss this with John Smith, who just follows me around to revert and edit war with me from disputes we often have on politics related articles, you certainly don't fall into that category.

Don't be so rude. You made what I believed to be an incorrect edit - Mr Thomas agreed, though he may reconsider his position. John Smith's 00:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Marx, yes he did write mostly on Society, Economics, and Politics, History, as you point out but he also had a philosphical system which could be and was applied to Nature. For instance, Engles book Dialectics of Nature. If you look at that section in the articke, it deals with "all encompassing systems," and gave examples of other philosophers who create such a system. It need not have been about the Universe per se (although the method has been applied to support certain theories that fit into its methodology and assumptions).

Marx, in addition to the above, also was a philosopher, whose philosophical system qualifies--in particular his dialectical materialism. Infact, dialectical method akin to Hegal's is exactly such an all-encompassing philosophical method on all of reality. This is why it's apropos to include Hegel, whose dialectically dynamic model of nature and of history is such an outlook/system regarding it as a fundamental aspect of the nature of reality --Marx simply rooted this is materiaism (turned it upside down, or right side up). Its a question of (epistemology), an assertion of the interconnected, contradictory, and dynamic nature of the world outside our perception of it (ontology), and more improtantly a methodology. So while you are correct, it is also correct to include Marx's for his system as well for this point. If we disgaree I'm sure we can discuss this on the talk page instead of reverting each other after 24 hours as John Smith is content to suggest.Giovanni33 21:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I want you to know I appreciate your support where it was offered and your good advice where it was needed. I'm embarassed that I've allowed others to get me worked up over some Wikipedia article, and I'm embarassed by my behavior. Your involvement with the situation has been commendable in every way. Best regards, Gnixon 01:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

My best advice is to make very sure that your own actions abide by the rules of Wikipedia, by doublechecking that you're being civil on talk pages and neutral in article edits. It's quite possible that the editors accusing you of inappropriate actions have some legitimate grounds for complaint, just as you have against them, and this may come back to haunt you if it's excessive. I'm deliberately avoiding doing a detailed check of anyone else's history, or the history of the Evolution article, because it looks like a quagmire from out here. Follow WP:DR, and you and the people who disagree with you should be able to sort things out on your own (either peacefully or by WP:RFArb eventually looking at all of you). --Christopher Thomas 01:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Sword of Fargoal

I'll try to keep my edit count down in the future. I'm just never satisfied with how things turn out and constantly find areas to improve which I never catch until after I save it. Cyberia23 21:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I saw this.

I wouldn't consider a system like that to be gravitationally bound in an expanding universe, precisely because the components have net motion away from each other, even if local motion is in the direction of the center of the system. For an example of a system I'd call "bound", consider a hydrogen atom, or the Earth in orbit about the Sun). In both of these examples, the net effect of cosmic expansion is to add a radial acceleration term when you set up the equations of the system, causing the stable orbit radius to be (very) slightly shorter than it would be in the absence of expansion, allowing increased attractive forces to produce an effect that exactly balances the acceleration due to metric expansion of space. Before anyone objects, note that I'm not claiming that metric expansion itself applies a force - instead, I'm treating it as causing _acceleration_ when the system equations are set up using proper distance instead of comoving distance. --Christopher Thomas 00:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thought id let ya know that from ive read we dont know if the universe is bound or not. We are on then edge, If we keep expanding we will expand for ever, but soon we might start to "crunch" eventually having a Big Crunch, that starts the Big Bang. :) email me if ya want. mitch.campbell@@@@@@@@gmail.com

Thank you for the response. However, I'm on sabbatical, and so won't be devoting a substantial amount of time to Wikipedia for the next little while.

The question is not whether or not the universe itself is bound (the options are covered at ultimate fate of the universe). The question is, given an assumption that the universe is "open" (forever expanding), or given a slightly different assumption that the universe is dominated by a nonzero cosmological constant (forever expanding at an accelerating rate), whether or not any given group of objects within it is (and stays) gravitationally bound. If I recall correctly, the part you quote is about galaxy clusters or superclusters for which this is ambiguous, for reasons I stated. --Christopher Thomas 14:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to Help?

You stepped in as a voice of reason in a little editing dispute before, so I'm knocking on your door. I came upon a page that seems to have a big NPOV problem and tried to fix it, but got a very emotional response: Talk:Unruh's interferometer. The author is writing about his own work, and considers it objective to lay out his side of a story, because this POV has been published in a journal. He's hung up on my "claim" to have a PhD in physics, but I'm not claiming any expertise in his area of physics, so this is totally irrelevent. Anyway, his page seems very un-wikipedia, but I don't think I'm the best person to deal with him... Thanks.PhysPhD 01:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest taking this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics, and possibly WP:AN/I for specific edits that directly violate Wikipedia's rules. A very brief skim of the dispute suggests that WP:COI and WP:CIVIL are relevant, but it would be up to you to supply diffs demonstrating that they were clearly broken when claiming that violations occurred. There's also a fair bit of precedent in the form of WP:RFAR cases for editors who persistently edit in violation of WP:COI, but I again stress that you'll have to demonstrate that rules are actually being broken in order for admins to step in.

Very shallow first-impression opinion of the situation is that this person isn't quite familiar with how Wikipedia works, and thinks that they can dictate article content, interpreting challenges as attacks and getting defensive. This impression may be mistaken; I'd have to do considerably more research to find out either way. In an ideal world, they'd have Wikipedia's methods explained to them and then act within the rules to build consensus.

I'm going to stay as far away from this dispute as possible, myself. I don't have direct expertise in that subject, and I'm on sabbatical in large part due to having my fill of content disputes for the time being. Good luck! --Christopher Thomas 02:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trajectory optimization

Please remove the banner on trajectory optimization. I have made changes per your request and I am expanding the references as time permits.Mangogirl2 00:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed most of the headings, though I did keep one style-editing heading in place. I also fixed a couple of very small implementation errors. Thank you for going to the trouble of expanding this article! --Christopher Thomas 06:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black hole

The Black hole article received heavy editing today by unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 02:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm still on sabbatical, so I can't do a proper review of the article. The people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics should be able to help, though. Ask on the project's talk page. --Christopher Thomas 03:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Student question

Regarding the student who emailed me with trajectory optimization questions: Your email address bounced. I've forwarded both your email and my attempted response (some small hints), with explanation, to the contact email address on your school's web page. You and any other IYPT team members who are interested should be able to get the hint set from whoever manages your school's email correspondence. --Christopher Thomas 06:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-gravity

Michael Busch has requested a straw poll of Anti-gravity. You may want to add your comments. Tcisco 00:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I still don't have time to contribute substantially to the article itself, as I'm on sabbatical. --Christopher Thomas 02:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]