Older stuff[edit]

My talk page was getting rather cluttered so I moved everything here. Feel free to browse if you feel like it. zowie

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Zzyzx11 | Talk 16:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Achtung![edit]

Please refrain from changing the title of Analogue Disc Record to "Gramophone Record" unilaterally. Thank you. --132.33.132.19

You know, this is sort of amusing -- I didn't revert the title this time, as a quick check of the history would show. But quickly check out Talk:Gramophone record/Archive2 for the history of why the page is named "Gramophone record" and not (as you would like) "Analogue Disc Record". zowie 18:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No dice. --132.33.132.19

Hybrid Synergy Drive[edit]

Zowie what an edit! Thanks for such a great contribution! --SFoskett 13:46, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Birkeland Terrella[edit]

Thanks. There's a bunch more pictures at http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/birkeland/ and I have pictures from the rest of the book that I must sort through. And I've heard From Lucy Jago that "a little bit of the terrella in action can be seen in the BBC series 'The Planets' in the programme on the sun (called 'Star') ". --Iantresman 22:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear fission[edit]

Not a problem Zowie. gave me a chance to start some topics like Nuclear reactor core that I had been meaning to get to. BTW great job on Fission and long over due. DV8 2XL 23:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zowie, let me first say that you have done a superb job on this article, it’s a pleasure to read. However, I do think that you are stretching the topic out to the point where you might be getting into trouble. First articles that get too long tend to get cut back by other editors particularly if the same material has been covered elsewhere under its own heading. Two, excursions into nuclear energy, reactors or weapons, will attract edits from those who have strong convictions against those items, and feel that they must take every opportunity to remark on their perceived hazards of this technology. Keeping those sorts of edits under control in Nuclear energy and Nuclear power is a time consuming task. In short, I do think it would be better if you stuck to the physics of fission and then there would be at least on entry one this subject where sanity will prevaile. DV8 2XL 17:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check out these articles for overlap and additions Nuclear reaction, Nuclear chain reaction, Spontaneous fission, Nuclear fuel cycle, and Radioactive decay along with Nuclear reactor, Natural reactor, Neutron cross-section, Neutron moderator, Nuclear energy, Nuclear explosion, Nuclear explosive, Nuclear material, Nuclear meltdown, Nuclear power plant, Nuclear reactor core (ya, I know), Nuclear weapon and Nuclear weapon design. Worse, this is just scratching the surface. What do you say to a wikiproject to rationalize this mess into a few well written, well categorized articles? I'm willing (and I can think of some others) if you are. DV8 2XL 20:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep -- lots of overlap all around. I've never really participated in a wikiproject but I'd be glad to try to help sort out the mess. Particularly as I get to the end of the section on reactor physics (which, as you say, probably should be its own article) I'm running into lots of places where there is a single paragraph that links off to a complete article somewhere else. zowie 06:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Depleted uranium RfC[edit]

Your input to an RfC at Talk:Depleted uranium#Request for Comments would be appreciated. DV8 2XL 07:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sun/Sol[edit]

You say that 'Sol' is used in scientific circles - I am an astronomer and have never heard any astronomers refer to it as Sol! Also, I have searched the scientific literature in vain, looking for any references in papers to 'Sol' rather than 'Sun'. Can you give any examples of where scientists use it?

Even if they do, I really don't think it should be highlighted like that in the article as it would be extreme minority usage. If you asked a thousand english speakers randomly what the bright thing in the sky was, I'd be amazed if you even found one who said 'Sol'. Worldtraveller 02:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user is not the one who asserted that claim. It was me, and I can provide a diff link if you wish. I will leave a further note on your talk page. BTW Zowie, thank you for sourcing that information.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 21:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC) Correction: maybe looking at diffs it looks like this user did post something about it as well, but I am still making my argument on your talk.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 21:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Universe Concept, NPOV clarification[edit]

I have replied to the mediation request. If you would like further assistance, please let me know, otherwise I will consider the case closed in aweek or so. Cheers,

Sam Spade 13:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi from FOT Dude[edit]

Hi Zowie, thanks for catching my helioseismology spelling error on the SOHO spacecraft page. I was smart enough to operate SOHO, but not smart enuf to spell. All the people at SOHO were great to work with, but only the MDI Team ever gave the Flight Ops Team chocolate. Rob 23:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back at you. No, I'm not at GSFC. I left SOHO in 1999, worked at APL, bounced back at GSFC to work on EOS, and now I work on Swift up at Penn State. RockinRob^{Talk Email}

Request for your comments on Solar and Heliospheric Observatory[edit]

I wrote something up about the SOHO Mission Interruption on the SOHO Talk Page. Would you check it out and Be Bold whenever you have a chance? Your input would be valuable. I'd say peer-review it, but I'm just an engineer. :) Thanks. Rob 19:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Science expertise needed...[edit]

...here - thought you may be interested. Worldtraveller 21:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look! zowie 21:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Choked flow article[edit]

Thanks for your kind words. To answer your question, yes I would be interested in re-writing and expanding the entire article. Please visit Accidental release source terms and read the first section Accidental release of pressurized gas. That is what I would like to use for my rewrite with some wording changes to generalize it rather than focusing on its use as a source term for accidental gas releases. Let me know what you think and I will be watching for your response on my talk page User talk:Mbeychok. Regards, - mbeychok 22:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation[edit]

Hi, Seems you've been here on WP for a while, but haven't seen you around the usual places. Please consider adding the talk pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics on your watchlist, and adding your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Participants. linas 18:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UO3[edit]

Since you have chosen to enter this fray here are some places you want to visit to get up to speed:

You will note that the arbitration case was brought forward by the mediator from the mediation pages. --DV8 2XL 10:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lobbying for smaller TeX font as an optional choice[edit]

This is an equation created with Wikipedia's TeX font for math markup:

$Q\;=\;C\;A\;P\;{\sqrt {{\bigg (}{\frac {\;\,g_{c}\;k\;M}{Z\;R\;T}}{\bigg )}{\bigg (}{\frac {2}{k+1}}{\bigg )}^{(k+1)/(k-1)}}}$

This is the same equation created using WikiCities' TeX font for the very same math markup:

It is quite obvious that the WikCities TeX font is smaller than the Wikipedia's TeX font. In my opinion, the WikiCities font is also much neater and tidier. What I mean by neater and tidier is that it is much closer to the size of the regular text so that the overall look of an article that uses equations is more balanced.

Also, the smaller TeX font allows for displaying longer equations (within the limited display screen width) than does the Wikipedia font.

I submitted a request to Bugzilla about a month ago asking that Wikipedia make available the smaller WikiCities font as an alternate option ... not to replace the font now used by Wikipedia, but only to offer the smaller WikiCities font as an optional choice to Wikipedians. My request was assigned the bug number 4915. Anyone can vote in favor of proceeding with the bug request at Bugzilla Bug 4915 and thus far I am the only one who has voted to proceed.

If you agree with me that the smaller font should be offered as an alternate, please visit the bugzilla page at Bugzilla Bug 4915 and scroll down to the page bottom where is says "Vote for this bug" and do so. If you are not already registered with bugzilla, it will ask you to do that first ... but it only takes a minute to do so.

If it isn't correct for me to lobby you for the smaller font, please let me know. Thanks and please vote.
mbeychok 00:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Photosynthesis is not relevant to the Sun"[edit]

You made a comment in Sun "Photosynthesis is not relevant to the Sun". I can't believe you would fail to see the relevance! No Sun, no photosynthesis. Wherever there is Sun - photosynthesis. The Sun is the direct cause. How can you ignore this scientifically provable fact??

I didn't revert the edit, because as long as it is mentioned later in the body of the article, I am happy. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, certainly the Sun is responsible for most photosynthesis -- but that is, as the philosophers say, an accident -- it is not inherent in the process of photosynthesis. Anyway, I'm happy to have it in there farther down (as it still is, I'm glad you noticed) but the intro paragraphs should (IMHO) be more about the Sun than about other things that are affected by it. Thanks for the followup! Cheers, zowie 01:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gramophone record[edit]

Where did you find the "fuzzed-out" version of the Magical Mystery Tour album for that article? Just curious; I was stumped - DavidWBrooks 22:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Just click on the image, then on the image page click "history". Cheers, zowie 03:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gramophone record[edit]

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)[reply]

list of optical topics, simple links[edit]

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)[reply]

Thanks! I'll put the list on my watchlist. Also, great tip on the suffixes... zowie 20:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not even wrong[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please enter any replies about this at Talk:not even wrong... zowie 04:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U-238[edit]

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).S B H arris 19:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nice article[edit]

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[reply]

hi![edit]

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[reply]

Piano tuning[edit]

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)[reply]

hi[edit]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

please do answer[edit]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

hi[edit]

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)[reply]

kindly tell me on my talk page when you answer.

RfArb[edit]

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)[reply]

A little clarity goes a long ways![edit]

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)[reply]

Image:Termination_shock_in_sink.png[edit]

Hi Zowie. I left a comment on your Image:Termination_shock_in_sink.png image. --Daleh 15:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sun[edit]

The Sun article received heavy editing today by new/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) 02:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lp record album.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Lp record album.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]